2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 13
[ Page 17535 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Prayers.
[1410]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the gallery are Hannah Roman, the University of British Columbia Students for Choice; Cathy Anstey, University of Victoria Students Society; and Janet Baird, a birth control pioneer. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Robertson: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from Chile: Francisco Marambio, the newly appointed consul general of Chile at Vancouver. Having served in Chilean embassies around the world for the past 20 years in countries such as Spain, Japan and China, this is the consul general's first posting to Canada. I would ask the members of the House to please join me in welcoming Francisco to both British Columbia and Canada.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to welcome, on behalf of the House, some leaders in the environmental movement of British Columbia. There are two groups of people I'd like to introduce. The first is Lloyd Manchester, who's with the British Columbia Environmental Network, parks and wilderness caucus; George Smith, conservation director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; and my old friend Vicky Husband, from the Sierra Club of British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.
And from that little island that is so much in the news, Saltspring Island -- that beautiful gem of an island -- I have three friends here: Briony Penn, Irene Wright and Pat O'Neill. Would the House please make them welcome.
G. Mann Brewin: I have two introductions I'd like to make. First, on your behalf, if I may, hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome the following folks to the gallery for question period: Mr. Art Thompson, Dr. Jo-ann Archibald, Dr. Jean Barman and Dr. John Lutz. Would the House please make these four interesting people welcome.
My second introduction is another interesting person, a young woman whose name is Poonam Mistry. She's on her first visit to the Legislature. Poonam is married to one of our communications officers in the NDP caucus. She's a native of Bombay, India, and emigrated to Canada in August. They are both residents in James Bay, my constituency. So would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted to have with us today several women in the gallery: Joyce Arthur, the Pro-Choice Action Network; Jaimie Matten, the UVic Students Society; Kristen Gilbert, the UBC Students for Choice; and Skye Stuart, who works for Wiebe Medical Abortion Clinic. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome today two people from Trinity Christian School in Victoria and friends of my able assistant, Barbara Hogan: Jason Cook and Jacob Cook.
[1415]
Hon. E. Gillespie: I have four guests I'd like to introduce today: Karen Seaboyer, who is a representative from Planned Parenthood in Vancouver; Liza Haldane, from the Terrace Women's Resource Centre; Erin Kaiser, from the Pro-Choice Action Network; and Carman Benoit, representing Justice for Girls. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.
S. Orcherton: I'd like to join with my friend the MLA for Alberni in welcoming the students and teachers from Trinity Christian School in my constituency. I hope you enjoy your day at the Legislature and learn lots about parliament and parliamentary procedure in British Columbia. This is where you can make a difference in terms of what happens in British Columbia. Please, House, join me in welcoming these students to our assembly.
Introduction of Bills
SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT REMUNERATION
ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES ACT
(SCRAP ACT)
R. Kasper presented a bill intituled Senior Civil Servant Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (SCRAP Act).
R. Kasper: This bill is being reintroduced. It is identical to a bill that was introduced last year. It lays out a very clear process in determining salaries for senior civil servants in British Columbia. Senior civil servants are clearly defined, and remuneration is defined in the bill as well as the opportunity for adjustments to be made to those salaries.
The bill also strikes a citizens panel and recommends the makeup of that panel: a member from the trade union sector, the business community and the public at large. The chair of the panel would be an arbitrator from the Ministry of Labour. The bill also has the authority for the panel to make recommendations, and those recommendations shall be made public and shall be binding on the Legislature and the Minister of Finance.
This bill takes into account the findings last year by Judi Korbin, who chaired a special committee that did a review of deputy ministers' salary adjustments and the salaries of heads of public sector bodies, and in the recommendations it recommended such panels be struck or established by government.
I view this as a friendly opportunity to forward the government to take steps, as they chose not to last year.
Bill M206 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.
MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
Hon. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Amendment Act, 2001.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
This bill implements recommendations contained in the Mackenzie land and resource management plan. Approval of
[ Page 17536 ]
the Mackenzie LRMP allowed us to become the first jurisdiction in Canada, and one of the first few globally, to meet and exceed the United Nations goal of protecting 12 percent of our land base. In this respect, the Mackenzie LRMP epitomizes the culmination of our achievement that everybody in British Columbia can be very proud of. I believe we're already one of the greenest jurisdictions in North America, if not the world.
The Mackenzie plan also reflects a balance -- that is, the community's need to ensure a working land base to protect jobs for today and in the future while also preserving the unique beauty, special environment and wilderness values of the area.
Bill 14 responds to the decisions of the Mackenzie LRMP planning table. It adds 1.9 million hectares to the Muskwa-Kechika management area -- we call it the Northern Rockies -- increases funds paid into the trust fund by $1 million annually and extends the period for contributing funds to the trust fund to 2005. These amendments demonstrate our commitment to specifically manage the Muskwa-Kechika management area and to ensure that adequate funding is provided for planning, research and conservation work. Enshrining these changes in legislation will ensure that these commitments receive the highest possible degree of legal protection, and the animals, the birds, the insects and the plants can last therein forever.
I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
The Speaker: We'll do the motion on the introduction of the bill.
Motion approved.
[1420]
The Speaker: The second motion is as the minister stated.
Motion approved.
Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
Hon. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2001.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. I. Waddell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this other bill today, one that builds on and advances British Columbia's international leadership in the establishment of protected areas. As I said, British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in Canada, and one of the few globally, to have met the UN-Brundtland standards of 12 percent of land protected in parks and protected areas. This bill implements decisions achieved through community-based land use planning processes contributing that goal.
Bill 15 establishes new class A parks and one new ecological reserve. It also makes additions to six existing scheduled class A parks. Together these new areas and additions encompass approximately one million hectares. The creation of these new parks and ecological reserves is the result of the dedicated efforts of many British Columbians at land use tables.
Hon. Speaker, we believe that BC'ers want parks and ecological reserves to forever preserve outstanding ecosystems that represent this province's exceptional diversity of wildlife, fish, vegetation and geographical wonders. The government has listened and worked hard to ensure the protection of some of the most ecologically significant and breathtakingly beautiful pristine wilderness areas in our province.
Bill 15 is an important step in this government's response to the demands of the people of British Columbia and their families, and I'm pleased to present this bill in the House today.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill 15 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
KEOGH GENERATING STATION
G. Plant: For the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Last July B.C. Hydro wrote to the B.C. Utilities Commission asking for permission to shut down the Keogh diesel plant, which Hydro then described as uneconomic and deteriorating. B.C. Hydro then said it could not justify spending the millions of dollars that would be needed to make the plant reasonably reliable and, in its words, "to address the safety and environmental concerns."
Yesterday the Utilities Commission received another letter from B.C. Hydro. But this time B.C. Hydro says it would be, in its words, advantageous to spend $4.5 million to refurbish Keogh and keep it running until the year 2002.
My question for the minister is this: if Keogh was such a wonderful goldmine for the government, why hasn't it been running it flat out for years?
[1425]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Keogh plant was scheduled to be decommissioned. Hydro has recently reviewed the situation due to low water inflows in its reservoirs and the high price of electricity on the North American market. They believe it not only is economical but will have a very positive effect if they refurbish and run the Keogh facility. They will be seeking permits to do so.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental question.
G. Plant: Well, it's going to take a bit of work and a lot of money and a bit of time to get Keogh back up and running. In
[ Page 17537 ]
fact, to get one of its two generators running, it's going to take six months of work. And despite this, despite all of this work and all of this money, B.C. Hydro claims that it can generate $71 million worth of revenue by essentially running one turbine flat-out 24-seven for however much is left of the year. You may recall that it started out at $100 million; now it's down to $70 million -- tens of millions of dollars.
My question for the minister is this: how is it that a plant that just a few weeks ago was no longer even a useful facility for generating electricity can suddenly turn into a $70 million revenue-generating facility for the government? And if the minister truly believes that, I've got a couple of Honda generators I could sell him, and I'm sure we could make a buck.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's the last part of the member's comments that I
find objectionable. I have
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I have served in this office of Finance minister with diligence and with integrity. The targets I set for Crown corporations last year were prudent and cautious. They said they were going to come in at a negative $179 million. In fact, they earned over $600 million.
The targets that have been set in Budget 2001 have been done with the same care, with full involvement and advice of staff. They are sound, as is Budget 2001. This opposition knows it; that press gallery knows it. I have served with dignity and integrity, and I intend to do so in the future.
M. de Jong: When I think of the targets the minister has set, it's the word "mythical" that comes to my mind.
I'm trying to put this Keogh plant into some sort of perspective, because in his mythical budget, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is going to receive $70 million -- as the figure is now -- from a facility that B.C. Hydro had completely written off to the point where they were actually giving away the diesel fuel.
Last November Hydro gave away the last 11,000 litres of Keogh's diesel fuel supply to the Rotary Club in Campbell River, because they knew the plant was going to be dismantled. So the question remains: on what possible basis does the minister expect us to take him, his party, his government and his budget seriously when he is estimating revenues from a facility that was giving away its last drops of diesel fuel?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
[1430]
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's interesting. World Theatre Day was actually yesterday, hon. member.
If the opposition has not noticed, the price of energy has changed over the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, on the California market -- the west coast market in which we buy and sell -- it's risen approximately by a factor of ten. This creates very different economics for hydroelectric and utilities and others. What did not make financial sense, when electricity was at $35 a megawatt hour, makes eminent sense when it is $350. And if that party ever have the opportunity to sit here, maybe they would look at some of these factors as they look at what can be done.
But beyond that, all targets in this budget have been set after full consultation, after advice from the very public service that this Liberal opposition purports to support. They have looked at this. They have worked with me on these targets. These targets are attainable, and the numbers in Budget 2001 are solid.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: I'm trying to reconcile what the minister just said with the fact that the application to dismantle, to decommission the plant, was actually made last August, when power prices were at their highest and, I think, Hydro executives were getting their bonuses.
But there's another question that comes to mind, and that is the fact that the minister is now telling us that he is counting on receiving $70 million worth of revenue -- and he's budgeting on this basis -- from a facility that he may not get a permit to operate. He may not actually get the permit to operate it. That's what this letter of yesterday is all about.
In addition to that, the web site says that Keogh's job is to provide short-term energy during transmission interruptions on north Vancouver Island -- except he's budgeting on the basis of full-time operation. Why is the minister expecting full-time revenue from a part-time plant?
Hon. P. Ramsey: B.C. Hydro is seeking permit approval. It will go through the regular permitting approval, as any plant would have to.
The reason why it makes sense to run this facility is twofold. Number one is electricity prices, and number two is the low inflows in reservoirs, which means that Hydro does not have as much water in its reservoirs. B.C. Hydro is examining all options to supply electricity to British Columbians for the coming year. It will. It will meet the target that we've set for it, unless it is faced with a minister and government that tell it not to or that sell it off.
C. Clark: The Minister of Finance says that everybody in this House and everyone in the press gallery understands what he's talking about with his budget. I've got a message for him on behalf of the opposition: "Son, you just don't get it."
He admits today that it's possible that this plant won't even be running if it doesn't get the permits. And among the permits that are required are the permits from the Minister of Environment. Keogh is subject to pollution control permits that limit its restrictions, and now Hydro is saying to the Utilities Commission in this letter that they're trying to get new environmental permits so that they can operate this plant 24 hours a day for a year. Will the Minister of Environment confirm for us that if he approves those permits, it's going to mean a huge increase in the amount of dirt that that plant belches into the air?
Interjections.
[ Page 17538 ]
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm always pleased to be called "son" by a future mom.
B.C. Hydro runs a range of hydroelectric facilities and other power-generating facilities. It also has access to power trading with the northwest United States. Using those facilities to the maximum, it can meet those targets. Of course B.C. Hydro will go through the normal permitting application, and everybody will have a chance to look at the results of that.
But this is the member who advocates for crippling B.C. Hydro and disposing of its major assets, the one that it relies on in a low-water year such as the one we're facing, and she would sell it. This is a good Crown corporation. This is something that can meet the targets that have been set for it, and it will.
[1435]
C. Clark: You know, it's important to point out that it's not the Minister of Finance that gets to grant the environmental permits. It's the Minister of Environment that gets to do that. And he might want to talk to the Minister of Environment about his comments about Burrard Thermal, because it seems to me that that's where the disagreement currently exists.
B.C. Hydro says in its letter that if the permits are not granted, the plant will not be able to operate. In other words, unless the Minister of Environment clears the way through all the environmental hurdles, the Keogh will not be able to help the Minister of Finance meet his budget proposals. My question to the minister is this: has he already decided that he's going to rubber-stamp this proposal in order to support this government's absolute sham of a budget?
Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that it would be totally inappropriate to make any decisions right now on that. We have an environmental process in place, and the hon. member knows that Hydro can go through -- as anybody else will go through -- the process. We have high conservation standards. They will be applied in that process. That can be done in a few months. If the member doesn't like the results, she can come back in a couple of months, rise in her seat in the opposition and ask me again what she thinks about it.
SUMAS POWER FACILITY
B. Penner: For much of last year Fraser Valley residents fought against the proposed SE2 power plant without any help from this government. When asked about his government's lack of action on SE2, the Premier blamed his former Environment minister, saying she was "late in coming out of the gate." But we have obtained Ministry of Environment documents that show the NDP's general lack of action and concern on this matter. One e-mail dated just weeks after the NDP decided not to intervene in Washington State states: "To date we have not had much success in generating a governmentwide approach to this issue." Does the Premier still blame the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, his former Environment minister? Or will he take responsibility for the entire government's dithering that cost B.C.'s seat at the intervener's table in Washington State?
Hon. I. Waddell: This is absolutely misleading the public. The hon. member knows that I went down and spoke to about 5,000 people in his back yard in Abbotsford and took a strong position against Sumas 2. That's on the record. And the hon. member should know that the former minister, my colleague, made interventions behind the scenes with the Governor of Washington and was quoted in the American environmental report, which was on our side. That's what she achieved in doing that. So tell the public the truth; don't mislead them.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, member. Members will wait till they're recognized, please, by the Speaker. The red light has come on. You were on your feet. I'll give you time for a short question, and hopefully we'll get a short answer.
B. Penner: SE2 is currently appealing Washington State's recommendation against the plant. But because the NDP chose, last year, contrary to our request, not to seek intervener status in Washington State, we are not at the table as the province of British Columbia to oppose SE2's appeal. That job has been left to local communities, and the province still refuses to provide any financial assistance in the fight against SE2.
The Speaker: Please state your question, member.
B. Penner: Will the current Environment minister -- at least for a few more weeks -- tell us why the NDP continues to leave local residents holding the bag in this battle against SE2?
[1440]
Interjection.
The Speaker: The hon. minister will wait until he's recognized, please.
The hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Forests.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker.
Very briefly, when I became minister, we hired a lawyer to appear and represent the government and the people in front of the NEB. I was there in front of the NEB, and I appeared as minister with the lawyer. We have done everything we possibly can. So please, would the member tell the truth? And I ask the residents of the Fraser Valley and all British Columbia: who would you trust with the environment? Would you trust that party over there, which would mine in parks, or would you trust the party with the best environmental record in North America?
The Speaker: The bell ends question period. The member for Chilliwack has a point of order?
B. Penner: Point of privilege. I ask that the member for Mission-Kent retract the statement that he made about me using unparliamentary language.
The Speaker: The Chair was listening carefully and heard nothing out of order.
[ Page 17539 ]
Tabling Documents
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I seek leave to table a report. I have the honour to present the annual report of the year 2000 for the criminal injury compensation program.
Orders of the Day
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I notice on the order paper a Motion 4 in the name of the Deputy Premier, which contains some 11 separate items relating to a whole range of measures. Obviously members of this House may feel differently on any of those 11 items -- maybe in favour of some, maybe opposed to others. I think it is only appropriate that that motion be severed, that members be allowed to take some time to consider whatever the severing may end up being, whatever groupings there may or may not be for the 11 items that are contained in that. Members at this point don't know what that severing might be, if the Speaker decides that it should be severed, and they may want to reconsider a position on which they were basing their decision, based on what was before them.
As well, before the House this afternoon
Both those items, obviously, the government is prepared to debate because they're prepared to call them. Mr. Speaker, if you find that the motion requires severing, I would urge you to allow the motion to be severed. Perhaps there could be some discussion between opposition and government members on the grouping of how that severing might happen. We could not call this motion; we could proceed with Bill 6 and Bill 17 and come back to the motion once that has been decided.
Hon. J. MacPhail: To be procedurally fair, I call the motion standing on the order paper in my name, and then I'll address the concerns.
The Speaker: Are you speaking to the point of order, minister?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm calling
The Speaker: The Government House Leader on the point of order.
Hon. G. Janssen: The motion has been fully on the order paper for two days. The opposition had two days to bring this point forward. It should be obvious to the House that the attempt by the Opposition House Leader is to deflect the motion from today. I'm prepared, as indicated by the Minister of Education, to call the motion today, and we will call the motion in the form that the Opposition House Leader suggests.
[1445]
The Speaker: Further on the point of order, the Opposition House Leader.
G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly I don't know what form the motion may take if it's severed. I don't know how it would be severed, what the groupings might be that the government has ultimately decided upon, so it's pretty hard for us to do that. And it's pretty hard for us to be comfortable with that not knowing what the severing might be. I'm not attempting to deflect the issue. What I'm saying is that there are two other items on the order paper that can be debated this afternoon. We can come back to this either later today or at another time. Clearly I think that's only fair for members.
This is a very contentious issue. It has been on the order paper for two days. Members have had to decide whether they're going to vote yea or nay based on the 11 items that are before them. If this is severed into various groups, there may be 11 separate items they have to decide upon separately. There may be groupings of three or two, where they may agree with one part of that grouping and not the other part. These are very serious issues for members to discuss and debate and to ultimately decide how they intend to vote on. A great deal is at stake, and I think members don't want the public or this House to misinterpret their positions on those various motions that may ultimately result from the severing. I'm not comfortable with the minister moving on, calling a motion and just severing it without any discussion with anyone else in this House. That seems to me very manipulative.
The Speaker: The Deputy Premier on the point of order.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Speaker, I seek your advice on proceeding with the point of order and it not having, at this stage, an effect on the original motion. Shall I proceed to address the point of order?
The Speaker: No. I'm taking points on the point of order now. When members have finished on the point of order, we'll decide where we go from there.
Hon. J. MacPhail: All right. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. As my colleague the House Leader has said, this motion was tabled on Thursday evening of last week. Certainly, hon. Speaker, under standing order 58, whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he or she shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule of authority applicable to the case.
It's my understanding, hon. Speaker, that you have not made that call at all -- that you are putting the question and that you have not offered a ruling on the matter, as is required under standing order 58. So we on the government side accepted that the motion as it appears can stand. However, it is our firm belief that the motion does deal with the very comprehensive program of one topic: a woman's right to reproductive choice. The rights of all members who oppose protecting the right of a woman to choose are fully protected.
[ Page 17540 ]
They can vote no. Those who support parts of it can move amendments to delete sections of it or can speak against any portion they wish.
According to MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, dealing with the severing of motions, dealing with the point that the member opposite has raised, the general rule is that the House may permit the division or severing of a motion which contains two or more distinct propositions to permit a separate vote on each proposition. That would be the lesser of our preferences, hon. Speaker, as you make your ruling on this. But it is this House that should decide whether a motion is severed or not. However, I also may say that it is the government's right in this parliament to decide what is put before this House. The orders of the day are established by the government, and I expect that that would be the same no matter who's in government. I doubt that that rule would be up for debate.
However, if the members opposite want to have this motion divided into different sections, we can do that right now. I have three different motions. I'll give them to the Clerks in my name. This is the same motion severed into three. I also have copies available for the House for each of the three motions. They're exactly the same substance as the original motion. They're divided into three. I've tabled the three different motions, and here are copies available of all three for each and every member of the House.
[1450]
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Given the sensitive nature of this issue and the
desire of members to be able to make their positions clear, I'm not comfortable
with the government bringing forward an arbitrary severing of this motion. The
government may choose to steamroll ahead and do what they want. That's fine;
they're allowed to do that. They command the Legislature until such time as the
Premier gets the guts to call an election. But they do that. So, Mr. Speaker, if
the government insists on arbitrarily severing this motion into three motions,
as I guess it is now, I would rather
D. Lovick: How interesting, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, that even when the government attempts to accommodate the opposition, we are accused of nefarious practices.
The issue, of course, is about severing of the motion, and there is a provision in our standing orders for severing the motion. I'm happy to advise the Opposition House Leader, however, that his comfort level is not mentioned in the standing orders; that's not part of how we adjudicate.
There's a reason for severing the thing. Let's be clear what the reasons are from the opposition. The procedural niceties notwithstanding, the real issue is that those folks on the other side are divided on this issue. They want to provide some of their members an escape clause, so they can support it on the one hand and speak against it on the other hand. That's the reason for their point of order. It has nothing to do with anything else. I say that in all sincerity.
Let us proceed with the option that the Deputy Premier has presented to us. It's very straightforward; it's very clean. Let us then give the opposition the chance to stand up and courageously vote against it for what they will call political purposes, but which we all know is really because their own caucus is hopelessly divided and they can't reconcile that. They don't have the courage to tell the House that is indeed the case; rather, they're hiding behind procedural wrangling.
The Speaker: I'll take two more submissions.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have one final submission to make. The position of the opposition has been clear. We support the status quo of services for abortions for women in British Columbia and will never roll them back. We've been clear on that.
I object to the attempt to manoeuvre, to politically manipulate this. But, Mr. Speaker, based on the arguments I've heard from the Deputy Premier and the member opposite, I think the best course of action is for me to withdraw the point of order. Let's proceed with the whole motion. We'll vote against it and let the people decide.
J. Weisgerber: The member for Nanaimo suggests that the opposition is looking for a way to sever the motion so that their members can vote either for or against the motion. I would remind the Speaker that a few days ago in this House, on Motion 1, after the first speakers on this side of the House, the government leapt in with an amendment that radically changed the whole intent of that motion. Indeed, it was then approved by the Speaker. So I guess my point is: if it's ducking and hiding that the government's concerned about, it appears they're experts in that area.
The Speaker: Final submission on the point of order.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is, of course, our preference to proceed with the motion as was originally intended, standing in my name on the order paper. But just let me be clear. The reason why I provided copies for the entire House was so that they could feel comfortable -- as was their request, as was indicated.
[1455]
Perhaps we had considered that they may make this submission to you, hon. Speaker, although they haven't before now. So we provide copies immediately that show the motion merely severed into three parts. Our preference, of course, is to debate them all as one, but the copies are there. Unlike what the member for Peace River South tries to intimate, this is merely the original motion severed into three parts, without change. But our preference is to debate the whole motion as was originally intended.
The Speaker: I want to thank members for their input into the point of order. I understand from the Opposition House Leader that the point of order has now been withdrawn and that there seems to be agreement from both sides of the House to proceed with this matter. It is your House, members.
[ Page 17541 ]
Motions on Notice
Hon. G. Janssen: I call Motion 4 standing in the name of the Minister of Education.
MEASURES TO PROTECT
WOMEN'S RIGHT TO MAKE
CHOICES ON REPRODUCTION
[Be it resolved that this Assembly supports the following enhancement measures to help protect the right of BC women to make their own choices on reproduction:
Increased financial support to school-based and community-based services which help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia including, but not limited to, sex education, birth control, and counselling
Enhanced access to emergency contraceptives across British Columbia
Increased financial support to UBC medical school to expand physician training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related services
Increased financial support for additional nurse clinicians at BC Women's Hospital to increase their ability to offer counselling, outreach and other services and to assist regions who are providing amniocentesis services for the first time
Requiring under provincial law that obligations for hospitals to be operated and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be lifted by the Legislative Assembly
Improving the availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions, including further financial support to investigate the efficacy and safety of mifepristone (commonly known as RU 486) through the national clinical trial currently being led out of Vancouver
Calling on the British Columbia Medical Association to agree to an increase in fees paid to doctors who provide abortion services, which are currently lower than they were in 1982
Helping ensure the ongoing security and safety of doctors and other health care providers through additional financial support for security assessments, education and training and security devices for homes and offices
Providing additional financial support for law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate and gather intelligence to identify groups and individuals who are prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect to abortion issues
Ensuring through provincial law that public bodies must not release abortion information, excepting abortion statistics at a global, regional and provincial level and personal information, unless provided to the person about whom the information pertains; and
Urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code, including designating abortion service providers as a protected group under current hate provisions and making attempts to criminally harass or harm abortion service providers an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to speak in support of the motion in the orders in my name. In 1994, in recognizing the unique health care needs of the women of British Columbia, our government created the women's health bureau as an important part of the Ministry of Health. That bureau has been the leader in recognizing and helping to solve many women-related health issues, from violence against women and gender-specific HIV and AIDS research and treatment to reproduction and abortion issues. Those issues, reproduction and abortion, are the most fundamental yet vulnerable of women's rights. As a government that has long supported and protected the unique health needs of women, we need to protect and support these issues as well.
We know that currently the number of abortion providers in the province is decreasing. To remain true to the status quo, we would have to accept those decreases. But we know that the status quo is simply not good enough. To serve the women of this province more effectively, we must do better than the status quo. In the past decade, this government has supported a woman's right to choose when it comes to reproductive issues. And we will continue to provide support through appropriate means, including support programs, regulations, legislation and motions in this Legislature, so that the women of B.C. will know that their choices are enshrined in law.
This government has worked hard to ensure that abortion services are included in the Health ministry's core services policy. By requiring the provision of abortion services through designated hospitals in B.C. and by protecting the information about abortion services provided by the health system to individual women, we continue to side with women of British Columbia and act on our commitment to their right to choose. We're working to ensure that the safety of women seeking abortions and the providers and facilities that deliver these necessary medical procedures are protected. Women today shouldn't have to worry that a personal decision that has such huge impact on their lives may be subject to undue scrutiny.
But there's more to women's reproductive choices than abortions. Let's talk about pregnancy prevention for a moment. We want to increase financial support for school-based and community-based services, including sex education, birth control, counselling and all of the above to deal with such issues as teen pregnancy, because we know that unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are largely preventable. It is through education about safe sexual practices and what resources are available that we will help bring down the number of unplanned pregnancies, particularly in our teens.
But choice is also important not just for couples that haven't been careful enough or who, no matter what prevention measures were taken, still find themselves facing the dilemma of a possible unplanned pregnancy. Last fall Premier Dosanjh and this government made a nationally important decision to increase access to emergency contraceptive pills without a doctor's prescription. Instead, women were able to access the emergency contraceptive pills through their local pharmacy. This was and is a very important issue.
[1500]
For nearly 30 years women in British Columbia have had access to emergency contraceptive pills through public health nurses, doctors, emergency rooms and agencies such as Planned Parenthood. However, in some communities, particularly remote and rural communities, timely access to ECPs through the sources was not always possible. In order to work -- that is, to prevent a pregnancy -- emergency contraceptive pills must be taken within a 72-hour time frame. Access to ECPs in that time frame had been an issue for many women for many reasons. Let me just list a couple of those: inability to schedule a doctor's visit within the allotted time; unwillingness of a physician to prescribe pills, for whatever reason; inability or unwillingness of some women to seek a prescription from their doctor; and the need to rely on a clinic being open at the right time. For example, some agencies in rural
[ Page 17542 ]
and remote communities are open only one or two days a week, really severely limiting women from accessing early contraception pills.
Pharmacists dispensing ECPs took special training that helps them to identify women who may be at risk due to their lifestyle choices or socioeconomic factors, giving pharmacists the tools to counsel these women and, where appropriate, to make the proper referrals. To date, more than 1,000 pharmacists in nearly 200 B.C. pharmacies have attended this training and are now dispensing the early contraceptive pills.
Too many women for too long have been denied the use of emergency contraceptive pills simply because they couldn't get them when they needed them. This is a product that has been in use for 30 years, because it is safe, effective and practical. It would be unfair and, I submit, unjust to continue to leave early contraceptive pills out of the reach of many women simply because they are denied another way of accessing them.
Another resource that this government wants to fund is an increase in financial support to the University of B.C. medical school to expand physician training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related services. We would provide the funding to the UBC medical school so that they can develop the proper training tools to enhance support in the area of training for service providers for abortions, counselling and related services.
We would also like to see increased financial support for additional nurse clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to increase their ability to offer counselling, outreach and other services. We are currently making sure that amniocentesis tests are available throughout the province. We are offering those services on a regional basis, and we need nurse clinician support in order to offer the full range of services along with regionalizing amniocentesis tests.
We also hope to see the improved availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions, including the ongoing investigation of the use of mifepristone, commonly known as RU486.
We would also call on the B.C. Medical Association to agree to adjust the fee to doctors who provide abortion services. We fully accept that the review that was done a few years ago was done in a thoughtful way with no intention of targeting any particular fee, but the fact of the matter is that the fee for abortion services now is at the rate of about the 1982 schedule of fees under the Medical Services Plan. Perhaps we all need to acknowledge that there is an increased safety and security aspect in terms of the provision of abortion services, and we ask that the B.C. Medical Association include that in its consideration for establishing the fee for a therapeutic abortion.
We will also be providing additional financial support for law enforcement agencies to help identify groups and individuals who may resort to criminal activity to support their beliefs with respect to abortion issues, as we've seen in this province too many times in the past.
[1505]
Finally, we will urge -- and I would hope that the entire Legislative Assembly joins us -- the federal government to strengthen the existing Criminal Code to designate abortion service providers as a protected group under current hate provisions. Physicians in this province are well trained. They provide a wonderful service, and they deserve proper protection and to be free from having any hate crimes directed at them. We will be asking all members of this Legislature to offer that protection to physicians in this province.
This government has always been planted firmly on the side of a woman's right to choose. It's important to the women of British Columbia, and therefore it's important to the government of British Columbia. Women's bodies are their own. They have the right to decide what is and isn't right for them and what is or isn't right for their bodies. That's a right that should never, ever be denied. To deny reproductive choice denies women protection for their status as individuals, and it denies our right to have the ability to make sound, informed decisions.
This can be a very good health day for the women of British Columbia. We can all come together on behalf of all of today's women and our children of the future.
C. Hansen: I want to start by saying that when it comes to abortion services in British Columbia, we have been very consistent in our position. Abortion services are available in this province, and should our party be asked to form a government, they will be maintained. We have been very clear. We want safe and secure health services for women across British Columbia.
But this resolution is not about ensuring that women have continued access to safe abortion services. It is about politics; it is about a cynical attempt to scare women in this province. There are elements in this resolution that call for enhanced funding, more financial support. There are elements in this resolution that call for new legislation. If this government were truly sincere in their motivation behind this resolution, they would not have brought it in, in this format; they would not have brought in a resolution. They would have included the new dollars in their budget. They would be tabling the legislation for first reading. And they are doing neither of those, hon. Speaker, because this is all about politics. This is about the most personal and profound decision a woman can make. We should respect that, not try to politicize it.
I want to be very clear. We will maintain abortion services in British Columbia. B.C. Liberals are united and firm on this point. It is in our platform; it is our position. And unlike the NDP, we will keep our word.
Hon. Speaker, I consider this resolution to be an abuse of this Legislature. It is unacceptable. Just over a year ago this Premier committed to be a cool voice for a hot province. A year ago this Premier had some credibility. Many thought that he might actually bring some integrity back to the Premier's Office, integrity that was so noticeably lacking over the previous four years.
Now we find that he is no different. He, like his predecessor, is prepared to abuse this Legislature. He has shown he will stoop to using this House for a desperate and cynical attempt to scare women. Mr. Speaker, this Premier and this minister should simply apologize to the women of this province. Who are they trying to frighten?
To the health professionals in this province and to women generally, I want them to know that they live in a safe and secure place where they can exercise their personal choices. Abortion services will be maintained, and a B.C. Liberal government will never seek to frighten women or take away their
[ Page 17543 ]
rights. Therefore we will stand together to oppose this government's attempt to divide British Columbians. We will stand together to oppose the political games that this government is playing, and we will stand together to oppose this resolution.
[1510]
Hon. E. Gillespie: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to support this motion -- this motion which engenders a difficult and sometimes divisive debate.
Hon. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by responding to the previous member's comments. I look forward to the opportunity to debate the budget, Budget 2001, because in this budget we have made commitments to the very things that we see here in this resolution. I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to bringing this budget into fruition in British Columbia this year.
Let's go through this motion step by step. This is an 11-point motion, and that's what gives me particular pleasure in bringing it forward at this time. Each year that I've been here, there has been a motion in my name on the order paper as a resolution to protect reproductive choice for women. And this year we see this resolution coming forward in its full form. This resolution addresses the full range of choice that is absolutely essential for women in this province. It puts together that whole range from healthy sexuality and learning about our sexuality, about preventing unwanted pregnancy, about the provision of access to choice, about the kinds of choices that are available in a woman's right to choose and about securing the safety of abortion service providers.
This is a difficult debate, and it's a difficult debate because in this society -- as much as sexuality is romped all over the books we see, Internet sites that can be visited and movies -- we are in our own lives very reluctant to talk about our human sexuality. This affects every one of us as parents. It affects our children, and it affects our ability to grow as sexual human beings -- and we are. It is very important.
We've seen the good work that's been done by Planned Parenthood over the years to provide support and education in communities. The first part of this resolution talks about increasing the support to an organization like Planned Parenthood, support for "school-based and community-based services which help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia, including, but not limited to, sex education, birth control, and counselling."
We know that for every dollar invested in sex education and in education about healthy sexuality, society saves $10 in the provision of abortion services, saves $10 in income support that is required for young mothers and their children. That's a dollar well spent. This increased support is intended to support women, not just youth, but also women in communities and particularly in rural communities where they may have difficulty getting access to good information about birth control, good information about choices available to them.
Let's look at the second item on this resolution: "Enhanced access to emergency contraceptives across British Columbia." On December 1, 2000, pharmacies across this province began to have the ability to prescribe the emergency contraceptive pill over the counter. We provide support to pharmacists in order that they can spend time counselling women and ensuring that all appropriate steps are taken as they have access to the emergency contraceptive pill.
[1515]
In the first weeks of that program over 800 prescriptions were filled. That says something to me about the need for access to something as simple as an emergency contraception pill. Why are people accessing emergency contraception? Because the contraception they've used has failed or because they have failed to use contraception at all. Emergency contraception must be accessed within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. In small communities, in communities where doctors may not be available on short notice, in communities where there are lineups in the emergency department, it is particularly important that the emergency contraceptive pill be available through pharmacies.
"Increased financial support to the UBC medical school to expand
physician training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related
services." This is an extremely important area. When I look at what has
happened over the last ten years in the loss of abortion service providers in
this province
The fourth point in the resolution: "Increased financial support for additional nurse clinicians at B.C.'s Women's Hospital to increase their ability to offer counselling, outreach and other services, and to assist regions who are providing amniocentesis services for the first time." Under the health action plan there will be five additional amniocentesis sites in this province, and it's important that the nurse clinicians be in place to provide that support. And when we have the opportunity to debate the budget, we will be talking about these kinds of things, because we are providing for these within the 2000-01 budget.
Putting all of these 11 points together in a resolution that shows the full range of choice that's required around reproductive rights for women is important for framing the package. You have to frame the package. We have a prevention part of the package that is important in this resolution. We have an access part of the package that is important in this resolution, and we have safety issues that have to be addressed in this resolution.
"Requiring under provincial law that obligations for hospitals to be operated and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be lifted by the Legislative Assembly." At this time we have, by order-in-council, established hospitals across this province that will provide abortion services. But where better to debate this particular issue than in this House? It's important for the women and the health providers of this province that these decisions be made and debated in public. That's why this resolution asks for requiring under provincial law that these obligations be determined.
"Improving the availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions,
including further financial support to investigate the efficacy and safety of
[ Page 17544 ]
"Calling on the British Columbia Medical Association to agree to an increase in fees paid to doctors who provide abortion services, which are currently lower now than they were in 1982." The point I would like to raise here is that we see across this province the danger that abortion service providers put themselves in as they do this work. This is work that brings risk to themselves and their families. I commend physicians who carry on with this work in the face of tremendous risk to themselves and to their families and certainly discomfort to themselves in their own communities.
[1520]
This is important work. I will never forget the words of a constituent of mine, a woman who has nursed in this province for 50-some years, who said to me when we were speaking on the issue of reproductive choice: "I will never forget the smell of the women's ward." And what she was talking about was the smell of infection that comes from botched or self-induced abortions. It is absolutely clear that whether or not abortion services are legal, if they are not accessible, women will -- as they have always done -- take things into their own hands. And that is not all right. That's not all right in this day; it's not all right in this province; it's not all right in any community in this province. This is a legal, safe procedure. It is a right for which women have fought over the centuries, and simply to maintain the status quo is to allow the possibility of the access slipping away.
"Helping ensure the ongoing security and safety of doctors and other health care providers through additional financial support for security assessments, education and training and security devices for homes and offices." The people of British Columbia may not know that this is an activity that government engages in now and has committed to continuing to engage in. We know how important it is to assure the safety of service providers in order that they can continue to do this important work assisting British Columbia women.
"Providing additional financial support for law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate and gather intelligence, to identify groups and individuals who are prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect to abortion issues." This is something that abortion service providers have been requesting for some years, and we do now have a letter from the RCMP indicating their commitment, their willingness to do this work, to link into a national network by which they can monitor activities and pursue criminal activity related to abortion service providers.
"Ensuring through provincial law that public bodies must not release abortion information, excepting abortion statistics at a global, regional and provincial level and personal information, unless provided to the person about whom the information pertains." Information is a very potent tool. Information about abortion services, about the provision of abortion services, particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would wish to limit women's access to choice. It is important that we provide security, both to the providers and to the women seeking access to the service, in order that we can continue to offer good access to abortion services across this province.
And finally: "Urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code, including designating abortion service providers as a protected group under current hate provisions and making attempts to criminally harass or harm abortion service providers an aggravating circumstance in sentencing." I would urge all members of the House to support this resolution and to support in particular our negotiations with the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code in this particular provision, because we must ensure the safety, the security, of abortion service providers in order that we can continue to offer this health service for women in this province.
I've brought with me today a little information about Margaret Sanger. I do that because it's important to remember how long this battle has gone on and how important it is to mark our progress day by day, year by year, and once again to remind all of us here that the status quo is not good enough.
[1525]
Margaret Sanger began her activities in the early 1900s, teaching birth
control information, because she believed profoundly that
Margaret Sanger talks about unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. "For this is the miracle of free womanhood, that in its freedom it becomes the race mother and opens its heart in fruitful affection for humanity. How narrow, how pitifully puny has become motherhood in its chains!" And once again, Margaret Sanger's approach was "every child a wanted child." And I believe that in British Columbia that should be our approach as well.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to make very brief remarks on this very important issue.
This is really an issue that goes to the core of fundamental rights in British Columbia. This is an issue that can't be swept away by saying: "We will maintain the status quo." Choice for women can never, must never, stand still; it must move and be enhanced with the times.
If one uses the logic of the opposition, if by some misfortune they had formed the government in 1991, none of the steps that have been taken since 1991 would have been taken to enhance choice for women, to protect the providers and to protect those women that need these medically necessary services.
If I had called an election before we made the emergency contraceptive available through pharmacists, and if by some misfortune the other side had won, the women in British Columbia wouldn't have the emergency contraceptive available through the pharmacists everywhere in British Columbia. I say that simply to highlight the absolute lack of logic and lack of justness in the position taken by the opposition. And I say this because I believe that what we need to do is continue to re-examine this issue, not based on partisan politics, not based on emotion but based on what needs to be done.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
If the opposition had been in power a couple of years ago, when I was the Attorney General, they wouldn't have granted more money for protection of the providers as I did -- a quarter of a million dollars.
It is important that we take into account that very issue -- the issue of continuing to ensure that new devices, new pro-
[ Page 17545 ]
cedures, new approaches
That's the essence of this resolution. That's why this resolution is before the House: to ensure that we continue to re-examine this issue to make sure we do everything possible to update, to strengthen, to enhance and to expand choice for women and protection for the providers.
[1530]
Now, there are several points in this motion, and I'm not going to speak to
each and every one of them. But I do want to speak to one. That is the issue
around ensuring that we have designation of hospitals enshrined in legislation
rather than just in regulations. That is, to make sure that if there is ever to
be an interrogation from that level of service
In closing, I just want to say that it is important that the Leader of the Opposition speak to this issue. He has spoken to the issue outside the House, I understand, to the media. And if I'm wrong in describing what he has said, I'll stand corrected, because I do this with no malice. I believe he has said to the media outside that he has problems with some parts of this motion. Well, I would urge him to come into the House and tell the public of British Columbia what portions of this motion he has trouble with.
This motion is about enhancing law enforcement capacity. This motion is providing more protection to the providers. This motion is entrenching in legislation what exists in regulation. This motion is about making sure that emergency contraception, the morning-after pill, is available by law. This motion is about many other things to simply enhance and expand choice.
I just want to say to the people of British Columbia that this is not an issue about partisan politics. This is an issue about women's right to reproductive choices and the government's ongoing obligation, no matter who the government is, to continue to expand, enhance, protect and improve that choice for the women of British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: I can't say that I'm pleased to rise in this debate, but I feel compelled to rise and speak to this motion. I think most people in this chamber and, I hope, most people in British Columbia understand where I'm at with respect to a woman's choice. I've made it public through my public life. I was a member of the Vander Zalm government and a member of the Vander Zalm cabinet, and I stood up for women's choice. I was the leader of the Reform Party of British Columbia when, if not the majority, a large percentage of the members disagreed with the position that I took with respect to women's choice and with respect to same-sex rights. I've stood up for those consistently, regularly, publicly, when it was to my advantage and when it wasn't.
What I understand is how divisive this issue is for British Columbians, how they don't want a debate about this issue today. I was at a public meeting last night -- a large public meeting. I was approached by a number of people about this issue, and they were, to a person, women. They were, to a person, appalled that we were going to raise this issue today in the Legislature. It wasn't the men; it was the women. They understand how divisive these issues are.
[E. Walsh in the chair.]
I'll tell you, I'm angry with the Premier and, more than angry with him, I'm disappointed in him. Here is a person who came into office suggesting that he was going to lower the temperature in this House and in this province with respect to political divisiveness. But that's not what we've seen in this House at all. It's quite the contrary. Motion 1 was an issue around aboriginal rights. It only lasted past the first speaker on the opposition side, and when it was evident that all members were going to support the motion, the member from Saanich changed it dramatically to make sure that he could drive in a wedge, that there could be a division.
[1535]
That's what this motion's designed to do. It's designed to drive a wedge
between the members of this House, and it's designed to drive wedges between
British Columbians. It's unacceptable. I find it disgusting that in fact a
government would be so desperate to find an issue
It's so evident in what's going on in this House this week that you're going through that same exercise. It's a tragedy that aboriginal people and women and their reproductive choices are targets and are nothing more than simply objects to drive that agenda forward. It makes me angry to be a member of this House. I'm not seeking re-election. I don't care, quite candidly, which way you're able to work with dividing British Columbians, except for the fact that it is destructive to this province. It doesn't matter to me for my own personal gain.
Hon. Speaker, I know how divisive this issue can be, and if any of you have been around long enough to remember the 1980s, you know that it was divisive then. You know that when it was raised in the House of Commons, it was divisive. And if you've taken the time to talk to mainstream women in British Columbia, you'll know that they are generally happy with the status quo. Not everybody's happy. Some people believe that there should be no access to abortion, and others believe, I suppose, that you could go further. But that's not the majority of women, and that's not the majority of British Columbians.
The fact that we've raised this issue today in an attempt to divide people is unfortunate; it's tragic. Even the pundits for the government suggest you're only going to win seven or eight seats. I say to the Premier: keep going at the rate you're going, and you'll beat the record set by the Conservatives in 1993. [Laughter.] I'm not kidding. You're on a downhill slide, and this kind of gamesmanship isn't doing a darn thing for you.
I would close by urging the Premier, the Attorney General and the Deputy Premier to get back on the high road. And
[ Page 17546 ]
I urge the Minister of Health: get back on the high road. Campaign for what you're about. Get away from this politics of division, because it's not working and it's not in the interests of British Columbians and the women of British Columbia that I know and represent.
Hon. C. Evans: I rise as the member for Nelson-Creston and also as the Minister of Health and also as a parent. I point out the last role -- probably the most important role -- because my position on these issues is not determined, as the previous speaker would have you believe, by the Premier or my caucus or my party or any political desire whatsoever. It was actually figured out at my kitchen table in a discussion with the people that are more important to me than anybody else here.
My hon. friend who spoke before me suggested that maybe this was an untoward discussion. He pleaded with me not to raise the issue. The people of B.C. that he's talked to have said: "Don't talk about it. It's okay. Leave it alone." I can understand that sentiment; lots of us have it all the time. But you know, there was a time when we didn't talk about this issue at all, and the Minister of Women's Equality was explaining to us the outcome of that and the smell of that.
[1540]
There was a time when people used to hide people with disabilities in the attic. It wasn't nice to talk about, so we just ignored it. Somebody had to walk into the room here and be brave enough to talk about something that somebody didn't want to talk about, in order for life to begin to change. The hon. member suggested that it was untoward of the government earlier in the week or last week to bring forward a motion enshrining, essentially, the fact that we meant what we said, that we were telling the truth, when we entered into the treaty process. "Don't talk about it; it's divisive." Isn't that just exactly what everybody out there thinks about us here: that we're here doing something for us, and we're not willing to talk about the things that are kind of scary, as the hon. member said, for our careers or us personally?
I heard the hon. member say that this debate sickened him, or maybe "disgusted" was his word. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member, because as he said, he takes his positions regardless of whether they're popular or not. But to suggest that having a debate is disgusting is to suggest that we go back to a time of silence, where the status quo is whatever people in power want it to be and this building isn't used to bring forward progressive change to make people's lives better. You could say almost anything you want to me in here, but to suggest that silence is a really good idea is unfathomable. It's contrary to the very reason why they built this place. It's contrary to everything that I understand about why the hon. member and the rest of the folks here would want to come and work in this place, which at the very minimum is to tell the truth.
I would encourage the hon. member not to read the spin about what's going on here but to actually listen to the words. I've listened to the words of three or four speakers now. They were pretty quiet. I didn't hear anybody holler or use language that was inflammatory or try to defame another person. What I heard was language aimed at explaining necessary change. After all, we just had the millennium, and we're not standing still.
As the Minister of Health, hon. Speaker, I'll get to my prepared comments in
a second. But the words of the hon. member -- that we don't talk about it --
made me think
It's analogous here. What we are doing, I think -- in language that the hon. member can hear, that's not all that hostile -- is simply applying change. It's in order that we would change and evolve with the times. Over the past decade the British Columbia government has taken strong and effective action to help protect the right of B.C. women to make their own choices on reproduction. But there's more that needs to be done, and that's what we're doing here today.
[1545]
This government's plan to protect and enhance choice for women builds on the track record in British Columbia and delivers the changes that medical and other experts are recommending. The government's plan builds on the important actions taken over the last decade to protect the rights of B.C. women to make their own choice on abortion. This government has been the first B.C. government to provide operating funds for B.C.'s two freestanding clinics -- the Elizabeth Bagshaw Women's Clinic and Everywoman's Health Centre. We designated 33 hospitals, by regulation, to provide abortion services throughout the province. We included abortion in the Health ministry's core services policy. I guess we couldn't have done that without actually talking about it, eh?
We ensured that regional health boards couldn't be taken over by some kind of special interest group, as had been done in the 1980s. We couldn't have done that without actually talking about it. We supported the provincial pregnancy options referral service through Children's and Women's Health Centre, which provides confidential information and counselling and referrals to women wherever they live.
We created the Access to Abortion Services Act, which provides a zone of protection from harassment to abortion providers and also to women seeking service. We provided funding to increase security for facilities and for doctors who provide abortion services, and we committed $250,000 to increase the safety of abortion service providers.
We funded the Vancouver portion of Canada's first mifepristone trial, the drug formerly known as RU486. This drug is used effectively for medical abortions prior to nine weeks throughout Europe, and it has the potential for decreasing the use of surgical abortions. We eliminated barriers to accessing emergency contraceptive pills through a regulation to give women access to ECPs through pharmacists. And although all this progress has been made, it is time to respond to change and to the needs of the future -- changing science, changing society.
The motion that we have before us today proposes to increase the number of service providers through additional training and higher fees, provide greater protection to those service providers who are concerned about harassment and harm and provide additional counselling and outreach and other services to assist regions providing amniocentesis services for the first time.
There has been a decrease of more than 20 percent in the number of physicians providing abortions between 1993 and
[ Page 17547 ]
1998. Resolving that problem would alone be reason to come in here and break the silence and talk about exactly what needs to be done.This motion proposes to seek the BCMA's agreement to reverse the fee cuts that were made in 1997, to increase education and training of medical students and doctors, and to increase security for abortion service providers. B.C. and Canada are not keeping pace, either, with medical alternatives to abortion, and this motion proposes to increase access to emergency contraceptive pills and increase access to medical abortions through support for clinical trials on alternatives already in use in Europe and in the United States.
Although the number of teenage pregnancies is dropping -- which I would think would be something we'd want to talk about out loud, not in silence -- they are largely preventable. This motion proposes to increase education in schools and community services to provide that prevention and to provide more information on choice to young women.
Abortion service providers and clients continue to be threatened and to be harassed, resulting in a climate of fear. It's not something you'd want to be silent about, is it, hon. Speaker? This motion proposes to increase security measures available to service providers to support their confidentiality and to urge changes to the Criminal Code to better protect abortion service providers and their clients.
We'll go into some specifics, hon. members. Specifically, the motion will provide increased financial support to school-based and community-based services which help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia, including but not limited to sex education, birth control and counselling. Surely that's something you'd want to say out loud. Teenage pregnancy is a major concern. Although the rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortion are decreasing in B.C., which is a good thing, over 50 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortions, which is not. Teenagers also have a high repeat-abortion rate, and teen pregnancies are largely preventable, and that's our job.
Family life education is part of the school curricula, and the goal of this education is to develop students' understanding of the role of family and the capacity for responsible decision-making in their personal relationships.
[1550]
A review of existing programs will be undertaken, and the government will work with school districts to extend existing sex education and counselling opportunities. As well -- lots of people are really proud of this -- the government will work with the Planned Parenthood Association of B.C. to expand non-school, community-based education -- for example, for parents, to help them discuss sex with their kids; workplace sexual and reproductive health discussions; and services to special population groups, including more work with first nations communities. This will build on Planned Parenthood's existing education services. Planned Parenthood has a provincial infrastructure to provide counselling and birth control services through its 41 clinics across the province.
In addition, the motion will provide enhanced access to emergency contraceptives across British Columbia. Barriers to accessing emergency contraception pills in a timely fashion are problematic for many women, primarily due to the limited hours of operation of birth control clinics and the reluctance of some women to go into an emergency room or to a physician to obtain them.
Cabinet approved regulations on October 26, 2000, as the Premier referenced, which allowed pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraceptive pills effective December 1. Statutory authority is now required to give retroactive validation to these regulations.
This is a good example of the silence-or-talk issue. Would you rather have regulations made in cabinet in secret somewhere or come into this room and have a discussion -- the hon. member calls a debate -- and take public action?
About 1,000 pharmacists in British Columbia have received the specialized training to dispense ECPs now without a physician's prescription. The College of Pharmacists has made it clear that professional ethics require that pharmacists who have a moral objection to the ECP refer women to another pharmacist. The College of Pharmacists and the B.C. Pharmacy Association launched an awareness program this year on women's options when faced with the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy. In the first 12 weeks of this program, pharmacists dispensed 1,207 ECP prescriptions. I guess that wouldn't have happened if we had stuck to the silence idea.
This bill will provide increased financial support to the UBC medical school to expand physician training in support of providing abortions counselling and related services. Unfortunately, the number of physicians providing abortions in British Columbia is decreasing. There was a 23 percent decrease in the number of practitioners between 1993 and 1998. Although abortion is a relatively simple medical procedure, there is limited training in counselling related to abortions in our postgraduate medical education residency program. The medical curriculum at UBC was changed in September of 1998 to dedicate more time to abortion issues, and a new course, "Doctor, Patient and Society," was created.
Additional funding will now provide for additional training as follows: course development at the UBC medical school to include medical abortion and all surgical abortion procedures, counselling, referral and ethics; locum education funding for rural and remote physicians; scholarships for medical students who will specialize in the area of women's health. B.C. Women's Hospital will work with existing providers throughout the province to ensure that their skills are maintained up to date -- and development of a companion manual to support existing providers in conjunction with the above initiative.
Are these inflammatory words, hon. Speaker? Do you feel like this is a dangerous debate?
This bill will provide for increased financial support, as well, for additional nurse clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to increase their ability to offer counselling, outreach and other services and to assist regions who are providing amniocentesis services for the first time. The availability of the amniocentesis test was expanded in the health action plan from two urban centres to five regions. This means that women no longer need to travel either to Vancouver or to Victoria for amniocentesis but will be able to receive the service closer to where they live.
The five regions are yet to be determined. When they are identified, service providers will require additional support. This funding will provide for 1.4 FTE nurse clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to work with patients who come in through medical genetics or fetal diagnosis and community testing procedures and to provide outreach to the five regions
[ Page 17548 ]
providing amniocentesis services. This funding will support facilities, as well, to provide counselling and support for women facing medical genetics or fetal diagnosis concerns and will support women to make better-informed decisions.
[1555]
This bill will require, under provincial law, that obligations for hospitals to be operated and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be lifted by the Legislative Assembly. This is the issue that the Premier was talking about. Access to abortion services in B.C. is problematic in many areas of the province outside the lower mainland. Abortion was included in the core services policy in 1994, and funding for abortion services is included as a funding package that is given to each health authority. A total of 33 hospitals are designated now to provide abortion services.
Hospitals do not have to be on the list of 33 designated specific hospitals in the Hospital Insurance Act regulation in order to provide abortions. In fact, abortion services are provided now in 37 hospitals and two freestanding clinics, both in Vancouver and in Richmond, and in some doctors' offices, in the case of medical as opposed to surgical abortion.
What we are proposing is to expand the list of 33 hospitals to include Kelowna General Hospital, which began to provide services again, happily, in 2000. The proposed amendment will move the existing regulation into statute, breaking the silence of making changes by regulation and bringing them into this room so that everybody can see what's happening in the light of day.
This motion is also about improving the availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions, including further financial support to investigate the efficacy and safety of mifepristone, formerly known as RU486, through the national clinical trial currently being led out of Vancouver.
If we just stuck with the status quo and engaged in silence, how would we change? What would we do, when science provides safer ways to provide the same service? Would we just stick with what we do because it's not okay to have a conversation in public?
New funding will be provided for a second clinical trial of mifepristone. Another trial will provide more opportunities for providers to become more skilled in using the drug, which will increase its efficacy.
This motion is also calling on the BCMA to agree to an increase in fees paid to doctors who provide abortion services, which are currently, quite surprisingly, lower than they were in 1982. Imagine that: the Minister of Health, with all the issues I have negotiating with doctors, pointing out that one service has a lower value than it had in 1982. The Medical Services Plan fees for first and second trimester abortions were lowered by 20 percent and 30 percent respectively as of April 1, 1997, following a review of physician payment schedules. Ministry of Health staff met with the BCMA to request that they reconsider their own funding decrease, but the members did not support reinstatement of the fee to previous levels.
As well, the section of general practice, GPs as well as specialists, performing abortions complained to the BCMA about the decrease in their earning power based on the reduction of payment of abortion services. As of April 1, 1997, the fees for some procedures increased and for other procedures decreased. For example, the fee for a vasectomy decreased by 6 percent from $104 to $98. It's kind of contradictory, isn't it, if we're trying to provide birth control.
The current fee for abortions under 14 weeks of $100.69 is lower than the fee was in 1982, strangely enough, which was $103. In 2001 the 1982 fee, if you added inflation, would amount to $175. In Alberta the fee for abortion services is $111, and in Saskatchewan, for the first trimester, it's $131. So how, if we maintain the status quo, do we expect to compete to have service providers come to British Columbia? The decrease in fees in 1997 does not support increased access to abortion services.
This motion is also helping to ensure the ongoing safety and security of doctors and other health care providers through additional financial support for security assessments and for education and training and security devices for homes and offices.
In 2001 the Ministry of Attorney General had a $250,000 contract -- not on an ongoing basis -- with the B.C. Women's Hospital to fund the provincewide abortion services provider protection program. This program provided security assessments for abortion service providers, information and education for health care providers and workshops for the police and for Crown counsel. This new base funding will allow for additional security assessments and support for security devices for abortion service providers.
The breakdown of services is as follows. There will be grants to support purchase of protective devices for the homes and offices of service providers. There will be continued education and information about ways to enhance personal safety for health care providers, their staff and clinic workers and continued education for the police and Crown counsel and increased security and support to existing providers to maintain levels of service and work on recruitment of providers.
Hon. Speaker, is that a divisive suggestion -- that when people do work in British Columbia, they should be safe? Is that something we shouldn't talk about?
[1600]
We are providing additional support for law enforcement agencies to coordinate and gather intelligence to identify groups and individuals who are prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect to abortion issues. The RCMP have requested funding for exactly this purpose -- for a designated unit to collect intelligence regarding extremist and criminal activity associated with the abortion issue and to reduce risk to service providers through proactive interaction.
The E Division national security investigation section does not have the resources to undertake this. It is basically only monitoring the present situation. The new designated unit, on the other hand, would undertake coordination management and dissemination of information, develop proactive risk assessment strategies and support other agencies involved in criminal investigations.
We are here, in this bill, ensuring through provincial law that public bodies must not release abortion information -- except abortion statistics at the global, regional and provincial level -- or personal information unless provided to the person about whom the information pertains.
This is a really good example, hon. Speaker. What we're doing here is making sure that providers themselves are not
[ Page 17549 ]
put at risk by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act so that information about providers is not given to people who might threaten their lives. If we just remain silent and don't change our legislation with a changing society, then we won't be able to respond to the fact that there was no Freedom of Information Act back when the service was originally delivered in Canada.
Concern has been identified about what is called the mosaic effect, which is the freedom-of-information commissioner noting that even though statistical information may appear innocuous all by itself, sometimes it's linked together with other information. It can result in the possibility of harm to law enforcement or to the health and safety of individuals or to the public. Whether the commissioner upholds a decision to withhold data under section 19 will depend on the circumstances of the case, but amending the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will provide certainty about withholding abortion-related information, supporting security for service providers and their clients.
Finally, we are urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code on this matter, including designating abortion service providers as a protected group under current hate provisions and making it more difficult for criminals to make attempts to harass or harm abortion service providers. This will be another tool with which to charge those perpetrating crimes.
In closing, my kids were born at the time of the civil rights battles in the United States, and when they were little girls, we had a record with songs from the civil rights movement that they used to listen to. Their favourite one had a song about: "It isn't nice, it isn't nice. We told you once, we told you twice." The song is a parody, sung by the civil rights workers about what they had to do sometimes in order to create freedom. It wasn't exactly interpreted by the dominant society as nice, polite behaviour. Sometimes the dominant society said: "Oh, you really shouldn't do that, you know. You really shouldn't try to sit at that lunch counter. You're right out in public raising issues that we really don't like to discuss."
My kids loved it, because when you're six years old you can understand something that some grown MLAs can't quite understand, which is that sometimes making democracy work, making people's lives safe and the evolution of society require talking right out in public, right out on television -- calmly and gently, but in public -- about the needs of society. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
L. Boone: I rise to support this motion, and I do so with a great deal of pride. I do so as a woman; I do so as a mother who has raised three females, two of them biologically my own and a foster daughter, as well, whom I love very dearly.
As a woman, I want to know that I have the right to do and to determine what takes place with my body. I fully believe that is my right, and I want to know that my girls, my daughters, have the same right: the right to choose whatever it is they want to do with their bodies and their lives.
[1605]
I look back to when I was in high school ten years or so ago -- a little bit of a lie there. But I remember when women had no choice, when girls who got pregnant at the age of 15 or 16 had to get married. They were forced into marriage at that time, and those marriages were frequently unhappy ones. Those girls were left to leave school and raise a family long before they were ever able to do so. It was children raising children at that time. Those young girls had a choice. They could put their child up for adoption. Or they could go away and get an abortion that was illegal, and you heard the Minister of Women's Equality talking about some of the outcomes of those. I want to know that those opportunities are not necessarily being foisted on women today, and that young girls have a choice to make and do so with the full opportunities available to them.
I've known people who have done all of those things. I've known people who have gotten married early, who have run off, given their children up for adoption. I've known women who have had illegal abortions. These have all been very, very traumatic experiences. These are not easy things for women, no matter what choice they make.
Therefore I rise in support of this motion, because part of the choice that women have to have is to find a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. That is, I think, for all of us the ultimate we would like to see and we must see. This motion encompasses expansion of education -- making sure that people know what's out there so that they have available to them opportunities for birth control, so that they understand what it means to say no, and that they have that right too. All of these things are the choices that a woman must have, and we must see those things available to them absolutely unfettered so that when they make those choices, they do so with the full knowledge that society is not going to come down on them and say that they are a bad person for taking whatever choice it is. There are no bad choices here.
I think it's really important that we make sure that we have increased services available to women. I've often heard members opposite and members who promote different choices and different views than I'm saying here, say that a woman ought not to have the right to choose, but that they ought to be forced into keeping those children. And they say that there are lots of people out there who would take those children into their homes. Yet we also see those same people saying that we must cut back on our services, that we can't be promoting more day care, that we can't have more pay equity, that we can't increase the minimum wage so that people can keep those children in their homes and give them a good home life.
All of these things are encompassed in this resolution. That's why I'm really quite amazed that the members opposite aren't taking the opportunity to speak on this. These are things that I think most people in this House, most people today, should support. They should support the education of young girls and young men so that they know what their actions are going to do. They should support the education that tells them what their options are for birth control. They should support the opportunity to make more services available for young women and young men, as well, because now we're finding that young men are actually, in many cases, taking an interest in these children. All of these things have to be there, and that is in this resolution.
In the event of an unwanted pregnancy, obviously somebody has to have the right to have an abortion, and they have to have the right to have an abortion in a situation where it is not a traumatic one for them. I've had the opportunity to attend an abortion facility with a friend who was actually having an abortion. It was a facility in Vancouver, and I was absolutely amazed at the comfort level that was there and the support that was given to that person when she went through
[ Page 17550 ]
this process. It was not just a matter of having them shipped off into a room, but it was the support that was there, the psychological support -- all of these things. That was tremendous, and I know that it was tremendous for this person that had this.
[1610]
I've known several people who've had to give up children for adoption. That was very traumatic for them, as was the abortion as well. I've known people who have kept their children and have had difficulties raising them because they couldn't financially support them.
I think it's extremely important that we support this, not keeping the status quo, not just saying that what we've got is okay and therefore we're not going to improve things but saying that we've done some tremendous things and that it's important that we improve them, that we reach out to women, that we make more services available for them and that we make them in a way that is non-judgmental so that a woman, regardless of what she chooses -- whether it's to keep that child, have an abortion or put that child up for adoption -- does so with the full knowledge that society is going to support whatever choice she makes. That is extremely important.
I stand here today, as I say, as a woman. I stand here as a mother who has raised three girls, and I do so knowing that I want to have available to them all of these opportunities, should they happen to find themselves in a situation of an unwanted pregnancy.
It is extremely important that the opposition speak up right now. It's extremely important that they let the women of British Columbia know where they stand on these issues. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition was just out in the hall talking to the media, and he said that he supports some parts of the resolution but not others. I think we want to know -- as a woman I want to know -- what parts of those resolutions he supports, what parts he doesn't support and what he would be doing if, unfortunately, he ever has the opportunity to form government in this province. What is it that the opposition would do in these situations? You cannot just sit there and say: "Well, we don't support this resolution." This is a resolution that encompasses a whole gamut of services, supports for women across this province. I think it is up to the Leader of the Opposition to make it known to all British Columbians what he supports and what he doesn't. I think he owes all of us an explanation on that.
This is a motion that I am really proud to stand here and support. I would urge all members on the other side to look to their conscience, to wrestle with their conscience. I don't understand how they could stand in this House and vote against a resolution that encompasses so many positive things for women in this province.
[1615]
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm pleased to stand in the House and support the motion in front of us. I believe it's a very important motion. It's centred around a women's right to choose. I'll start the debate by expressing deep disappointment in both of the speakers we've had from the opposition. First, the spokesperson from the official opposition chose not to debate the issue but instead to engage in character assassination. He had very little to say about the substantive issue but instead chose to attack a person's character for having the temerity, I assume, to bring this issue into the House and debate it.
The member for Peace River South was also a deep disappointment to me, because like the Minister of Health, I have a great deal of respect for this member. For him to suggest that this debate or this issue is on the low road is actually deeply offensive.
This debate is about strengthening and deepening not my right to choose -- that's something that is in the past -- but my daughter's and my granddaughter's right to choose. Believe me, from the discussions I've had with my daughter and her friends, this is a right that they expect the government to provide for them. They also expect us to be on the cutting edge of this service, because it affects their lives.
Contrary to the member for Peace River South, I believe that it is the right of all of us to know where people stand on this issue, especially if those people are going to stand for office. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has said that there are some parts of the resolution he did not support and some that he did support. That's fair enough. I think the Leader of the Opposition should be very clear with the people of this province on what parts he does support and what he opposes. I actually think the people of B.C. deserve that, and I believe I deserve it, and my daughter and her friends deserve it also. You cannot run for Premier and not tell the people what you stand for. You cannot have a hidden agenda. You cannot have a secret about what part of this you like or what part of it you don't. You need to be crystal-clear about where you stand, especially on an issue that is so important as this one is.
This concept of choice has been couched in many expressions over time. One commonly used one -- in fact, I think most salient and probably some people consider strident -- is the notion that a woman has a right to control her body. Actually, it's quite a profound notion and one I imagine that women's voices from the past cried out for: the right to control their bodies.
Many women in the past died during childbirth. In the past this was accepted as a woman's fate. It was something that was beyond their control. It was something to do with being a woman or being female. Unfortunately, often those deaths were very cruel and painful. As those of us who have actually gone through pregnancy and have had a child know, even having a child successfully is very painful -- or can be.
So all of us, especially the women in this House, must thank our good fortune for being born during these times, when we've had scientific understanding, when we've had modern medicine. These times must give comfort to those voices from the past, because now they know their granddaughters or their great-granddaughters can control their bodies. They know that it is within their choice, that we can now choose when we will bring a new life into the world and when not to become parents. This is a fundamental right that must be strengthened and must never, never be taken away.
[1620]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The strength of it and the right never to be taken away is all about political will. It's not about chance; it's about political will. Maintaining the status quo is not good enough. It does not talk about how this service can be enhanced. It does not talk about how this service and this right can be improved as new drugs are invented or as new procedures are brought
[ Page 17551 ]
forward. That position does not say that if we learn new things from other jurisdictions, we can bring them into this jurisdiction and therefore enhance a woman's right to choose.
Over the last ten years we have done numerous things around this issue. We have funded two freestanding clinics. We have put abortion service into core services from the Ministry of Health, and we've ensured that regional health boards could not be taken over by special interest groups who were against having this service provided to women.
The member for Peace River South was quite right. There were times when this issue was very divisive and did cause a lot of angst. But I suggest that those times are over, that the right to choose is now deeply embedded in the values of our community and the rights women believe they have and should have forever.
We improved the protection and safety for women and health providers around this issue. We are the inventors and the creators of the bubble zone, something that was there to protect women from being harassed and also those providers from being harassed. We've provided funding to increase security for facilities and doctors that provide abortion services and have committed $250,000 to increase the safety of abortion service providers.
We have funded the Vancouver proportion of Canada's first mifepristone trial. Hon. Speaker, there is nothing, I don't think, that is more important than these new drugs that take the abortion service from the surgical area to the medical area, allowing women much freer access and less expense to the medical system for all of us. That drug has been used effectively for medical abortions throughout Europe and has the potential for decreasing the use of surgical abortions here in British Columbia. And just recently we improved the access to the emergency contraceptive pill by passing a regulation to allow women access to the emergency contraceptive pill through pharmacists without prescription.
We have made numerous advances in this service area. And actually, that's what government is all about. You have a core value that you support, and then, as more information and more services come up around this issue, you provide that service for the people, because that's the essence of what you're there for. You're there to serve the people around their values and their key issues.
There are numerous points in this motion. I will leave further elaboration of them to other members who will speak after me. I'd just like to come back to a couple of main points that I think I have made but that I'd like to reiterate. In my opinion, it is critical that the women of British Columbia know where we as their representatives stand on this issue. I think it's critical that we be clear, unequivocal and straight up with the people.
This motion makes our position clear. It makes it clear that we will continue to enhance and protect this service towards women. As a government, I think that's the least we can do, and I'm very proud to support this motion.
[1625]
J. Pullinger: I'm very proud to stand in my place and support this motion and all that flows from it. This issue is about a very fundamental right for 51 or 52 percent of the population in this province. It is not an issue that one can dismiss and say that we shouldn't talk about, as some members over there have. It's not an issue that you can just ignore, as the opposition is doing. This is a fundamental right for women. It is the starting place for women's equality.
I'm about to retire, as everybody knows. But I want to go back to my earliest days as an elected member of this assembly, when I sat on that side of the House. During that time we had a government with essentially the same values -- free-enterprisers, they called themselves -- as the people now on the opposition benches. And the result of their negligence of this issue, the result of their refusal to talk about this issue or act on this issue as we are seeing today from the opposition benches, led to a situation in the mid-Island that I was just appalled could happen in the 1990s.
What happened was that three or four people who supported the Socreds then, who are active Liberals now, took over the hospital board in Nanaimo. That's the only place for almost all of Vancouver Island outside of Victoria where a woman could get a safe, legal abortion. The Cowichan Hospital had, and probably still has, an unwritten policy saying they won't provide abortion services. The hospital up-Island in Comox is a Catholic hospital. At least they have a written policy and say they won't provide abortions.
So we had a little group of men who adhered to the same beliefs as the members opposite, who took over the hospital board, and they decided for all of the women of Vancouver Island -- this is three men -- that there would be no abortions -- none. It didn't matter what the circumstances were. It didn't matter that they knew nothing whatsoever about an individual woman or her life or about an abusive relationship she might be in or the fact that she might have been raped or perhaps even that having a child would damage her irreparably. None of that mattered. They just shut it down because that's what they believe. And that was the biggest single fight I have ever been involved in, in 12 years in politics.
When I look south of the border, when I see what's happening in some other jurisdictions, and when I know what the beliefs of the members opposite are and I hear the member for Matsqui saying they're going to bring back hospital boards, I get very, very worried indeed.
Let's remember that until 1988, if a woman had an abortion without three
doctors -- probably male doctors, because that's what there was
We came into government with a commitment to the women of this province to stop the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement and to restore women's fundamental right to choose, and we have done that. We have done that by providing operating funds for the Elizabeth Bagshaw Women's Clinic and the Everywoman's Health Centre. I note a number of members opposite -- just across this House heckling -- have expressed their disgust that we would do that.
We've designated 33 hospitals, by regulation, to say that they've got to provide abortions. We've included abortions in the Health ministry's core services. We made sure that regional health boards can't be taken over by the kind of people who did that in Nanaimo. And incidentally, in the 30 days that
[ Page 17552 ]
policy was in place, which the anti-choice men put in place in Nanaimo, there were two women who came perilously close to killing themselves. It's not a laughing matter. It's not one to be taken lightly.
[1630]
So we said that's not okay in this time in our history and in this province.
That is simply unacceptable. So through a whole range of mechanisms, including
restoring the funding that was taken away by the free enterprisers of the day
and the things that I have put forward, as well as creating bubble zones, which
was objected to by many members opposite
But despite our best efforts, we have discovered that there is a 20 percent drop in the number of physicians who will provide these services, despite all of the efforts of this side of the House to try to ensure that women have that fundamental right of reproductive choice. It is their right, and we have tried with every means at our disposal to enshrine that right.
However, the anti-choice movement, which we know that some of the members
opposite -- not all of them, but a number of the members opposite
What happened was that those who are against women's right to choose have moved out of this assembly, where the members opposite don't want to talk about it, into something even less acceptable than what I've seen before. That is that we have seen harassment of women, harassment of clinic staff, harassment of doctors to the point that we had to put in legislation to protect them. And we've even seen, twice now, somebody who was a provider of legal abortion services shot. So surprise, surprise. There is now a 20 percent reduction in the number of physicians who are providing these legal services for women -- a 20 percent reduction. That is very significant.
We heard Dr. Mary Conley, who's an incredibly courageous physician. She stood up just recently and said that she's getting people from all parts of British Columbia. Well, that speaks to the fact that you can't get those services. This is still not a freely available service for women. There are all sorts of agendas at work out there that are preventing women from having legitimate, safe abortion services.
What we're doing here today is taking steps to restore the status quo, to restore women's right to choose where that right is eroding. The members opposite say that they will not stand in the way, that they will continue abortion services should they be elected government. But I have to tell you that I'm having a lot of trouble believing that, and let me just say why. We have a letter written in 1998, I think, by the member from Whistler, talking about meetings the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition caucus had had arranged by their member from Langley, I believe. Let me get the riding correct, because I know there's one member from Langley that didn't agree with this.
The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I understand, arranged that meeting for the Liberal caucus between some of the most rabid anti-choice interests in British Columbia and the Liberal caucus. Then they didn't tell the truth about that meeting. They tried to hide it. We've seen a significant number of those members run for the doors or stay away or even vote against issues. I'm not sure if they actually voted against abortion issues but certainly against those issues they would call moral issues.
[1635]
So we've seen that opposition in this House. We know that a number of members on the other side hold religious views, and I respect that. I'm not criticizing them for that. But they personally hold religious views that say that abortion is wrong. I don't have any problem with that. As I say, I respect that absolutely. It is their right to choose that position. But they would also like to stop women from having that same choice in their lives.
We heard the member for Matsqui on a radio show -- I think it was CKNW, but
I'm not sure -- suggest that the B.C. Liberals would bring back hospital boards,
those little private enclaves that were so effective in shutting down abortion
services for women. And today we hear the member for Vancouver-Quilchena say
that it's not a political issue, and they won't debate it. We have the Leader of
the Opposition, who at least had the courage to say that he opposed some of the
things we're doing today to stabilize the status quo and protect women's right
to choose
We also see a lineup of the Socred candidates who stood in this chamber and supported Bill Vander Zalm when he went on a rampage against the decriminalization of women's right to choose and of abortion services. And they supported him. For example, Graham Bruce is running in Cowichan-Ladysmith. And he said in the Vancouver Sun on Friday, February 12, 1988, that he agreed with everything his government was doing, which was to cut all funding for abortions. He's quoted as saying: "I am not happy with the Supreme Court decision." That was the decision to decriminalize abortion.
Now he and three others who sat here and denied women their right to choose and who supported Bill Vander Zalm are running again with B.C. Liberals, along with a whole host of former Socred candidates such as Gillian Trumper, Susan Brice and a whole range of others. How in the world can women have confidence that they would have the right to choose if these people were here today? Oh, and Stan Hagen is also running. He announced in the throne speech that they'll provide funding for day care -- which they don't even support on the opposite side of the House -- and increased adoption opportunities to address the ever-increasing number of abortions. That's their way of doing it. And Claude Richmond is running for the Liberals again. He says: "It's clear to me that the directive is that abortions cannot be funded. And that's why I need a real order from you. They can't fund them under GAIN Act."
So what we have is a whole range of people who were Social Credit, who are now Liberals. They back the Liberals;
[ Page 17553 ]
they're running for the Liberals. And they shut down women's right to choose. Now we have the Liberals saying that it's not an issue. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to debate it in the House. And the Leader of the Opposition is probably going to say: "Well, I don't want to say which parts of this motion that I'm against." Well, my God, women have every right to be concerned. If the predominantly male media and the members opposite think this is not an issue, well, guess again. It is an issue.
If the Liberals mean what they said and if this isn't simply another
opportunity to try to duck the issue, hide their agenda, walk down both sides of
the fence and flip-flop all over the place so that people don't know with
clarity what it is they're going to do, which is precisely what they've been
trying to do with phony allegation after phony allegation and every means you
could possibly dream of in this House
We are at a critical juncture here for women. It's not one that this government created, and it's not a game, as the opposition members and some others seem to think. This is a serious issue where women are in fact losing the right to choose. And we are in fact taking steps today to restore and protect that fundamental right on which women's equality is built.
I'm proud to stand and support this motion. I will be looking to the opposition to see if they mean what they say, and that is that they support the status quo, which is women having reproductive choice. The only way they can demonstrate that is by standing and voting for this motion. Anything else puts a lie to that statement.
[1640]
B. McKinnon: I feel very compelled to stand and speak to this issue, even though I don't agree with the government's tactics in bringing this motion forward. We all know that abortion is a federal issue and that it's also legal in this province. We have listened to different speakers, and there is no question that this issue has been brought forward this way for very political reasons. Both sides of this House want the women's vote, because women represent 52 percent of the vote. Both the government and the opposition want women to think they support them 100 percent. Yet it's amazing, hon. Speaker. When women come to the government for a transition house or more money to help them support their needs, we never find the money to support them. They are really basically ignored, and all of a sudden women are no longer important to them.
I don't believe that if the Liberals manage to form the next government, anything will really be any different, and we'll get the same old, same old as far as women are concerned. As far as the government is concerned, they could have done this for women a long time ago. It's the timing of this motion that is so suspect; it's a shameless game of politics that's being played here. I -- and I'm sure the people of this province -- detest the political cynicism that is happening in this Legislature since the House began to sit on March 14.
As a woman and as a representative of this Legislature, I have always supported choice. I believe that we cannot and should not make choices for others. I believe that every woman in this province has, and should have, the right to her own choices. I will support this motion for women's right to freedom of choice, and I believe the majority of my constituents believe that I should stand for freedom of choice, for these rights. Whenever this next election happens, we will all be judged by the people of our constituencies on the job that they think we have done for them, not on empty promises and misleading budgets that we have seen. This motion put before the House today is an example of a government out of control and out of touch with the people.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to close debate by saying, first and foremost, thank you so much to each and every one of my colleagues who courageously rose in this House to debate this very important issue. It has been a thoughtful debate, perhaps a little bit one-sided -- not necessarily figuratively, but literally -- and that causes me a little bit of concern. But I think we should focus on what exactly has occurred here today.
We have had a good, thorough debate, as legislators should, around a women's health issue. That's our job. Our job as legislators is to talk about what's best for the people of British Columbia. We may disagree. In the course of nine and a half years, there has been a range of healthy disagreement in this chamber. But this is an issue that deserves thorough examination and thorough debate.
[1645]
When we first came to the Legislature, we were joined by some colleagues who had already been here for a while, but many of us were new, on both sides of the House. At the time, in 1991, the services for women around reproductive choice were lacking. There was a call for change; there was a call for expansion. That call didn't come on the basis of ideology; it didn't come on the basis of dogma. It came on the basis of a health need. Women were saying to us -- I think they were saying it to legislators on both sides of the House: "You know what? Reproductive choice is a right in this province. It differs from province to province, and in this province resources are lacking in this area."
We listened, we learned, and we changed. We made sure that women had access to the full range of reproductive choice that was available at the time. We also expanded counselling. We expanded the information available. We changed our school curriculum to ensure that our young children understood what the issues were. And we continued to expand the choices available to women over the course of the decade of the nineties.
Things changed during the nineties. Around the issue of reproductive choice, things changed not only in Canada but in British Columbia as well. Health care providers providing abortion services in this province were at risk. They were unsafe; they needed help. They needed to have a safe, secure environment in which they could provide this health service to women. Our government listened and responded. We brought in a law, a very contentious law at the time. But you know what? It's now the model for providing safe and secure health services across the country. I don't think other legislatures have been as courageous as this one, and therefore health care providers are more at risk elsewhere in the country. But in British Columbia we led the way in that area.
I am so sorry and dismayed to say that even that law, which is called the bubble-zone law, hasn't been able to fully
[ Page 17554 ]
protect health care providers. They're at risk; they remain at risk. Sometimes the women who require these health services remain at risk. That's why we need to take further action in government today.
You know, hon. Speaker, teen pregnancy is an indicator of a woman having a lesser opportunity throughout her whole life. It statistically means that she will have fewer opportunities to get an education, to earn a good living and to support that child. That continues to be a problem in British Columbia, and it continues to be a problem all across Canada. But here in B.C. today we are proposing in this resolution that we provide greater education to children and to young people so we can prevent teen pregnancy, so women can have children and men can have children, so every single child is wanted. When that occurs, that gives the best start to any child's life. That's what this resolution is about.
The other issue, and the last one I'll address, is the issue of actual access. Is access to reproductive choice on the increase? Well, it was for a while in the nineties, when we funded freestanding clinics, when we expanded the services available, when we provided counselling to women in those clinics and when we made the clinics safe and secure.
Unfortunately, women who didn't have access to the freestanding clinics or our larger hospitals didn't have the same availability. Their health care rights weren't as well protected. So once again British Columbia led the way, under our government's leadership, and said: "What can we do to help women in rural and remote areas?" Well, there's the early contraceptive pill. It's not new technology, because that pill has been available for 30 years, but access to the pill needed to have a better approach.
[1650]
We talked with pharmacists. Pharmacists came to us and said: "You know, we have the ability to distribute this pill. We can provide counselling, and we can in a very thoughtful way make sure that women have as great access to what's called the morning-after pill or the early contraceptive pill, if you work with us." So British Columbia led the way again on that. But that lead has to be protected in law, and that's what this resolution is about.
Another advance in technology in ensuring a woman's right to access of all reproductive choice is around a pill called RU486. I'm using the old-fashioned term. We, under the leadership of this government, said to women in British Columbia: "This pill is not available in Canada, but we will do everything possible to speed along the availability of that pill here in British Columbia." And we offered the resources -- B.C.'s Women's Hospital, the services of Dr. Ellen Wiebe -- to lead a national trial in making that medical abortion procedure available to women in this province. That's what this resolution is about: to conclude that trial, to make sure that that and other similar medical abortion procedures are available to women throughout this province.
What that does -- by giving an alternative to women that can be basically administered in private, without the use of a hospital or an operating room -- is give women who live in rural remote areas the same access as those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the larger cities. That's what this resolution is about.
Finally, this resolution is about asking for the assistance of the federal government to change the Criminal Code to say that when physicians or health care providers' lives are threatened simply because they're providing a legal medical procedure, it is wrong and it's a hate crime. And that's what we're asking the federal government to do.
That's about the one point that is a federal issue. All the rest of these issues are issues that we can act upon, coming together in a collegial way on behalf of 52 percent of the population. We have the right, as duly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly, to respond to this health need for women.
I accept that this Legislature has a reputation across Canada for being controversial. We have a reputation, as British Columbians, for taking on the tough issues and being pretty partisan about those tough issues. We're often polarized around issues that involve our land. We're polarized sometimes about what aspects of our province grow and about how to stimulate our economy, but this is one area where we should not be polarized. This is about giving people the best start in life. This is so basic. All this is saying is that we have one of the best health care systems in the world and that this health care system, unlike some other health care systems around the world, treats women equally. We have a health care system that says: "Women should have equal opportunity and equal access to our health care system."
And you know what? It turns out that we're different from men. Our health care needs are different than men's, so we have to have a health care system that has a woman's focus to it. I must say to my colleague the Minister of Finance that I am dismayed at how the budget has not been celebrated as a budget that has made a huge commitment to women's health. Through you, hon. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for that.
In closing, I am pleased to have been able to sponsor this motion and to rise and really put this issue, once and for all for this mandate, on safe footing so that we can all come together, vote in favour of this resolution and begin to move forward collectively on these services so that women are better off -- but most importantly, our children are.
[1655]
The Speaker: That closes debate. I'll put the question.
[1700]
Motion 4 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 40 | ||
| Conroy | Zirnhelt | Doyle |
| Gillespie | Kwan | Waddell |
| Hammell | McGregor | Giesbrecht |
| Farnworth | Lovick | Petter |
| Mann Brewin | Pullinger | Randall |
| Sawicki | Priddy | Cashore |
| Orcherton | Stevenson | Robertson |
| MacPhail | Dosanjh | Bowbrick |
| Janssen | Evans | Ramsey |
| Smallwood | G. Wilson | Streifel |
| Miller | Sihota | Calendino |
| Walsh | Boone | G. Clark |
| Lali | Kasper | Goodacre |
| McKinnon | ||
[ Page 17555 ]
| NAYS -- 33 | ||
| Conroy | Whittred | Hansen |
| C. Clark | Campbell | Farrell-Collins |
| de Jong | Plant | Abbott |
| L. Reid | Neufeld | Coell |
| Chong | Sanders | Jarvis |
| Anderson | Nettleton | Penner |
| Weisgerber | Weisbeck | Nebbeling |
| Hogg | Hawkins | Coleman |
| Stephens | J. Reid | Krueger |
| Thorpe | Symons | van Dongen |
| Barisoff | J. Wilson | Roddick |
| Masi | ||
Tabling Documents
The Speaker: Before I recognize the Government House Leader, members, I'd like to present the following documents, which I meant to do earlier: the auditor general's report No. 4, 2000-01, "Management Consulting Engagements in Government"; the auditor general's report No. 5, 2000-01, "Monitoring Credit Unions and Trust Companies in British Columbia"; and the auditor general's report No. 6, 2000-01, "Report on Government Financial Accountability for the 1999-2000 Fiscal Year."
Hon. G. Janssen: As suggested by the Opposition House Leader earlier today, I call second reading of Bill 6.
ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
(second reading)
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be read a second time.
In addressing this bill, I recall back around 1992-93, when I was an articled law student. I had the occasion, as articled students quite often did at that time, to deal with situations where clients approached me because they had an older member of the family who was for some reason incapacitated.
At that time, the process for allowing a family to deal with this very personal situation, which can be extraordinarily difficult for a family, was very complex for the average person. It involved affidavits -- running around as an articled law student getting affidavits sworn by several doctors, if I recall correctly, as to the capacity of the person involved and, ultimately, a court application to have something called a committee appointed. That was under a piece of legislation called the Patients Property Act.
If it was complicated enough that people had to go to lawyers and the lawyers then turned around and either did the work themselves or delegated to articled law students, I think it was far too complex for the average family. There was far too much expense involved. So I'm really pleased that we've seen a change in a little under a decade or so in the way we allow people to deal with these situations.
[1705]
The Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act is the result of an ongoing process of consultation and review of how the new system of adult guardianship is working in British Columbia. More importantly, it reflects the contributions of many British Columbians about how this system can be improved. This bill eliminates provisions that have been found to be unnecessary. It provides clarity in areas that have proven confusing, and it fills in gaps that experience has shown us to exist, all the while preserving essential safeguards.
In addition, this bill and the regulations that will be developed in response to this bill implement the major recommendations of Dulcie McCallum's report, which was released last fall and recommended that specially trained notaries public be authorized to prepare representation agreements.
Members of this House will recall that the development of British Columbia's new adult guardianship legislation began more than a decade ago. An extensive community and government process led to the passage of four new statutes in 1993. Since then, the government and community have continued to work closely together developing regulations, building community response networks and producing public education materials and guidelines around adult guardianship.
In 1996 my colleague, who is currently the Minister of Employment and Investment, reviewed the legislation and along with Professor John Hogarth of the faculty of law at UBC recommended proclamation of selected parts of each statute. The proclamation occurred on February 28, 2000. British Columbians received the new legislation with enthusiasm and also with their eyes and ears open as to how it could be improved. They have let us know how it could be improved, and we've listened. As a result, when the amendments contained in this bill are passed, we will have an even better approach to dealing with substitute decision-making, as well as support and assistance for vulnerable adults in our communities.
The majority of amendments in this bill deal with the Adult Guardianship Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, the Representation Agreement Act and the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act. There are, as well, a number of minor and consequential amendments to the Patients Property Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Land Title Act, the Notaries Act and the Property Law Act.
The amendments to the Adult Guardianship Act affect part 3 of the act. Part 3 requires designated agencies to respond to allegations of abuse, neglect and self-neglect of adults in our communities. The changes in this bill are aimed at ensuring that designated agencies and others involved in supporting and assisting abused and neglected adults are able to carry out their duties and responsibilities without confusion and without unnecessary procedures that drain resources away from the important work that they're doing.
For instance, we're changing the notice requirements dealing with who must be informed about an application for support and assistance so that agencies can concentrate their efforts on finding and serving those people whose interests are truly affected. The amendments will also enact a clause to protect individuals acting on behalf of designated agencies from liability for errors made in good faith.
The Public Guardian and Trustee Act is receiving minor amendments to clarify such matters as the type of information and documents that the public guardian and trustee is authorized to request and the type of investments he can make. The Representation Agreement Act will receive the greatest number of amendments. Most of the amendments are technical in nature, clarifying or modifying already-existing features of the
[ Page 17556 ]
act. Examples include the amendments related to the appointment and removal of monitors, the process for amending and revoking agreements and the duties of representatives and monitors.
[1710]
Other amendments are aimed at simplifying certain provisions while preserving essential safeguards. The changes to the execution requirements of representation agreements, for instance, will result in a reduction in the number of certificates required to complete a typical representation agreement with general powers from six to two, the two that are critical to the success of the agreement. Still other amendments deal with minor gaps in the operation of the act, such as providing a process for a representative or monitor to resign and providing for a representative or monitor to be remunerated in appropriate circumstances.
An important area of change is in the definition of the authority that a representative can exercise. There has been some concern that the authority of a representative to deal with property may be different and possibly less comprehensive than if an enduring power of attorney was used. Although this concern is theoretical, we've introduced an amendment to make certain that the only difference between the authority given to a representative and that given to someone with power of attorney is what the adult making the agreement wants there to be.
We have also increased flexibility in what an adult can choose to have apply to his or her own agreement. For example, there are some provisions of the act which an adult can specify they do not wish to apply. Certain events that would normally cause the termination of an agreement -- for instance, a marriage separation -- can be overridden in the agreement itself.
Finally, as I mentioned previously, we're implementing the key recommendations of Dulcie McCallum's report. In addition to amendments paving the way for notaries public to offer their services to people wishing to make a representation agreement, we are amending the act to allow for a standard form to be prescribed for a representation agreement with general powers. While the use of this form will be optional, I expect that it will suit the needs of a great many British Columbians. It is my expectation that these changes will serve to increase accessibility to representation agreements, particularly for British Columbians of modest means.
To dwell for just a brief moment on the issue of notaries public being able to do representation agreements, this may be the most contentious part of this amendment. There are those who have difficulty with this. But I think it's important that the public have the right, as consumers, to make that kind of choice. There are clearly going to be circumstances where it's entirely appropriate, particularly where more complex agreements are being drafted, where people may want to consult lawyers. But in many cases, they may feel that it suits them just fine to consult a notary public. I have to emphasize, as well, that as a result of Dulcie McCallum's report, we are going to be implementing a training requirement for notaries who wish to practise in this area. In all likelihood, this isn't finalized, but I expect that it may be offered through the Justice Institute of British Columbia.
All the changes we're making have been carefully considered by many people in the community. Our objective has always been to ensure that representation agreements are accessible, that they're affordable and that they're of high quality. With the help of people in the community, I believe that we've achieved that objective.
I believe that my colleague, the Minister of Health, may speak to amendments to the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act, but with that, that's all I have to say on second reading of this bill, and I await the comments of others.
G. Plant: I wasn't clear from the last remarks of the Attorney General whether he expected the Minister of Health to be speaking at this point or at some later point. Clearly the Minister of Health will have to speak at some later point, I guess.
[1715]
The opposition voted for this legislation when it was first passed in 1993. Since then, it has been my observation that there are lots of people in British Columbia -- most of whom have worked as volunteers -- who have worked awfully hard over the last eight years to make the ideals and the ideas represented in the adult guardianship legislation a reality. It is apparent to me that they're still working, and I suspect that they're still going to have to continue to work. I, for one, want to applaud all of those individuals and say that I admire and respect their commitment. Surely they have been sorely tried and tested over the years as they have met with obstacles from the government in terms of bringing this legislation into force.
It looks as though we're making some progress here today. I'm sure that people listening to this debate who wanted to ask the question whether all of this could have been done before the bills were originally introduced in 1993 will just have to sit and wonder about that question. It seems to me that everything we did last year probably could have been done before these bills were introduced, and everything we're doing this year could have been done then too. If the work had been done properly the first time, we might well have been in a situation where, for four or five years, representation agreements, adult guardianship and those things might have been a reality in British Columbia instead of a promise.
But here we are. Because the people in the community are continuing to work hard, because groups in the community have identified issues that are important to them that they believe are not yet properly dealt with in the legislation, the government has come forward with another set of changes. We in the opposition certainly don't intend to stand in the way of any of that, and as we have consistently supported the principles of this legislation over the last eight years, we will continue to do so today.
There are some important principles at stake here -- certainly in the context, for example, of representation agreements. I have to say that I agree with the Attorney General when he says that the objectives of accessibility and affordability are important and would point out that any time legislatures are in the business of creating an entirely new legal instrument, they ought to do so carefully and thoughtfully and make sure that the public interest is fully protected. This is a bunch of legislation that takes a lot of steps to surround these basic principles with processes that are intended to ensure that the public who may use these processes has ample opportunity to take advice, to get consultation, to have representation, to protect itself from the decisions it makes and to make sure that it makes good decisions.
[ Page 17557 ]
This is, in many ways, like a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It's a series of discrete amendments in a set of statutes, each of which has its own discrete objective, as the Attorney General has, in part, outlined in his second reading speech. But the overall theme, the overarching theme, is the movement forward on this agenda of bringing into force the different sets of legislation that comprise the adult guardianship laws in British Columbia.
I hope we're making some progress here. I'm sure all those who have worked hard over the years to achieve their goals in respect of this legislation also hope that we're making some progress here. I am certain that we will see over the weeks and months to come whether or not these particular changes have the desired effect the Attorney General speaks of. I sometimes worry that some of the objectives here have become so surrounded by detail that we will not have achieved those goals of accessibility and affordability.
[1720]
When I look at some of the details of these amendments, I notice that they talk about subclauses and subparagraphs and that people can do this except they can't do that. It looks like a good lawyer's statute. I'm not sure whether it is good legislation for ordinary people. If we're lucky, the legislation won't be as important in the lives of people as the instruments and the decision-making processes that they facilitate. I certainly hope those will be accessible and affordable to ordinary British Columbians.
I think that pretty much covers what I wanted to say. I'm trying hard not to engage in a partisan discussion of the challenge this government seems to have in terms of getting its own legislation right. This is, after all, only the third or fourth or fifth time we are here amending bills that the government introduced in 1993. I guess I want very much to believe that on this occasion we are, in fact, making some progress, so I hope that is so. It is in that spirit that we in the opposition will be supporting this bill.
Hon. T. Stevenson: It's a pleasure for me to stand and speak on Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. As the opposition member knows, I've had a fair bit to do with this, going back to 1996. In 1993, of course, the legislation was indeed passed. It was very sensitive legislation and, I think, groundbreaking legislation at the time, but there needed to be some more work done on it.
So in 1996, prior to the proclamation of the legislation, I was asked to chair a committee and a review that was headed up by Prof. John Hogarth of the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia, to go extensively through the legislation and to report back as to what we felt would be possible to proclaim. That was about a yearlong piece of work, and in that time I met, I suppose, all of the players in this province around this issue and have thereby come to have a great deal of respect for them. These people would include the B.C. Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors, the Community Coalition for the Implementation of Adult Guardianship Legislation, the Representation Agreement Resource Centre, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Bankers Association , Credit Union Central, and many others.
Although there's really one direction, I suppose one might say, that all want to go in -- or one goal, if you like -- there are different roads that various groups feel are best to travel. So it was a very long task and undertaking, one during which I obviously learned a great deal. Then, of course, we did have the proclamation of pieces of the legislation, and now we're back again today with some amendments.
Basically these are amendments that have come about with reflection. I don't think it's so much a matter of them not being thought of at the time or being known at the time. Since the proclamation, feedback has been coming from various organizations and individuals about their feelings on the legislation after having worked with it for a period of time, and the government has felt that it's very important now to take this into consideration.
[1725]
Again, I want to acknowledge all of those who have had more input and have worked with this. This hasn't just been -- as the opposition suggests, it maybe should have been -- a one-shot deal. This has been an evolving process and a constant dialogue with the communities -- and not just one community but many communities. Through this evolutionary process, therefore, it has become important that we make an amendment at this time. And that may happen again. The next government may find over the next five years or ten years that amendments will be necessary as we work with this legislation and find out indeed how it works and how it best suits people and what some of the changes might be.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
One of the more important changes or larger changes, I suppose, at this time would be the inclusion of notaries. I think that has been coming forth ever since the legislation was proclaimed. I myself have spoken to a number of notaries public who have of course felt that they too could offer their services to people wishing to make representation agreements and not just those who are lawyers. And I agree with them, and I was very pleased to advocate on their behalf within government around this issue. I know that the notaries are aware of that.
That's one of the major changes that are coming forth now. As well, there's now going to be a standard form to be prescribed for representation agreements with general powers. This, again, is just to simplify, to make it easier for seniors or for any of those people who are affected or wanting to make representation agreements. So it's just kind of good sense. Again, it's not something that was immediately obvious to those of us that were charged with working on this initially. We didn't see it as quite as important at that time, but now we do. So the government, of course, is making that part of the change we're bringing forth now with these amendments.
I think this is basically all good news. I know from hearing the opposition speak that they also know this to be good news. They also know the process. I have gone through many discussions with them, as well, and they are very aware of all of the groups that have participated and also have a high respect for those groups. This is really good news for everyone. It's one of those win-win-wins.
With that, I'd just like to be sure to go on record as being in support of these amendments.
P. Priddy: I too am pleased, as others have been, to support the amendments to this legislation. I have spent the last 35 years of both my paid and unpaid life standing beside people with disabilities and standing beside their families. So
[ Page 17558 ]
this is a piece of legislation -- and the amendments that make it easier to carry out -- that is not only important to me as someone who represents Surrey-Newton but to me as it relates to many of the people I have worked with over the years.
I don't think any of us would want to bring back to the Legislature, any more than was absolutely necessary, a piece of legislation, but when we think about how disparate the groups are that came together over this piece of legislation -- seniors groups, groups that represented people with a physical disability, people who represented people who live with an intellectual or mental handicap -- the groups are huge and very different. As well, the issues that this piece of legislation deals with affect every single aspect of a human being's life, from their health to their right to marry, to how their economic resources are allocated, to who makes decisions about that, to their work and to their travel. I can't think of anything that covers greater portions of an individual's life.
[1730]
We do have to get it right, and as we carry out this piece of legislation, sometimes people say that there are ways that it could happen more smoothly. Consequently, I think it's important that we listen to that and that we do that.
I think it's important to note that this is legislation that supports people who may -- I say "may" -- be more likely to be vulnerable. I talked a moment ago about who those groups of people were. The amendments certainly make this legislation easier to use. They make it easier to access, less complicated, and in some cases may make it less expensive, as well, for someone to carry that out. We, of course, have a responsibility to monitor it to make sure that those goals of making it easier, less complicated and less expensive for people are indeed met.
One of the things that this legislation has done, along with the amendments that support it, that has never been done before -- certainly not in terms of working with people with disabilities -- is that it allows, supports and acknowledges the input from friends, families and support networks. Indeed, for the group of people that are affected by representation agreements, their response networks or support circles are the things that keep them safe in their lives. Those are the people that help make decisions, that check to make sure they're okay and, when they're not, have a responsibility to send up some warning signals about that.
But never before have we had legislation that says that it's important what someone's friend has to offer. It's important what someone else in a person's support network has to offer. It's important what parents and families think. It's not the only piece. It's not the overriding piece by any means, nor should it be. But it is given recognition, and we've never seen that happen before.
The other thing that this does is recognize that people have an ability. When representation agreements are done, there is a lot of work to decide what pieces a representation agreement should have in it. Maybe all it needs is a very small piece. Maybe it needs more pieces. But historically what we've done, at least with people with disabilities, is to say: "We think that you're incapable, and you're going to have to prove that you're capable before something can happen." Just for a moment, if I can, to illustrate the story, I'd like to tell you about my friend Elaine.
Elaine is 33 years old. She has Down's syndrome, and many people along the way have considered her incapable, including people at her schools. Her mom demanded that she be in regular classes, and the school didn't necessarily think that was a good idea. People have always begun from the position that she was not capable. Well, she lives in her own apartment. She travels to Korea on her own to see her dad when he's working over there. She learned to use the Internet and e-mail significantly before I did and is setting up her own site. And she is incredibly competent. What this legislation says is that we begin with the assumption that she's capable.
Pieces of the amendments make it easier for Elaine and people like her to have the support they need when it's needed but don't take away from them one single, solitary bit of the respect and skill that they have -- and make sure that they continue to have the right to use those skills and have support only in the areas where they need that.
With that said, I am pleased to support the amendments. I'm pleased that it will make representation agreements easier and more accessible for people. It will continue the education we've been doing with seniors and people with disabilities across the province, and it will support the fine work those groups have done in bringing this to us.
[1735]
Hon. G. Robertson: I rise today to speak to the Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, which is really a culmination of consultation and a review of how the new system is working here in British Columbia. I think that obviously this has been a long time coming. There's been a history going back into the early nineties, when representation agreements were introduced. The amendments certainly provide for clarity, as well as for streamlining the process. It fills in a lot of gaps and voids and also provides safeguards for those that need them most. With that, it's good.
The Representation Agreement Act implements the key recommendations of Dulcie McCallum's report, which I believe was introduced last fall. Under that, notaries will be able to offer their services to people wishing to make a representation agreement. Also, the standardization of the forms will provide some clarity and streamlining, which is excellent.
Most of the amendments to the Representation Agreement Act are technical in nature and, as I said, clarify and modify existing features of the act. Some of the examples would include the appointment and removal of monitors, the process for amending and revoking agreements and also the duties of representatives and monitors. Other amendments simplify certain provisions while preserving, I believe, essential safeguards. The changes to the execution requirements will reduce the number of certificates to complete a typical representation agreement with general powers from six to two -- the two that are critical to the success of this agreement.
Also, the increased flexibility in what an adult can choose to have apply to his or her own agreement is really important. One example might be that there are some provisions of the act where an adult can specify that they do not wish to have them apply. Certain events that would normally cause the termination of an agreement -- for instance, a marriage separation -- can be overridden in the agreement itself. So as I said, some of it is quite technical.
Another amendment is an amendment to the Notaries Act, which ensures the preparation of representation agreements within the scope of practice of notaries public. And other amendments ensure consistency between adult guard-
[ Page 17559 ]
ianship legislation and other governing legislation. I think it's timely, and it's extremely well thought out. It's the result of a lot of diligence in respect to surveying a broad diversity of representatives from communities throughout the province. The majority of the amendments were reviewed and approved by cabinet in a request for legislation in June of 2000. The remaining amendments were approved on September 6, 2000, as part of cabinet's consideration of the McCallum report.
The changes in this bill ensure that designated agencies and those that support neglected adults can carry on their duties with clarity and efficiency, and I think that's extremely important. With that, hon. Speaker, I support these amendments.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to support the Adult Guardianship Statutes
Amendment Act, 2001. It may be one of the Representation Agreement Act
[1740]
What this legislation does is to allow notaries public to be able to put those agreements in place for the people who need them. Most of the amendments of the representation agreement are technical in nature but nevertheless very important. It's important that we put them in place so that we can pass this legislation and then allow everybody who requires access to this legislation to have that access.
This legislation adds clarity. It streamlines, it fills in the gaps, and it really provides safeguards for people in this situation. Let me just give you some of the examples of what clarification or modification of the already existing features of the act will be achieved when we pass these amendments. Some of those examples include that the appointment and removal of monitors and the process for amending and revoking agreements are clarified. And the legislation outlines the duties of representatives and monitors.
Other amendments simplify certain provisions whilst at the same time preserving the essential safeguards. The changes to the execution requirements will actually reduce the number of certificates to complete a typical representation agreement, and the reduction of those certificates is from six to two -- the two that are critical to the success of the agreement.
There is an amendment that makes certain that there's no difference between the authority given to a representative and that given to someone with a power of attorney, unless the adult making the representation agreement wants to limit the authority of the representative.
Increased flexibility in what an adult can choose to have apply to his or her own agreement is also achieved in this amendment to the original Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, which is very good news. Let me just give you an example of how that could be achieved. While there are some provisions of the act that an adult can specify they do not wish to have applied, certain events that would normally cause the termination of an agreement -- for instance, a marriage separation -- can be overridden in the agreement itself.
So those are just some of the examples that the Representation Agreement Act will bring about through this legislation. That, I think, is very good news for people who will be requiring a representation agreement.
The changes in this very important legislation to the Adult Guardianship Act
will
Just to conclude on a few points as I support this at second reading
[1745]
Those are the strong points that I am particularly interested in. Of course, there are other changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act that are equally important. I hope that we all come forward and support this, because the changes in this bill ensure that the designated agencies for those that need support and for neglected adults can carry out their duties with their proper due.
So I'm very pleased to be able to rise today in the Legislature and support this statutes amendment act.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to rise and support this legislation. I want to talk a bit about the process, about how we get to what might be characterized as technical amendments. They are, nevertheless, significant to those people whose lives are difficult and for people who are trusted with the responsibility to look after people and make on their behalf a number of decisions that the individuals have requested them to make.
It may seem simple for us to stand here and make a few changes, but nothing
is simple. You can see the number of acts that we have to amend just to bring
about some simple changes to allow a streamlining, to allow notaries to do what
lawyers formerly had to do on behalf of people with respect to representation
agreements. It's never easy. It was years and years of work. We amended the
Adult Guardianship Act some years ago now, I believe it was, but we didn't get
it exactly right. As a result of the work that's been done by Dulcie McCallum,
who's well versed in how you administer legislation of this sort
Those individuals that want or need someone to look after them have rights. You have to be very careful to preserve those rights. But you also have to make it possible for other people, who want to take on the responsibility, to make decisions as directed by an adult that needs someone to look after
[ Page 17560 ]
their interests. Those individuals are accepting a responsibility, a societal responsibility. We're not going to do it by way of officials or anyone else who would work, say, for government or the state; it's really community members, friends, families and others that are prepared to take on this responsibility.
I think the years of work that have gone into this, the extensive
consultation with representatives of these adults and guardians' representatives
They might make mistakes. If they make a mistake and it's in good faith, they're not penalized for that. Certainly it encourages people to step up to the plate, to take responsibility on behalf of someone who is less fortunate than they are, certainly. So I'm pleased to stand and support this legislation.
However, I want to say a couple things about the fact that when we have an opportunity to speak for individuals who don't otherwise have a chance to look after their own interests, who aren't empowered, the opposition wouldn't stand and celebrate this. This is a small but significant achievement on behalf of people who need us to stand in this Legislature and speak for them. With those thoughts, I'm sure the Attorney General is interested in closing debate, but I'm pleased that we can support it on this side of the House.
[1750]
D. Lovick: I am also looking forward to the Attorney General's closing remarks. I'm sure he'll respond to a number of the points that have already been made. I think I would be remiss if I didn't say just a few words about this particular piece of legislation -- albeit it seems to be a very technical measure. After all, what we're looking at here is a statutes amendment act. It's not new legislation; rather, it's amending existing statutes.
Indeed, for those people who may be watching this matter on TV and think that the Legislature is a romantic and exciting place, here's an example of what the real work usually is about: frankly, things that on the face of it are rather dry and dull -- not any less important for saying that but still rather dry and dull. What we're looking at here is amending in effect three statutes. One is the Representation Agreement Act. The second is the Adult Guardianship Act. The third is the Public Guardian and Trustee Act.
I said that I would be remiss if I didn't stand up and say just a few words about this. Let me explain what I mean by that. Shortly after the election in 1991, whenever that might have been, I was invited to a conference at Malaspina University College to speak on our proposed legislation on adult guardianship and public trustees and all of those matters. I was, of course, given the appropriate notes, so I had some semblance of understanding. I went to the conference assuming that this would be just an absolutely easy matter and that everybody would say: "Isn't it wonderful? We're making these legislative amendments." But instead there was this huge concern expressed by the meeting -- a very legitimate concern -- that government was perhaps interfering in matters where it shouldn't. It was taking over roles that normally belonged to families, etc. I remember at the end of this seminar, thinking: well, this is an amazingly complex and complicated field.
I learned a great deal from that exercise, and I wanted to make one point as a result of that experience and what little I heard in the debate today. My friend the critic from Richmond-Steveston made the point, and in fairness, I don't think he was being unreasonable. He was simply wondering out loud whether indeed we couldn't have done this in 1993 -- whether we couldn't have taken care of it all.
But my sense, from my knowledge of this and from the concerns that families and people have about their parents and others who aren't capable of taking care of their own affairs, is that we did about as much as any government would rightfully dare to do. People had to be consulted, and they had to show us their concerns and the difficulties they encountered with the legislation.
Happily, the ombudsman's report from last year, I think, was a kind of reckoning, a kind of "Let's shine the spotlight on this legislative initiative and see where it could be improved." The measures we are introducing today are the result of that process of experience and analysis showing how we could make this legislation better. I, for one, am very pleased, especially by the fact that all of the various groups and organizations that have been involved have been completely consulted throughout this, and they're all hugely supportive of the measure. So that seems to me a good example of how legislation ought to be created and improved upon in this province. That's why I am so pleased to be standing here supporting it today.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: As has been referenced earlier, a very large number
of people around the province worked very, very hard to get to this point. I
think there was some reference earlier to
[1755]
I've done a reasonable number of introductions in this House over the last five years, and I've never given an introduction like I did the other day with the number of people who were here in the gallery for the introduction of this legislation. I can tell you that there are many members of this House who know of a woman named Margaret Birrell, who is the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. She is but one of the people who have worked so hard on this. When Margaret Birrell speaks, I think legislators tend to listen. She was among those who were pushing very, very hard to see this happen.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Yes, it's true that we have seen amendments on this before. And the question
arises: why couldn't this have all been taken care of in 1993? I guess it comes
down to the fact that this is legislation that affects a great many people in
this province, and we have often been criticized as a government
[ Page 17561 ]
An Hon. Member: When you were in high school.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The hon. member says when I was in high school. Not quite that long ago, but certainly I remember being involved in a non-profit organization in the early 1990s, and they were deeply involved in this already. So there was legislation in 1993; there have been amendments since then. These amendments come forth as a result of a very diligent and sincere attempt at consultation with all parties that may be affected by this.
With that, I'll move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 6, Adult Guardianship Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Janssen: I call private members' statements.
Private Members' Statements
KNOCK ON WOOD
E. Walsh: I rise today to speak about the importance of protecting the natural resources of British Columbia. I wish to focus my remarks on an issue of great importance not only to residents of East Kootenay but to all British Columbians. This is protecting our forests from the effect of privatizing public forest resources.
British Columbia is different from most other jurisdictions in the world. In fact, we boast, and proudly so, a record of having most of B.C.'s forest lands publicly owned. In fact, 95 percent of our forest resources are provincially or, if you will, publicly owned; 4 percent are in private interests; and 1 percent is federally owned. At the same time, forestry is still the biggest industry in British Columbia today. It's also the biggest industry in B.C. trade. It accounts for more than half of the value of all B.C. exports.
We need sustainable forest management that helps British Columbia maintain access to lumber markets worldwide, maintain the standard of living of its people and also to sustain the health of its forests.
It's for these reasons that I become very sad when I hear calls to privatize forests that are currently owned and managed by the province. Privatization enthusiasts claim that one of the biggest problems with state ownership of forests is that neither government nor private companies logging on Crown lands have any incentive to operate efficiently, to replant or to harvest prudently. These suggestions really do disappoint and sadden me.
I want to quote IWA-Canada economist Doug Smyth. He warns the people of British Columbia that the idea that privatizing timberlands will somehow magically transform B.C. log markets into efficient operating systems is na�ve, and that eventually the large timber trust will wind up owning most of the fibre and the major sawmilling companies will be restricted to conversion business. Given the vastly superior asset bases enjoyed by the large insurance companies, they will easily be in a position to outbid the lumber industry, and as private owners, the trust will be more interested in shipping raw logs to Japan, as they are now doing on the U.S. and the B.C. west coast.
[1800]
Those calls for privatization of publicly owned forest resources also call for the repeal of the Forest Practices Code, Forest Renewal B.C. and the Forest Renewal Act. And this is what they claim: that these have more to do with increasing the regulatory burden on the forest industry than enhancing the environment. They would suggest that the B.C. forestry industry is overregulated, making B.C. a high-cost province to operate in. This is based on the assumption that allowing B.C. forest companies access to more wood will increase profitability and jobs.
However, statistics show that costs rising from regulations are in fact only one of the lesser prices that forest companies pay. In fact, if we refer to the 1997 KPMG report, "The Financial State of the Forest Industry and Delivered Wood Cost Drivers," the actual cost increase to harvest wood in B.C. as a result of the Forest Practices Code and related factors was $12.22 per cubic metre. Streamlining the code, implemented in June 1998, was reported to reduce costs by $5 per cubic metre.
However, in 1997 lumber prices dropped dramatically. They bottomed out equally about $40 per cubic metre on average. Clearly profitability in the B.C. forest sector is much more dependent on commodity prices, rather than on regulatory costs. And indeed I'll say that the impact of price reductions over the year, on the bottom line of the producers, was more than three times greater than the impact of the Forest Practices Code.
Critics propose that putting forest lands into private land would solve current problems in the forest industry by providing greater security, greater flexibility, pride of ownership, certainty of return for investments. But you know, the current problems in the forest industry are shown to be overwhelmingly market-related. One, increases to commodities in Scandinavia, Asia and Latin America throughout the 1990s have led to a condition of oversupply. Two, in 1997 the Asian economy came crumbling down, and B.C. is still suffering from the lingering effects of this downturn. B.C. does far more trade with Asia -- in fact, we do about 42 percent of the Canadian total in trade -- than any other Canadian province. Because we do such a huge trade with Asia, B.C. acutely felt the downturn and the economic impact at the time. The lesson to be learned is that misplaced investments by B.C.'s forest companies, rather than ineffective management of public forests, are the cause for failure.
Putting more publicly owned forest resources into private hands is hardly the
solution, as this would not address the real underlying cause of these problems.
What that would do is contribute to the oversupply problem and push down the
lumber prices even further. As IWA-Canada economist Doug Smyth warns that timber
sale auctions
It is again disheartening when we hear the Leader of the Opposition in August 1995. When he was asked about privatization of public forest, to the Truck Logger Magazine he stated: "We own more forest land in B.C. than any other jurisdiction that anyone ever talks about. I think it's something we can look at, so I can't say it will never be done." And this was on a question about privatization of public forest lands."Timber sale auctions are more likely to create speculative bidding excesses that will drive up the cost of wood, much like a hot real estate market. The big losers will be small- and medium-sized businesses, which will be effectively shut out of the market. It was precisely this kind of speculative bidding that brought the forest sector in the U.S. northwest to near collapse in the early 1980s, requiring a massive bailout package from the U.S. Congress to save many companies."
[ Page 17562 ]
And a 1998 Binkley report suggests auctioning off much of the forest land
itself to private interests and using the billions of dollars raised to pay off
the provincial debt. I don't believe that that's in the best interests of this
province. In fact, hon. Speaker
[1805]
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
E. Walsh: I see my time has run out.
The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Shuswap.
G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's a pleasure to respond to the remarks of the member for Kootenay.
Certainly the portion of her remarks I agree with is around the importance of this industry. It's certainly very important to my riding of Shuswap and, I'm sure, to hers of Kootenay. It's the major employer in this province. It's the major source of revenue for this province. It's a major source of exports for this province. The forest industry and its continued health -- or its recovery of health -- is absolutely critical to this province.
There's no question about the range of challenges that we have today. It's a very broad range -- particularly market access, which the member didn't mention. The softwood lumber agreement is expiring in just a few days. On April 2 we may face a very horrendous challenge in terms of countervail and anti-dumping actions by the Americans. And those could have devastating effects on all of our communities in British Columbia.
What I don't agree with, hon. Speaker, is the straw man which the member is trying to create around privatization. I find it interesting that the only person in this House that I have ever heard advocate the privatization of B.C. forests sits in that seat over there; it's the member for North Coast, who, at the time he made that argument, was the Deputy Premier of this province. The member for North Coast was representing the then Premier of B.C. at the Northern Forest Products Association conference in the spring of 1999. I know he shocked the then Forests minister and others with his comments about Soviet-style forestry in the province. And he was the one that advocated the wholesale privatization of Crown forests in British Columbia.
For the member to try to create a bogeyman, a B.C. Liberal bogeyman, around
that, when it's her former Deputy Premier -- her former Premier -- who is the
only person that has articulated that view, I find extremely hypocritical. The
NDP themselves have been the sole proponents of the privatization of Crown
forests. Yet they are the ones that are now attempting to create in British
Columbia
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.
G. Abbott:
The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.
The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside rises.
S. Orcherton: It's my understanding that private members' statements traditionally have been interesting and informative and good discussions, but not partisan. I think the member opposite should take that in mind in terms of his comments. It's an opportunity for the member actually to speak, and I'm looking forward to hearing him do that.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. Perhaps you could all review standing order 25 in regard to private members' statements.
G. Abbott: I'd like the time that I lost in that rather less than informative interjection from the member for Victoria-Hillside to be added to my time to respond to the member's statement. I'm afraid the member has once again confirmed why he has not been invited into executive council here in British Columbia, with the kind of interjection that's offered there.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member, please
G. Abbott: Okay, let me continue, hon. Speaker, if I may.
The Speaker: On the private member's statement.
G. Abbott: It has been added? That's great, thank you.
This member wants to create a bogeyman that in fact the government themselves have created. Why did the Deputy Premier in Prince George come and say: "There's Soviet-style forestry in this province. We need to privatize the Crown forest"? I presume he believed it. I know it shocked the former Minister of Forests when he heard about it. But he's the one that created it, so I don't think the member ought to be imputing that motive to us, when in fact it was her former Premier who articulated the position around privatization.
Second, hon. Speaker, I know the government likes to create all kinds of bogeymen about B.C. Liberals, but we have not called for the repeal of the Forest Practices Code. We have rightly called for the streamlining of it, through a results-based Forest Practices Code. This government, when they brought in the code, said it was going to cost five bucks a cubic metre. In fact, it has cost 12 to 22 bucks a cubic metre. Clearly the debate here is not around standards. The standards will be maintained. The debate is around the most efficient and effective delivery of those standards. If the members over there don't think that we need to be more competitive in world markets, they are dreaming. They are absolutely dreaming if they don't understand the critical need to be competitive.
[1810]
If we look at the lessons that we should learn from Japan when that market
went into the tank
[ Page 17563 ]
election in British Columbia. I'm happy that the people of British Columbia understand the critical need to make our forest industry more healthy, more competitive, and I'm satisfied that the people of British Columbia will deliver a verdict on our forest industry and on this government's management of it.
The Speaker: In reply, the hon. member for Kootenay.
E. Walsh: I'm just amazed that the member opposite that's responding
to me doesn't take part in the debate during the regular day at the House duty,
but abuses the rules of the private member's statement. But that's up to him.
And he talks about the creation of bogeymen. Well, I suggest that member
opposite is the only creator of any bogeyman this province has ever seen. But
anyway, I did want to make one correction, because it did come up. The member
opposite did, in fact, state
But I just want to remind the member opposite that he is the Forests critic.
He did make some accusations here. He said that privatization is an intriguing
topic of debate. I'm certainly looking forward to seeing more evidence that it
can work in B.C. Then the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi states: "I've
always been a strong supporter of what happens on these lands being maybe an
example of how we should look at how we operate Crown land as well
I urge all members of this House, including my honourable colleagues opposite, to heed the dangers of privatizing our publicly owned forest resources. Protecting our forests is a responsibility that we all have to take seriously. British Columbians have worked very hard to build up a record of sustainable forest management, and that will allow British Columbians all over the province to maintain and access lumber markets worldwide.
I did want to end by saying that I'd like to thank IWA-Canada for the information that they provided for me in my research. I'd also like to thank them for the diligent work they are doing right now in ensuring that the publicly owned forest lands remain publicly owned by the people of British Columbia and not by some private interests or even some other interests in the United States, that we don't have to deal with the environmental issues and concerns that they do in the United States right now, and with those people who do fund other problematic areas in the forest industry. So, again, I want to thank those people who have supported us and the workers of this province, because the workers of the province rely on the publicly owned forest lands. They rely on these resources to be regenerated, and we rely on them for our future.
Thank you again, hon. Speaker, and I would again urge the members opposite to battle against the privatization of any forest lands in this province.
The Speaker: For the second private member's statement, I'd like to recognize the hon. member for Delta South.
LEADERSHIP
V. Roddick: As we witness the end of this thirty-sixth parliament of British Columbia, it's a natural time to ponder the role of leadership in our public life. There are lessons to be learned from world history, from inspirational works and even from examples shown in this hallowed chamber.
There are many traits that comprise true leadership and many ways to manifest it, but certain basic elements must be present: strength, character, competence, resilience, duty, honesty, tenacity, grace -- and a sense of humour certainly also helps. Leadership does not blossom out of weakness; it emerges from strength -- strength to recognize the need for quick, tough decisions, strength to make them and strength to live by the consequences of those actions.
Strength does not come from size or weaponry or force. The basic principle, for instance, of judo is not to be stronger than your opponent; it is to redirect your opponent's strength away so it cannot hurt you. Remember the image of Mahatma Gandhi, who changed the history of an entire subcontinent by gentle, passive resistance to injustice.
[1815]
Leadership implies power over others, but true leaders use this power judiciously. The best leaders acknowledge their power with humility and respect and understand their duty to use power to serve others. The might-is-right concept ultimately failed in great civilizations, because its strength was external, imposed on people and not accepted by them at heart.
It also fails in this chamber when a small minority acts with absolute authority, when Premiers exploit their positions to advance their agendas without respecting the other members in the House or, more importantly, the citizens they represent.
At the same time, effective leaders must be able to not just choose sides but to bring those sides together. It is the ability to rise above partisanship and embrace all people and all points of view and make room for them at the table. Empowering others does not detract from a leader's power; it expands it. This is one area where this Legislative Assembly has shown, in school-report-card language, room for improvement. Too often party politics becomes the politics of exclusion, when really the only enemies are ignorance, waste and loss of human initiative.
True leaders also respect the unique role that each member of the group assumes. An orchestra cannot play together without a conductor. So a leader must give every member his or her due for their individual talents while drawing out a single, harmonious sound. We have all heard, for instance, the safety messages on board aircraft, directing those of us responsible for children or other people requiring assistance. The instruction is clear: in an emergency, when the oxygen masks drop, we are told to place our masks on first, then to assist others. This is not selfishness; this is common sense. We are of no use to others when we cut off our own air supply. So it is with leaders. They must preserve their own source of strength and not hesitate to use it judiciously.
Good leadership understands the difference between command and management. When Noah heard the weather forecast and ordered the building of the ark, that was leadership. When he made sure that the elephants didn't see what the rabbits were up to, that was management. Bad leadership
[ Page 17564 ]
feeds on fear. The recent destruction of ancient precious statues of Buddha in Afghanistan by Taliban rebels was an act of fear and cowardice toward ideas not shared by their narrow reality. The beautiful irony of this destruction is that in fact it supports a basic Buddhist belief that all physical things are destined to decay, but universal truths are eternal and cannot be destroyed.
Sometimes leadership demands instant, assertive action. During World War II the late Canadian Lt.-Col. Cecil Merritt won the Victoria Cross for his astonishing courage in immediately taking charge when his superior lost control. By acting from the gut and the heart, without mulling the options, which surely would have led to his death and the death of his fellow soldiers, he bravely led his troop across a bridge strafed by enemy fire.
Leaders must also know when to wait, without the fear of appearing weak or indecisive. They must have the flexibility to change with changing circumstances without abandoning basic principles. After all, a bend in the road is not the end of the road, unless, of course, you fail to make that turn.
[1820]
Leadership also requires vision, the ability to stay focused on the larger goal and to not be buffeted by waves of doubt or insecurity. This tenacity to endure against the vagaries of time and circumstances is an important trademark of leadership.
The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside.
S. Orcherton: Let me thank the member opposite for her comments as well. She's obviously put a considerable amount of time and thought into her presentation this evening.
As she mentioned, there's no question that leadership is something that communities all around the world strive for, to encourage people to get involved in leadership, to encourage young people to move into those roles and to ensure that they have the tools, the grounding and the experience necessary to move into leadership roles. At the end of the day, young people in British Columbia are our future.
There were some comments about the argument about a road and moving down a road and ensuring that you have the capacity to be able to make turns or to move straight on a course. I think that's a very good analogy. In many respects the leadership questions that'll be dealt with in the coming weeks and perhaps months in British Columbia are very much issues that can be equated with that road. It's a question of: do we carry on, on a course? Do we move to the left, or do we move to the right on that road, in terms of policy and those kinds of questions?
It's an interesting time. There's no question about that. It's an interesting time for the people of British Columbia, certainly in terms of their ability to be able to look at our circumstance here in the Legislature, going to an election in the near future. What are the choices in front of them in terms of leadership? What are their choices in terms of the future that they're looking for in British Columbia?
If there's one skill, I think -- an absolute skill -- that leaders require, it's the skill to be able to listen to alternative opinions, to be able to hear what people say even when you don't necessarily agree with the premise on which they're speaking. It's also to take that step to the next level -- that's to allow people to speak their minds, in private and in public, to be able to get up, even in this chamber, and say what they believe to be true, to engage in debate and discussion. Oftentimes in this chamber we don't agree on different directions on that road -- in which direction we should be going.
But I think the true measure of leadership is the capacity to ensure that no one that's working on your behalf and supporting you as you move through the tough choices and the challenges ahead is muzzled in terms of what they can say and what they can do and how they can participate and how they can join in a discussion and debate -- the great discussion and debate about leadership and the future and the choices that face, certainly in our instance, the people in British Columbia. I think that's a very important point.
The member talked about room for improvement. Well, I think there is room for improvement in this House. I know that we worked quite hard over the last year to try and come to some agreements. Unfortunately, we couldn't do that. There seemed to be too much polarization and too much animosity to be able to make some improvements in this House. But again, sometimes leadership is about compromise. It's about people being able to compromise in their positions to get to a better place, where people can discuss and debate and deal with issues.
The member talked about small minorities that have the capacity to rule with absolute authority. I've never seen that in a democracy; it's the majority members that rule with authority. They rule with compassion, with caring, with understanding, with the ability to compromise to reach the goals that we all want to achieve. But it's not in a democracy that I've ever seen -- a small minority ruling with absolute authority. So perhaps in the member's response she could tell me what she meant. I mean, maybe she was talking about dictatorships and those kinds of circumstances, but certainly that's not something we have in British Columbia or Canada or North America.
It has taken a long time and many, many leaders, and many choices have been made to get us to a point where we can elect people to represent us, where we can elect the leaders of political parties, where we still have a capacity -- I wish it were greater in some respects -- for independence and for other parties to get involved in the great discussion and debate that is so necessary for us in our province.
[1825]
I think I'll end by saying one more point, and then I'll close and hear the member's response. The question of leadership, for the people, is a question that requires the options to be put before them. It requires them to know that there are choices, that there are variances and different pathways and different turns on that road that the member spoke of. It is absolutely critical in a democracy that people stand up and say what they believe in, say what their principles are. And for people who do that, I have nothing but absolute respect, because that really is the true measure of leadership.
The Speaker: To reply, the hon. member for Delta South.
V. Roddick: Thank you for your comments. Competence measures what a leader does; character measures what a leader is. The current Leader of the Official Opposition -- at least, that's what he is for a little while longer -- has demon
[ Page 17565 ]
strated both competence and character and has gained the enduring trust of
our caucus. He has shown strength, action when it was required, patience
Interjection.
V. Roddick: I'm answering your question.
The Speaker: For the third private member's statement, the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson.
AT CROSS-PURPOSES
L. Boone: I just want to inform you that I will be following the rules of the House this time.
Last week the people of Prince George awoke to find that our community was in the national news. Unfortunately, it was not the sort of coverage that a community such as ours really relishes. It did not tell us about the fact that Prince George hockey fans have been voted the best fans in the WHL; it did not tell us that Prince George leads the way in the purchase of bookmarks for dry grad; it did not talk about the thousands of volunteers who've worked so hard in Prince George over the years. No, federal minister Hedy Fry smeared the reputation of my community, and therefore insulted all of its citizens, by stating that crosses were being burned on the lawns of Prince George.
That simply is not true. I want to repeat that for everyone: crosses are not being burned, have never been burned, on the lawns in Prince George. This unfortunate remark has taken the focus off the issue of racism and forced members of my community to defend the reputation of Prince George. We do so not because racism does not exist but because Prince George and many of its individuals are actively countering racism. The purpose of my statement today is not to inform you what we already know, that racism exists -- I think that's a given -- but rather to focus on what we have done and are doing to eliminate this most disturbing problem.
[1830]
I believe that the members opposite will acknowledge and take pride in the fact that British Columbia has taken a position of leadership in addressing the problem of racism and is working hard to prevent its occurrence. British Columbia is quite fortunate to be one of the most diverse and multicultural provinces in this country. In fact, cultural diversity is one of the province's greatest assets. Our government has been committed and remains committed to achieving our goal of eliminating racism in B.C. There is no place in this province or in Canada or in the world, for that matter, for discrimination, for prejudice, for hate.
There is, however, a place for inclusion, understanding and respect. Indeed I would argue that inclusion, understanding and respect for the religious, linguistic and cultural heritage of all people is necessary if we are to build a stronger and better British Columbia and therefore a stronger and better Canada.
I would like to take some time tonight to acknowledge and thank some of the groups and individuals in my riding and throughout the province that have made outstanding contributions to fight against racism. In 1997, Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who was then Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration, created the End Racism awards. The End Racism awards, presented annually by Multiculturalism B.C., are intended to recognize outstanding anti-racism initiatives. They provide excellent examples of effective strategies to eliminate racism that can be implemented in communities and sectors throughout British Columbia. Typically, eight awards are presented each year to outstanding groups and communities throughout the province.
I'm quite pleased to report to this Legislature -- and I hope that Hedy Fry gets this information as well -- that the community of Prince George has won End Racism awards three times in the past five years. Let's repeat that: three times in the past five years. In 1997 the Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society of Prince George won an End Racism award for their youth drama group. This group has been visiting local elementary schools performing a skit with an anti-racism theme. Following the production the actors talk to the students about racism. This presentation has proven to be an effective tool in initiating a dialogue on the issue of racism and its effect on victims' lives. This group has performed for community events and is well received by both adults and youth.
In 1998 the College of New Caledonia won an End Racism award for its diversity initiatives project. Melba Holm, dean of health sciences at the college, was instrumental in developing this program. The goal of the diversity initiatives project was to initiate actions that would lead to improvement in the college's services, practices and policies promoting greater inclusion, cross-cultural understanding and a sense of belonging.
This year in fact I ran into some members of this society on the plane going home, just prior to the unfortunate remark by Hedy Fry. The Multicultural Heritage Society and the intercultural committee of the city of Prince George won the 2001 End Racism award for creating community awareness of hate activities in Prince George. I find it rather ironic, hon. Speaker, that this award should be received just days before the federal minister makes her remark about our community. This award highlights how a community came together to respond to a specific incident. Activities included forming a task force on hate activities, developing guidelines and recommendations for city council and proclaiming Prince George as a hate activities-free zone on July 1, 2000.
I would like to state for this record how pleased I am that our community has been recognized three times in the past five years for being a leader in the fight against racism. I would like to state that I am proud to live in, work in and represent the city of Prince George, a community that is hard-working and is working hard to promote tolerance and acceptance.
Moving on a little, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the important programs and services that
[ Page 17566 ]
this government has instituted to help end the occurrence of racism in the province. In 1996 then Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh set up a provincial hate crime team to prevent and prosecute crimes motivated by hate. The B.C. anti-racism and multicultural program was launched in 1997. The BCAMP -- that is an acronym for the group that I just spoke about -- is a funding program that helps non-profit organizations.
[1835]
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
To respond, the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.
P. Nettleton: I'm pleased to address the comments of the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. The outgoing member for Prince George-Mount Robson has always been kind and courteous not only to me, whenever our paths have crossed, but to my family as well, and for that I thank her. I extend to her all the best in the future -- and I sincerely mean that.
The unfortunate charge of cross-burning -- actually, the lack of it -- in Prince George: we're all familiar with this story and the ensuing public uproar, so I'll confine my comments to what I know about Prince George and the area as a resident and a representative of Prince George-Omineca.
Let me tell you that this part of our province -- for those of you that haven't been there or aren't as familiar with it as perhaps we are -- is a diverse region with first nations, Indo-Canadians, Asians and people of many different ethnicities. Together these individuals from all manner of backgrounds and all different walks of life make up a vibrant cultural mosaic of people -- on the job, on sporting teams, as part of community organizations, and yes, hon. Speaker, in the schools as well. These individuals are getting along and working together, such as in the intercultural committee and Multicultural Heritage Society, and in Vanderhoof on the diversity committee, of which I am a member.
Simply put, we know that the situation in Prince George is not the way it has been described. We know that by and large people in Prince George are tolerant and respectful. We know that by and large they are caring and thoughtful in their treatment of other people and that they expect and receive the same treatment in return. So if we can see this racism issue in a positive light, let me say it's clearly shown us just how committed the people of Prince George and the surrounding areas are to respecting other people, accepting their beliefs, promoting, even celebrating, their varied backgrounds, their beliefs and their histories.
This progress will continue, expand and flourish. I look forward to it. We all look forward to it. They're taking the time to understand each others' different beliefs and practices; accepting, not judging, one another; understanding, not denigrating; giving each other a hand up, not putting others down.
I know these people, like me, are proud to call this region and this province their home, and I know they must have been surprised to learn that their community was considered a hotbed of racism. This allegation doesn't explain -- as the member pointed out earlier -- the city of Prince George receiving an anti-racism award from this government. This allegation must be an affront to the dedicated efforts of many individuals that on their own time volunteer to promote tolerance and respect in Prince George.
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
To reply, the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson.
L. Boone: As you can see, both the member from Omineca and myself, we Prince George people, do follow the rules, and that's the sort of thing we do promote: this sort of congeniality, hon. Speaker.
In closing, I must state for the record that racism is no more prevalent in the community of Prince George than in any community in this province or even in this country. I also must reiterate that I am deeply proud of what my community has done in the past few years to foster the values of diversity, tolerance and respect. While things are not perfect in the community of Prince George -- and I think we can recognize that -- they are certainly getting better. Regrettably, racism still exists in the province and in Canada. It would be na�ve to pretend otherwise. However, instead of focusing solely on the negative, we should take some time to appreciate the positive.
[1840]
We should be proud of what our people, our communities and our government have done to stamp out racism in our province. We should celebrate our award winners, congratulate and thank volunteers and be proud of those British Columbians who have chosen to fight racism in our province. We must not, however, rest on our laurels. We must continue to work towards the elimination of racism in our homes, in our schools, in our communities and in our province. We must continue to provide support through public programs that are aimed at preventing the plague of racism in British Columbia.
I believe that the members opposite and everyone in this Legislature today will agree that preventing racism is a noble goal, a worthy goal and a goal that is worth preserving.
CLEARING THE AIR, PART 2:
BEYOND THE SUMAS POWER PROJECT
B. Penner: Tonight I plan to address a topic of considerable concern in the Fraser Valley. It deals with the proposed Sumas Energy 2 Inc. power plant, which would be located just south of Abbotsford, across the international border. I propose to review a little bit of the background, to talk about the current status and then, hopefully, if time permits, to talk about the future and other threats to air quality in the lower mainland.
As many members here will recall, we first learned about this proposal about two years ago, when the official opposition first asked some questions here in the House. At the time, it was just a tentative proposal, but by last year, things had firmed up considerably, and a specific application had been made to Washington State's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, or EFSEC for short.
We on the opposition side, the B.C. Liberals, asked the current government to seek intervener status in Washington State. Unfortunately that did not occur. I do acknowledge that belatedly the former Environment minister, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, was good enough to attend one of the final public hearings in Washington State and make a public address. I think that that did have a significant impact on the EFSEC panel. I thank her for making that effort even though the government did not seek intervener status.
What's happened since then is an absolutely remarkable amount of public reaction to this issue. I haven't been
[ Page 17567 ]
involved in public life for all that long, but Mayor George Ferguson of Abbotsford certainly has. I think he's been in elected office for about three decades or more, and he says without hesitation that this is the single biggest public issue to arise in his tenure. I think that speaks volumes about what kind of public reaction there's been around this threat to our air quality.
I'd just like to address some of the specifics again for those people who may not be as familiar about what SE2 entails for the lower mainland and the eastern Fraser Valley. According to the draft environmental impact statement prepared for this project, emissions would amount to about three tonnes per day, including the following: nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde and lead. One doesn't have to use a whole lot of imagination to realize that three tonnes per day, day in and day out, could have some very detrimental impact, particularly in those days in the summer when we have an inversion in the Fraser Valley.
The point that all of us were trying to make in getting the attention of Washington State regulators was that we do have some unique geography and weather patterns in the Fraser Valley. Specifically, we frequently have prevailing southwesterly winds, and when that combines with an inversion, pollutants move up into the Fraser Valley, and because of the mountains located on either side of the valley, those pollutants don't have an easy time dispersing harmlessly. In fact, quite the opposite occurs.
I just found this report the other day in the library. It's entitled "Clouds of Change," the final report of the city of Vancouver task force on atmospheric change, which was commissioned by the current Leader of the Official Opposition while he was still mayor of Vancouver, in June of 1990. That report notes that ozone concentrations, for example, in Chilliwack and Abbotsford often exceed Vancouver's. This was 11 years ago. So the problem was already clearly identified as a major issue, and awareness was there, at least to this level, that people in the eastern part of the Fraser Valley often suffer worse air quality conditions than people actually living in urban Vancouver. That's because of the climate and geography factors that I mentioned earlier.
Anyway, I'm happy to report -- and many people will have already heard -- that the EFSEC panel heard our message loud and clear from the thousands of citizens who sent letters or e-mails or, indeed, the 30,000 or so people who signed the petition that was prepared by my office and my colleague from Abbotsford, the MLA for that area.
[1845]
Much to some people's surprise, EFSEC unanimously recommended against the SE2
proposal going ahead. However, the bad news is: that's not the end of the
matter. As we speak
So it's very crucial right now -- what's happening in Washington State. Ultimately, Governor Locke of that state will have the final say, but EFSEC's ultimate recommendation will be quite influential. More needs to be done, frankly, in Washington State in communicating our concerns to individual legislators in Olympia. To that end, again, my colleague from Abbotsford and myself travelled to Olympia on the day of the earthquake, along with some representatives from the Abbotsford business community, to press our point home. I know that lobbying efforts are underway. There is a plan that's being developed by people in the Fraser Valley to try and individually get our message across to key legislators in Olympia in order to make it easier for Governor Gary Locke to say no to SE2.
There's no secret that there's an electricity shortage on the west coast of North America. Frankly, I don't think British Columbia is going to be immune from that for much longer, given our low snowpack this year. We all need to work in concert to alleviate this concern.
I'll take my seat and hear what the member for Mission-Kent has to say in reply. I'll conclude by talking about future threats and what we can do about them as they come forward.
D. Streifel: I'll start my response by just bringing the House's attention to the member for Chilliwack. There is no question that this member has been on this file, although in my opinion, belatedly. He's been on this file very diligently this past year or so.
The opposition to SE2 began with the Minister of Environment from the provincial government, the member for Kamloops, when the Liberal lobby group, frankly, from the Fraser Valley came forward and asked permission to export water from the Fraser Valley aquifer to Sumas to cool the cooling stacks in this SE2 project. We said no then, and we have consistently as a government -- and in the intervening time, the successive Environment ministers for this government have -- said no to this project.
In fact, the member himself knows full well that the B.C. Ministry of Environment coordinated the analysis of the environmental impact of the SE2 project on B.C. It coordinated on behalf of, and provided the technical and administrative backup and the ammunition for, local government, the regional districts, citizens' groups and, yes, even Environment Canada to fight the SE2 project. The resulting report, released by the minister at the time, has been recognized and acknowledged as one of the best, most comprehensive reports of its kind by none other than Allen Fiksdal, who is the coordinator of the EFSEC process. So for this member to suggest that this government has done little or nothing on this project right from the beginning is erroneous in the highest degree.
I want to put on the record what the discussion is in the community around independent power production. Sumas 2 is an independent power producer. We have members of the opposition running around the province saying things like: "Therefore, we will encourage independent power producers and look at them as allies rather than competitors." We have that from the members for Langley, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and Vancouver-Little Mountain. We have that from each and every successive member. When they move out of the Fraser Valley, they talk about the introduction and the support for independent power producers -- read: SE2.
The opposition to SE2 by the Liberal opposition is, I believe, centred at no more than they want to install and build
[ Page 17568 ]
those independent power processing facilities in British Columbia. In fact, six months ago the city of Sumas administrator, David Davidson, was invited to the Fraser Valley regional district water commission for a meeting to discuss the tapping of water from Harrison Lake to export to Sumas, Washington, to cool the power-producing stations there -- not just this one. But it would benefit the other five to ten projects that are in the stream for the corridor from Sumas, Washington, to the Birch Bay area to Cherry Point.
[1850]
I expect that the member will stand on his feet and deny that there is an agenda by his caucus colleagues to foist on the province numbers of independent power producers to quench the thirst for power and electricity that exists in the west coast of British Columbia. I challenge the member opposite to write to his local papers and communicate with his constituents. The agenda that you'll find in the policies projected by the Liberal opposition, who hope to be government, addresses independent power production and the referral of power costs to the Utilities Commission -- as it has been in other areas -- and explains the relationship they have with independent power producers and the contributors to their election coffers.
I think it's hypocrisy in the extreme to stand so strongly opposed to a
project in the United States while at the same time promoting those projects in
British Columbia. If we really want to look at our airshed
I see that my red light's on. I'll wait for the response and explanation from the member for Chilliwack.
B. Penner: I'm trying to keep this on a higher plane. It's difficult to do that when you're dealing with the member for Mission-Kent. However, I'll just take note that it was this government that, unfortunately, approved a much dirtier plan -- in fact, it's ten times dirtier than SE2 -- on Vancouver Island. It's been located in Campbell River. Now, the B.C. Liberal official opposition issued a news release last fall condemning the government for doing that. That certainly wouldn't have happened under a B.C. Liberal government. We would have insisted on better technology than that, so it would not have been ten times dirtier. That's what this government has just approved.
If we're talking about the NDP's record, why is it, then, if they're really concerned about air quality in the Fraser Valley, that they are allowing -- in fact, ordering -- B.C. Hydro to run Burrard Thermal at record levels in order to prop up their faulty budget? According to FOI documents or, actually, leaked documents that were given to us by somebody at B.C. Hydro, the NDP government has directed B.C. Hydro to run Burrard Thermal at levels 28 percent above any previous record levels -- so much for concern about air quality.
And what about the Keogh plant on northern Vancouver Island? That's a dirty plant. It's diesel. B.C. Hydro themselves asked for it to be shut down, and yet this government has ordered that it run, even though B.C. Hydro would prefer to close it down. It's a diesel-generated plant, much dirtier than it should be.
S. Orcherton: On the same issue again, on the partisan statements at
private members'
The Speaker: I think the hon. member for Chilliwack is about to wrap up anyway.
B. Penner: As I indicated, I felt the need to reply to the questions put by Mission-Kent.
As to where we go in the future, obviously we have to lead by example in British Columbia, and that to me would mean not ordering Burrard Thermal to run at record levels. Secondly, in terms of approaching cross-border concerns, I think we need to find a mechanism to deal with our airshed on a joint basis.
The international border really just exists on a map. The fact is that after SE2, there are already other proposals coming forward. SE2 still hasn't been finally decided upon, and already we've learned about the British Petroleum proposal for a 750-megawatt natural gas-fired plant at Cherry Point, just south of White Rock. And I'm proud to say that the member for Surrey-White Rock has taken a leadership role on this, being first out of the gate and calling on the current Environment minister to take action.
Late last week we heard that not only is there a 750-megawatt power plant proposed by BP for Cherry Point, but listen to this: there's a coal company that wants to build a coal- generated power plant at Cherry Point that would produce 249 megawatts of electricity. That company's owned by U.S. Electric Power, based in New York state. The message we have to send in a coordinated fashion is that this airshed cannot be allowed to get worse. Locating a natural gas plant here, much less a coal plant, is simply ludicrous, in my opinion.
[1855]
I will wait to see what kind of draft environmental impact statement comes forward and what kind of detailed projections of emissions. But I have to tell you that I'm very worried about what this means. Obviously this is not the end of the era. I mentioned earlier that there is an energy crisis in certain parts of North America, so we can expect more applications. This highlights the need for a strong ongoing relationship with our neighbour south of us so that we can deal with these things on a coordinated basis, because we all breathe the air in this airshed. It's not about us versus them; it's not about B.C. versus Washington State. It's about all of us, and we have to find a mechanism that we can use to build a relationship with our neighbours in Washington State so that these things don't happen in our airshed.
I'll look forward to working with you and other members who are interested in this matter in the days and weeks ahead.
The Speaker: Thank you member, and thank you to all the members tonight. That concludes the private members' statements.
Hon. G. Janssen: As usual, a scintillating debate here this evening. I'm sure that everybody was glued to the debate, and I thank the members for that.
Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada