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)
TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2001
Morning Sitting
Volume 22, Number 17
[ Page 17621 ]
The House met at 10:10 a.m.
Prayers.
S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery are some 50-plus representatives who are involved with Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine. Their names are Trudy Aldridge, Cathy Bannick, Amy Bishop, Ian Black, Ani Black, Maria Boorman, Marina Caroulias, Dr. John Cline, Rosalind Cook, Ed Cooper, Joy den Otter, Elizabeth Garwood, Randy Gomm, Arisin Graham, Christina Gray-Dreaper, George Grover, Jean Grover, Edith Gulland, Bonnie Hardy, Gabriele Hile, Gillian Hyperbaric, Lorna Hopkins, Delores Joyce, Elfriede Jurgenson, Betty King, Ed King, Steven Kleinman, Judy Kubrak, Michael Kubrak, Jack Lappin, Vera Lappin, Jean McKenzie, Ed McKenzie, Nora Morcos, Arden Murphy, Peter Nunn, Antoine Obert, Paul Price, Diane Roberts, Diane Robinson, Robert Robinson, Paul Rothe, Lani Royce, Louise Sawyer, Sandy Simpson, Don Taylor, David Tyson, Sig Williams, Rosemary Wright and Katy Young.
I'd ask the House to make these people welcome to these chambers. They are here to watch a very interesting debate this morning in this House.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Janssen: I call Bill M201 standing in the name of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.
INJURED WORKERS WAGE LOSS
CONTINUATION ACT
(second reading)
R. Kasper: I'd like to open my remarks and comments. In my nine and a half years as a member of the Legislature, this is truly one of the proudest moments -- to have a bill brought forward for debate.
Some ten years ago a government was elected, and one of the burning issues facing that government was the question of injured workers' rights in the province of British Columbia. As all of you know, through our work in our constituency offices, injured workers and the plight that they face on a daily basis in their dealings with the Workers Compensation Board are first and foremost in our dealings. Some of the most time-consuming casework involves injured workers and the problems that they face in their daily deliberations with the Workers Compensation Board.
During the first parliament in which I was elected, I rose and gave a private member's statement in regard to the problems that I had seen flowing through my office from injured workers who felt that they were not being treated fairly, injured workers who felt that there were undue delays and problems associated with their cases being heard in a fair, impartial manner.
Oh, I have to move second reading, I understand. Hon. Speaker, do I have to move second reading?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Yes, you may.
R. Kasper: So I'm just fine right now. Okay -- great.
Some of the issues that I'd raised were examples of arbitrary rulings and decisions by advocates, adjudicators actually in the employ of Workers Compensation, who had made their judgment calls -- and only their judgment calls -- that an injured worker was in fact no longer injured.
[1015]
Now, what impact does that have on an injured worker? Well, I'll tell you. Injured workers do not have the resources that the Workers Compensation Board has at their disposal. Injured workers do not have an army of thousands of employees who are working on their behalf. When they're faced with a ruling by an adjudicator or their manager, or an opinion by a medical doctor hired by the Workers Compensation Board, their benefits can be cut off. And the only way that those benefits can be reinstated is for that worker to go through a lengthy appeal process.
What this bill purports to do is to change that. The changes are necessary in order for that injured worker just to survive. When they have those benefits cut off based on an opinion by the Workers Compensation Board, not only do they have to put together their case for the appeal process -- be it a review board or a medical review panel -- but they have to survive. They have to eat up all of their resources that they've managed to save over their years of employment, deplete their RRSPs, drain their bank accounts, or unfortunately find themselves in a position where they have to receive assistance from another branch of government or the Crown.
WCB, an independent entity, is free to make these decisions under the statutes of the Workers Compensation Act, which has allowed them to carry on the way they do. Now, that's unfair. It's patently unfair, because that injured worker not only suffers financial hardship, but there's deep psychological impact. In many cases these workers feel threatened not only for their family but for their future. It all boils down to survival. It all boils down to: whose side are legislators on? Are they on the side of injured workers who suffer injustices, or are they on the side of WCB, their slothful bureaucracy that can run roughshod over those injured workers?
I want to tell you a little story. It was February 10 of this year, and I had the opportunity to attend a meeting in Kelowna. It's my understanding that all MLAs were invited. It was put on by a group of injured workers that have representation from across British Columbia, and they wanted to tell MLAs their story. Their story was this: they want accountability for the Workers Compensation Board. They want fairness; they want justice. They want the ability to get on with their lives in a fashion where they can hold their head up high, not one where they have to spend all of their time, all of their energy, just on survival. What they want is a system that recognizes that injured workers have rights. We as legislators have not only legal but moral obligations to ensure that those workers' rights are entrenched, or even further entrenched, in law.
[1020]
But there was a disappointment not only from the stories that I heard but by the mere fact that when the opposition was invited, they sent four members. I attended as an independent member. The sad story is that there was not one representative from the government side of the House. There was not one government MLA in attendance. There was not one represen-
[ Page 17622 ]
tative from the Workers Compensation Board. There was not one representative from the Ministry of Labour through the workers advocates.
My challenge, and I think the challenge of all of us, is: are we going to stand up for the rights of injured workers? Are we going ensure that their stories are addressed? To put it in context, as a former member from that side of the House, I thought that side of the House supported injured workers. I thought that side of the House stood up for ordinary working men and women. I was disappointed. Hon. Speaker, members, this House should all agree that we should set aside whatever political interests we have and ensure that we speak out strong and loud and clear on behalf of those that we purport to represent. Those are workers all across British Columbia, whether they carry a union card or they don't carry a union card, whether they're an injured worker or a non-injured worker. It's incumbent on all of us to give support when support is needed.
I think it's important, though, to just talk about some of the stories that I heard. There's a gentleman, John Watson, and he was a former Canadian Airlines baggage handler. He talked about his case and the problems that he'd had with WCB employees. He told a story about how he knew that former WCB employees had taken leave of their positions, sought early retirement and formed their own companies. They formed their own companies, and surprise, surprise. The same people who were making deliberations on this worker and other workers' cases and problems and medical history and determining their futures were the same former employees who formed companies that WCB hired as their hired guns to make rulings against those same workers in the private sector. Not only is it wrong, I think it's morally wrong.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Could I ask the member to just take a seat for a moment, please.
The hon. Minister of Finance rises.
Point of Order
Hon. P. Ramsey: I rise on a point of order. I had a chance to review the bill that the member is speaking to today. I want to make it clear that I do not rise to debate the merits of the bill that the member's put forward. In fact, I'm quite sympathetic to some of the issues that he raises. I think all members of this House have had constituents raising concerns about WCB.
However, hon. Speaker, I seek your guidance on an important matter. Standing order 67 for this House says: "It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."
[1025]
Clearly this is a private member's bill. It does not have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor attached, and I would say, equally clearly, that it does call for impost or tax, if not appropriation. Therefore I am asking for a ruling about whether this bill fits within the purview of the House. I believe it is contrary to the intent of standing order 67, and I would ask the Speaker to rule on that.
I do commit to the member that he has raised a serious issue here. This is an important matter. I commit that the government and the Minister of Labour will work with him on the issues he has raised.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister.
I recognize the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca on the point of order.
R. Kasper: I have, and I will submit as evidence, an excerpt from the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia "Orientation and Resource Guide," something which I received when I was first elected. I would like to read out the following: "Who pays for compensation?" The answer is: "Compensation in British Columbia is financed by employers through regular assessments and by WCB investment income. No public money is involved."
I would also like to note that I would further submit that on page 7 of the budget estimates, under "Taxpayer-supported Crown Corporations and Agencies," there is no mention of the Workers Compensation Board. It is not public funds. The Workers Compensation Board was set up under the Workers Compensation Act. The Workers Compensation Board operates wholly from contributions by employers. The fund is approximately $7.2 billion. The Workers Compensation Board has seen fit, just in the last year, to reimburse employers some $420 million, and I understand a further $300 million will be forthcoming this year.
I also note that in the same budget -- this year's budget document -- under the Ministry of Labour estimates, in regard to Workers Compensation review board and compensation advisory services, they are fully recovered from the accident fund established pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act, course fees, proceeds from the sale of manuals, etc., and that it is wholly funded from the amount of money that the Workers Compensation Board has in its fund.
I would also like to point out that the Workers Compensation Board is free to enact rules and regulations, in accordance with the act, with no interference or direct involvement by government other than what is provided for in the statute, which is the Workers Compensation Act.
So I would submit my piece as evidence to you, and I say with due respect, hon. Speaker, that you may find yourself in a position of either ruling against my bill or ruling against the budget.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader on the point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca makes a very good argument as to why, under two provisions of standing order 67, his bill is in order: that is -- and I think he makes a good case -- that there is no expenditure of the public revenue nor is there any imposition of a tax. I think he's made that point very effectively.
The question is whether or not his bill provides for an impost to be put upon
the people of British Columbia -- that they have to cough up money in order to
implement the provisions of this bill. I think that is questionable. I don't
think it is clear whether or not
[ Page 17623 ]
WCB is free to arrange its affairs as it sees fit, to allocate its revenues and its expenditures as it sees fit within the provisions of the act. I don't believe that the change to the act contemplated by the member necessarily imposes an additional charge. In fact, the Workers Compensation Board arranges its affairs all the time. The government gives it direction. The public gives input to WCB, employers give input to WCB, and WCB responds accordingly. At times they arrange their affairs differently.
[1030]
One example would be the smoking ban, which was a policy decision of the Workers Compensation Board. It does not necessarily charge an impost on the people of the province. WCB just arranges its people to do different procedures and arranges itself accordingly. In fact, the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board made a comment in the House a little over a week ago, on March 20, in response to a question from a member of the opposition. She said: "I'm surprised that a member of this House who is also a member of the bar is completely oblivious to the fact that WCB is an independent agency that is governed by a board of administrators."
It's true that this House does give some direction to WCB, but one can't necessarily infer that because they've given a direction, that incurs an impost. That is something we would have to hear from the WCB on. We know the Minister of Labour can't give us that advice, because she advised us previously that the WCB is completely at arm's length.
In fact, one could argue -- and I think the member made a point in his speech
-- that this change may well save government money. If injured workers are not
required to draw upon the services of other avenues of government -- welfare,
social services, other means
I think it is certainly not clear -- let me put it that way -- that this bill is out of order in any way, shape or form. It may well be out of order. I don't think we know that yet. I don't think we've heard from the Workers Compensation Board, and I think it would be very early intervention for the Minister of Finance to make that assertion at this point, not having the evidence to support his argument.
Second of all, I certainly think that having the bill pass through second reading -- or continue in the debate in second reading -- doesn't create that impost in and of itself. In fact, this bill could go to second reading; it could go to committee. We would have the time to determine whether or not this provision charged an impost on the people of the province. The minister not responsible, I guess, would have a chance to go out and speak to the Workers Compensation Board and determine whether or not that were the case. The WCB could make that representation to the House, and certainly in committee stage there would then be the opportunity to perhaps amend the bill so that it didn't do that which it may in fact do, and we could deal with it at that point.
If we find the bill did in fact impose an impost, then the bill could be
ruled out of order at that time. But given the fact that we don't know the
answer to that question -- we may have suspicions -- and that this does not
incur a charge upon the Crown or a tax, I don't think it's in the purview of the
Minister of Finance to stand up as a minister of the Crown and make the
assertion that there's an impost involved. He can certainly advise us whether or
not there's a tax or whether or not it requires a charge upon the Crown, but he
does not have the intelligence
I think that on some provisions -- let's say where it's an employment standards provision or the Environmental Assessment Act or a labour board or some other avenue of government -- we could rely upon the minister of the Crown to give advice to the House as to whether or not an impost was involved.
Given the arm's length of the Workers Compensation Board, it's pretty clear that no one in this House knows the answer to this question. And if we don't know the answer to this question, I think that it falls upon the Speaker to let the debate continue. If at a later date a minister of the Crown or any member of this House finds that information one way or the other, then the House can make a determination on order at that point in time.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance on the point of order.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't have a lot to add to what I said before. I will say this: on the face of it, the provision, the bill, is quite clear. I don't want to argue the merits of it. It is an interesting proposition. But what it says explicitly is that additional benefits to workers should be paid by the Workers Compensation Board in certain circumstances. This is an additional expense to be imposed upon the Workers Compensation Board if the Legislature passes this act.
[1035]
I submit, hon. Speaker, that prima facie, since the WCB has only one set of
revenue -- that is, levies on employers and employees -- of necessity the bill
requires an impost or tax. To look at rulings on similar matters in past
sessions
So with respect to the member, without talking to the merits of doing that or not, I think it is clear that this bill runs afoul of section 67 of our standing orders.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca on the point of order.
R. Kasper: Just to correct the Minister of Finance, the bill does not purport to pay additional benefits or new benefits. It's a continuation of existing benefits that the injured worker was in fact receiving. Hon. Speaker, I would also ask that while you make your deliberations, debate would in fact continue as there would be no imposition on the Crown if a debate were to continue.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.
[ Page 17624 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to lend my support to the last argument made by the member down the way. It is unclear, even from the bill, whether or not this is a new benefit or a continuation of existing benefits. We don't know whether or not this will cost more, and there's no way anyone in this House can. Until we have that information from the Workers Compensation Board, we don't know whether or not there's an impost here at all.
The Speaker: I want to thank all the members for their input into this point of order. There are strong arguments on both sides of this question. I think everyone is in agreement on the merits of this bill. However, having considered the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance with respect to Bill M201, Injured Workers Wage Loss Continuation Act, I have considered the points raised by the member and the Opposition House Leader.
The key question is whether the bill would result in an impost. If it did so, it would require a recommendation to the House by a message of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor under standing order 67. In my opinion, the bill does create an impost in that funding by the Workers Compensation Board is ultimately derived from contributions whether by employers or by employees. So I would refer all hon. members to the decision of Speaker Whittaker in the Journals of this House, November 28, 1939, at page 77.
Hon. G. Janssen: I now call second reading of Bill M202 standing in the name of the member for Victoria-Hillside.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
(second reading)
S. Orcherton: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to move second reading of Bill M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001.
In 1989 the declaration of Helsinki, a World Medical Association initiative to which Canada and by definition British Columbia is a signatory, agreed to the following principle: that in the treatment of a sick person, the physician must be free to use a new diagnostic and therapeutic measure if, in his or her judgment, it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering.
[1040]
As members of this House know, the doctors and physicians in British Columbia are governed by their governing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The College of Physicians and Surgeons has developed a number of policies regarding complementary and alternative therapies. If I may, I'll refer to a few of them, which actually prompted some of the discussions that I hope will ensue today and some of the recommendations that are laid out in this bill.
In terms of principles for their members, the physicians and surgeons of British Columbia, when practising alternative and complementary therapies, they state: "Although the patient is always an active participant in the process, it is the conscientious application of the experience and knowledge of the physician that is essential in determining the patient's best interests."
Hon. Speaker, it is a cooperative effort that needs to occur in British Columbia around complementary therapies as utilized by physicians and surgeons. It's not one that is a conscientious application of experience and knowledge of the physician that is essential. It is a cooperative effort and requires the essential consent of both the patient and the physician in dealing with complementary therapies. They go on to say that it follows that the patient's preference cannot be sufficient grounds to select a given treatment and that the physician must be careful in advising patients who are considering or using complementary or alternative therapies and especially careful in promoting and recommending such therapies.
Further, they say that a physician or surgeon in the province of British Columbia must not associate with or refer patients to alternative practitioners who recommend unproven over proven therapies. By doing so, the physician assumes a degree of responsibility for the outcome of treatment.
Finally, on their recommendations that they give to their membership, the physicians and surgeons of British Columbia, they say that if the patient's choice of complementary or alternative therapy has made it impossible for the physician to discharge his or her ethical responsibilities, it is acceptable for the physician to terminate the doctor-patient relationship.
What this bill does is allow doctors who are governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. to have a fair process in dealing with alternative and complementary therapies. It does not impinge on the authority of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. What it does is open a door for physicians and surgeons in B.C., who are governed by the college, to consider alternative therapies in the care and treatment of their patients who have chronic illnesses and to try and treat their patients using all the tools that are available in our society today.
I know there are a number of members who wish to speak on this bill. I'll try
to keep my comments brief, but it is a very important issue. There are many
doctors in British Columbia who have been and are being investigated by the
College of Physicians and Surgeons for considering or using alternative or
complementary therapies or referring their patients to others who use those
therapies. In 1990 Dr. Zigurts Strauts was investigated in this regard. Dr. Alex
Neil of Kelowna was investigated in 1994 in this regard. Dr. Charles Barber, Dr.
Jon Van Vliet, Dr. Don Stewart, Dr. Goku Bhanwath and
Members, you should know that Dr. John Cline is in the gallery today, listening to this debate. He is currently under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. He is very interested to see the outcome of this debate as it moves through the different processes that are necessary to bring it into law.
Hon. Speaker, you should know, as well, that in each of these instances -- according to my research, which has been extensive -- not one of these complaints has been initiated by a patient -- not one. They have all been initiated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
So what this bill does is put in place a process of fairness, a process where doctors can consider alternative therapies that many in different cultures in this world of ours have been using for thousands and thousands of year, alternative therapies that work in some instances.
[ Page 17625 ]
[1045]
I've heard some people make arguments that alternative therapies and complementary therapies don't always work. And that's a valid argument. But you know, the traditional western practices of medicine, of surgery and of the use of pharmaceuticals often don't work either. I think this is an important bill. As the House will know, not long ago I introduced a petition with the names of over 16,000 citizens of British Columbia attached. As members will know, last week the computer systems at the Legislative Assembly crashed because of e-mails that were coming in, supporting this particular initiative.
This is a very good thing for the people of British Columbia, and I hope that upon review, the College of Physicians and Surgeons will recognize that it's a very good thing for their organization as well. It puts in place a system that is fair in terms of process, and it has checks and balances embedded in it. And if there is a circumstance with the legislation that I've proposed, where there's a dispute on whether the doctor acted in the best interests of the patient -- taking into account all of the therapies available, including complementary alternative therapies -- there is a mechanism for an inquiry board to be convened which will look at the circumstances around that issue. It doesn't have to be driven by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I believe it necessarily needs to be driven by both the College of Physicians and Surgeons and patients in British Columbia.
That process is a fair one. It allows, for the first time, a representative from the Association of Complementary Physicians to sit on that inquiry, to be able to bring their experience and their expertise to the decision-making around an investigation. So it is not a carte blanche. It leaves the authority with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It lives up to the spirit of the Helsinki accord, and it provides opportunity and hope for people to pursue alternative treatments.
Everywhere you go, people in British Columbia are talking about their health -- in coffee shops, in workplaces, even here at this Legislature. They're talking about alternative therapies, and they're exploring those options. At the end of the day, on all of these questions, it is a matter of choice. It's a matter of choice for patients in British Columbia to choose doctors who are governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons who practise complementary medicine and alternative therapies as well as traditional therapies of western medicine. It is also an opportunity for patients to choose doctors who choose not to practise complementary or alternative therapies. Equally, it's a matter of choice for doctors governed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons to decide whether they want to practise traditional medicine in British Columbia or whether they want to move and augment their practice by offering complementary or alternative therapies.
This brings the Medical Practitioners Act one step closer to being all-encompassing, all-embracing for the people of British Columbia. It allows doctors to look at alternative therapies, allows the college to police its membership and offers a whole range of new options in health care. Truly, it is an alternative approach to health care.
It is not a new initiative. There are many states in the United States which have enacted similar legislation. Alberta has enacted similar legislation, and as recently as December a member of the Liberal Party in Ontario pushed forward a private member's bill in this regard as well. It was a non-partisan issue. It's a matter of offering choice to patients while maintaining adequate health care for the people of British Columbia.
I'll leave my remarks at this point and allow others to speak. And with that, I move second reading of Bill M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act.
C. Hansen: I want to start by saying that I have a great respect for any Canadian who pursues choice when it comes to health care services and a great respect for anyone who pursues complementary medicine, who learns about it and wishes to pursue that route in pursuit of their health care needs. I come by it honestly, because I was raised in a family that has always respected alternative approaches to health care. That's something that goes back many generations in my family.
[1050]
I think Canadians have certainly spoken out, over the years, on their desire for alternative and complementary approaches. There was a number given to me that I have tried to verify. I haven't seen how this particular number was arrived at, but it's still an impressive number regardless. That is: in Canada there is $6 billion a year being spent on alternative and complementary approaches to health care.
So I believe there is a very important role for complementary and alternative therapies. The thing that is also required -- and it's something that I think we as a province and as a country are very lax at -- is doing the scientific evaluations that are required to verify. There is tons of anecdotal evidence that shows that complementary and alternative approaches are successful for some people. Certainly I think every one of us in this House has talked to somebody who has pursued an alternative or complementary approach to health care with great success and significant change in their own lifestyle, health and well-being. Certainly the anecdotal evidence that is there cannot be refuted.
On the other hand, we have not done very much as a society to explore the efficacy of these different approaches. In the last ten years in this province we have seen some initiatives which should be applauded, but basically they have been few and far between. I'd particularly like to single out the Tzu Chi Institute in Vancouver, which is funded by this government. It has taken a very deliberate and, I think, a very responsible approach to exploring efficacy of some of these alternative approaches. And more importantly, it is working with traditional medical providers in British Columbia to ensure that mutual understanding and mutual respect are developed.
Most doctors I have talked to in British Columbia on this subject are fascinated and intrigued by what the potentials are, in terms of the exploration of efficacy of alternative approaches. But what is important is that there has to be that deliberate approach done. There has to be a common understanding as to how we evaluate the scientific base for some of these particular approaches.
What is key, I believe, is not just the scientific approach but the building and nurturing of mutual respect among health care providers in this province. Too often we have seen health care providers, health care professionals in one profession, undermining or demeaning the position and role of other health care professionals. Even within those who are
[ Page 17626 ]
medical doctors in British Columbia, there are those who don't respect other doctors who take different approaches. There are those who practise complementary therapies and who don't respect those who resist complementary therapies.
And that, I think, is the crux of the challenge that is before us. What I hear coming from British Columbians, individual British Columbians, is that they want access to safe, effective treatment. They want access to a range of choices. They want their health professionals to respect each other. If they want to see one health professional for one need and see a different health professional for another need -- and perhaps it's an alternative approach or a complementary approach -- they want each of their health professionals to respect each other for the choices that they, as individual patients and individual British Columbians, wish to pursue.
My concern is that as we go forward with this, we have to support organizations like the Tzu Chi Institute. We have to support other organizations that are exploring and trying to validate the efficacy of approaches that are there.
There is certainly an example of this that we have seen in the past 20 years in British Columbia, and that's the approach of acupuncture. Acupuncture was initially strongly resisted by traditional medicine in North America. Yet over time, through building mutual understanding and building mutual respect within the medical community among fellow doctors, that respect was built. And acupuncture is now a legitimate part -- in fact, some would say that it's almost becoming a mainstream part -- of medical practice in North America, and specifically in Canada.
[1055]
What I hear from British Columbians is that they don't want to see a system that exacerbates the divisions between health care professionals. If you look at what we have seen in the last ten years of British Columbia history, we have seen an approach by government which has been to vilify doctors -- to set up doctors as the scapegoats for so much of what is wrong in health care today. It is an approach that is flawed, because if we want to meet patient needs, if we want to meet the needs of individual British Columbians, government has a responsibility not to build the divisions and the separations but to build the mutual respect. It's a change of attitude that is required. It's a change of attitude among health professions. It's a change of attitude that's required between government and health professions.
Only then will we be able to reflect the attitude that individual British Columbians want, and that's to see seamless health care where they can access choices and different approaches to health care -- one that actually has their various health care professionals working in a complementary fashion. I know we use the words "complementary and alternative therapies" and "complementary and alternative medicines." I like the expression "complementary," because that's the approach that I think British Columbians want to see. They want to see these different approaches being able to fit together to meet their personal needs.
The concern that I have is that I don't believe that you can legislate a change of attitude in British Columbia. You can't legislate an approach that forces doctors who practise complementary medicine to respect doctors who do not. You cannot legislate doctors who have questions about complementary medicine to respect those who provide complementary medicines.
I think there is much that government can do to advance the interests of individual British Columbians, and particularly to advance the interest of individual British Columbians who support complementary therapies. But that approach is not a legislative approach, in my view. That approach is leadership that comes from government, from the Minister of Health, to ensure that doctors who practise only traditional medicine build more respect for those who practise complementary medicines and vice versa.
I would suggest that the member is picking the wrong target in terms of where
the leadership has to come from. The leadership should be provided by the
Ministry of Health. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is an organization
that is there to protect public interest. And I think it is incumbent upon the
government, in particular the Minister of Health
A quote that was recently in the Victoria Times Colonist sort of sums up where we're at on this issue. It's a quote from a Victoria physician by the name of James Houston. Dr. Houston is a founding member of the Association of Complementary Physicians of British Columbia. He's talking about the relationship between the Association of Complementary Physicians and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This is the one sentence that jumped out at me: Dr. Houston adds that "the association's working relationship with the college has improved recently." I think that improvement is not coming as a result of some legislative action that sets up inquiries and tribunals and facilitates investigations, but rather it's an approach that actually facilitates people sitting down with each other to understand where each other is coming from.
If there are challenges about the scientific basis of some of these approaches, then let's sit down and actually discuss face to face how we validate these approaches. How do we do that research? How do we get that approach that allows for everyone -- first of all, for patients -- to have a comfort level in terms of the scientific efficacy of different approaches? More importantly, it's the information that is required for all health professionals to be able to sit down and say, "Look, here are the facts. Here is the research that's been done that is not refutable and that says that this works or this doesn't work" -- as is sometimes the case in terms of that scientific research.
[1100]
That's the discussion that we have to have, and that is the approach that's going to build mutual respect. That is an approach that is going to advance the cause of complementary therapies and those who would like to access them. That approach will do much more to deliver a health care system that British Columbians want, rather than what I would call the adversarial approach that is proposed in this piece of legislation.
While I agree with the general intent that has motivated this piece of legislation, I don't agree with the principles that are contained in it. Therefore, it is with regret, but I will be voting against it. At the same time, I would like to see a process where government provides some leadership and works with the Association of Complementary Physicians of British Columbia and works with those who are trying to advance complementary therapies in British Columbia so that
[ Page 17627 ]
we can actually move forward in an era of mutual respect, so that we have all doctors in British Columbia recognizing the validity of some of these new and innovative approaches.
E. Walsh: I am pleased to rise in support of this private member's bill, the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001.
This bill is an exciting bill. It's a bill that the people of British Columbia have been fighting for and working for, and working with various bodies for a long, long time. It's a progressive bill; it's a progressive bill for everyone. We see people in the gallery this morning that are working towards that progression for health care in this province, and not only that but the right to choose whatever way of health care, whichever health care alternative, they're looking for that will work for them.
While I was listening to the member of the opposition, I was interested to hear what he spoke about -- about having great respect for anyone who chooses alternative medicine. And then he mentioned that the member on our side for Victoria-Hillside has picked the wrong target. What is the wrong target? The target in this bill talks about people in this province. It talks about those people and patients in this province that are looking for alternative care -- medicine complementary to the medicine and care and therapies they're receiving today. I did not once hear, through this discussion and in what the member opposite had said, the right for people to make that decision for their own bodies, for their own selves and for the health of their own families.
I think that the right target is in this gallery. It's right here in this
House, and it's in the province of British Columbia. That is the target: the
people of this province. Hon. Speaker, to make any suggestion that this bill is
adversarial or controversial
I want to get back to what I wanted to talk about here in the bill, because I think this is a really important bill to the people of British Columbia, and especially to those patients and the people that seek health care. I want to thank the member for Victoria-Hillside for bringing this private member's bill forward, because I know the amount of work he has done in ensuring that the information has gotten out to all of us in this House -- to ensure that the information that has gotten out to the people of British Columbia is understood by those people that are interested in hearing about complementary alternative care medicine. I want to applaud his commitment, in fact, to bring it to the House as a private member's bill.
I want to talk just a minute about what complementary medicine isn't, because we hear so much about what it does. In the past it was defined as those therapies not widely taught in medical schools or used in hospitals. It's not about quackery. It's not about people that don't know what they're doing or don't understand about these other alternative remedies. It's definitely not new. The hon. member for Victoria-Hillside said very clearly in his presentation that it's not a new medicine. It's not a new alternative. This has been going on, whether it's through therapies or whether it's through medication or whatever, for many, many years. In fact, it's been going on for a lot longer and it's been used for a lot longer than any conventional therapies that we see today.
[1105]
We talk about choice in this House all the time. We talk about choice, what we're going to do every day, how we're going to do it. We talk about choosing the clothes that we're going to wear. We talk about choosing what school we're going to send our children to, how we're going to spend the money, where we're going to budget. What makes this so different, for people to make their choice about who they want to see to best look after their bodies, their selves, whether it be their minds or their physical, emotional or in whatever sense? What is so different about passing legislation, passing a bill, that addresses these choices?
My hon. colleague also spoke about other provinces in Canada that have passed similar legislation. What I was really pleased about was that this bill that we're talking about -- alternative and complementary therapies -- was agreed to not only by NDP parties but by Conservatives, by Liberals, by all parties in those provinces. They had unanimous support. They recognized the need for complementary and alternative care medicine in those provinces.
That's why I am so surprised when I hear the opposition Liberals say that they're not in support of passing this bill or voting for it. I didn't hear anything coming from them that they are going to pass it or support it or that they agree with it. That is a real concern for me, because if they don't support this bill unanimously, it will not go further. And we should all be concerned about that.
I would challenge the members opposite to listen to what the people in the gallery, who are sitting just above us, are here for -- listening to the debate, hearing how important it is to this side of the House. And they would also like to hear what the other side of the House has to say on complementary and alternative care medicine.
There has been opposition to these bills. There was opposition to these bills
in Alberta, and there was opposition in Ontario. But what happened during that
opposition, looking back to where that opposition was
What's really unfortunate is that nutraceuticals -- I guess that's what you call them today -- are taking the place of and replacing pharmaceuticals. I do believe, from some of the reading I've done, that they've resulted in savings not only to patients -- to the people themselves, to people overall in the provinces -- but also to governments. And this is a time when governments throughout the province are looking not only at ways to save money by different measures but also at better health care -- how we can put in process different methods, different ways of delivering health care services. As we've heard so many times before, we have to look at different ways of doing things, because the traditional ways of doing things just aren't working anymore.
I think that by looking at complementary and alternative care medicine, we are in fact looking at different ways of delivering health care. Though they're not new, they are different ways of looking at delivering health care services. So many times we hear about waiting lists, about the costs, about how we can make these changes. Well, this is one way that we can in fact address many of those waiting lists: by giving the people the choice to see those physicians, those medical practitioners, naturopaths -- to go to them and see them so that they can share with them what their bodily concerns and emotional concerns are.
[ Page 17628 ]
I just want to quote William Thomas. He's an author, and he wrote an article in Alive magazine. This was in the most current issue, March 2001: "Canadian governments should take note: experts estimate that more than half of medical expenditures and 37 percent of all visits to doctors can be eliminated if unnecessary and dangerous procedures are abandoned in favour of proven natural therapies."
Today we are battling superbugs. We are battling immune deficiencies. We have hospital junkies out walking around the province, and we have increased resistance to conventional methods that right now are being provided to people throughout this province. That makes it even more important to find out exactly what is the cause of the illness. What is the cause? Let's not just mask what's going on; let's deal with the cause. Let's get to the heart of what is really ailing that patient.
[1110]
It's not just the body that we talk about when we talk about naturopathy or alternative or complementary medicine. What we're talking about here is the whole body. It's a holistic approach.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
In fact, just to go back for a moment again, I was reading in another
newspaper article
My hon. colleague also mentioned the declaration of Helsinki, where he spoke of the treatment of sick people and said that the physician must be free to use new diagnostic and therapeutic measures if, in his or her judgment, it offers hope of saving a life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. That's pretty fundamental, isn't it? -- saving lives or re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. Isn't that what health care is supposed to be about? Is it not supposed to be about looking after the people of the province that are looking for the best health care possible for them? Is that not what we're supposed to be doing?
I was really pleased, in my riding
I did want to make mention of one of my constituents, who has been relentless in her pursuit of complementary and alternative care medicine being addressed and going forward. Mrs. Savarie has been a strong supporter of complementary and alternative care medicine, and I would like to commend her also in continually bringing this to my attention and making sure that it stayed at the top of my pile. Also, it enabled me to talk to my hon. colleague about complementary health care.
In my travels throughout the Elk Valley, many, many times I've spoken to people about looking for alternative or complementary health care. Presently many people have to travel to Alberta to receive this kind of therapy, and that shouldn't be happening. We should be able to offer that right here in this province.
I did want to mention, too, that the people that signed the petition that was
sent around by the patient in Cranbrook
I just want to reiterate for a minute that this is about choice for the
people of British Columbia. This is a choice about helping to support
[1115]
I could actually go on for a long time, but I won't do that too much longer, because I know there are a lot of people that do want to speak on this very important issue. But there's just one other point I wanted to make. This was when the opposition member was talking about the College of Physicians and Surgeons and also talking about adversarial approaches and confrontations and the need to work together.
It distresses me when I hear stories like the ones that my colleague was talking about, where investigations were taking place within the College of Physicians and Surgeons without any complaints by the public. Without any complaints by the public, they chose to investigate, amongst themselves, their own colleagues within the college -- and some of the situations that arose out of those investigations. These kinds of situations need to be avoided. I do believe that the College of Physicians and Surgeons should be working with the people of British Columbia. They should be working together rather than interfering right now with the people's right to a doctor of their own choosing, rather than someone whom they cannot, in fact, agree with in their way of treatment for their own bodies.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with offering the public the right to choose complementary or alternative care medicine. These therapies are virtually free from the side effects, as I said earlier, of prescription drugs. Herbal medicine, manual therapies, healing, diet, pharmacological and biological treatments, environmental medicine, homeopathy, vitamins, minerals, chelation therapy -- what is wrong with all these kinds of alternative treatments? There is absolutely nothing wrong with these treatments, natural treatments that reflect the principles of the Helsinki agreement.
People must be made to make their own decisions. People want to be accountable for their own bodies; they want to be accountable for their own health. But they have to have the tools to do that with, so all parties in this province should be supporting this bill. They should be unanimously supporting
[ Page 17629 ]
this bill, because this bill is about that very fundamental right of the individual to look after their own body, their own self, their health. I would encourage the opposition members to support this bill, because this bill is about freedom of choice for patients. The people of British Columbia want this freedom. I would encourage them, once again, to vote in favour -- and that the House be unanimous in the passing of this bill.
S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery and, I hope, enjoying the debate on this issue around complementary medicine are 25 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's school in my constituency. I am sure they are enjoying the debate. They are accompanied by Ms. O'Neill, their teacher, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to lend my voice and support for the private member's bill presented by the member for Victoria-Hillside. I want to congratulate that member for his hard work, diligence and perseverance. Not only did we make a little bit of history prior to this bill being called but also with the calling of this bill. I congratulate those members who spoke in favour.
It's not so often that you have physicians and surgeons acknowledging or
admitting that they don't have all the answers in regard to health practices. I
know that since this particular bill was first introduced last year and again
this year, I've had some phone calls saying the bill has merit. Those in the
medical profession, I think, admit that all of us as individuals
[1120]
I think it's important to note that there are people who are practising
alternative methods for health care -- complementary medicine. I know I've had
personal experience -- a friend from the Left, a friend of complementary
medicine, a gentleman by the name of Jack Lappin. I actually had a discussion
with him one day, and I was rubbing my knee. It was from a previous Workers
Compensation Board injury. Jack, who practises complementary medicine, said:
"Let me have a look at that." And lo and behold
I don't want to take a lot of time, because I know that there are a lot of members who want to speak on this. I think that all of us should embrace support for this bill, and I pledge my support and vote of confidence in the legislation.
Hon. G. Wilson: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to get up and
speak in favour of the bill that is in front of us today. It's a particular
pleasure because, as a private member's bill brought forward
Back on July 23, 1998, when I sat on that side of the House in opposition, I introduced a private member's bill that was very similar to this one in most respects. I was not as successful as the member for Victoria-Hillside in getting this brought forward, at that time. But I'm absolutely delighted that it has been brought forward today, because I think there are many of us who have an enormous amount of respect for alternative systems of medicine and many of us who choose, as a first course of action and often the only one necessary, to find sources of medical care that are outside of what is now considered the convention, by conventional medical practitioners.
I am really disappointed, profoundly disappointed, in the comments from the official opposition Health critic today, who said that the Liberals would not support this bill. I'm disappointed but not surprised, because one has to recognize that when that party has received, in the last five years, close to a quarter of a million dollars in contributions from conventional health care providers, clearly they have a financial vested interest in seeing the status quo in the health care system remain, and they're not necessarily predisposed to look at alternative systems. It's a question of one having to pay the piper. And when you look at the number of drug companies that are financing the political ambitions of the members opposite, one can understand that frequently health care is about money. It's about wealth and not about health.
So let me say that while I'm profoundly disappointed that the convention will be looked at by the members opposite, and we understand why -- because if one is bought and paid for, so to speak, I guess one has to toe the line -- I think that British Columbians generally would like to see a much more progressive, much more enlightened attitude from those who stand to represent them in elected office. I would say that because, as has already been mentioned by my colleagues, many of the treatments and many of the methods that are employed in the non-conventional health systems are thousands of years old and have had thousands of years of proven practice. Each of us, I think, could make many anecdotal references to people we know personally who are prepared to testify as to the availability of these services and how well these services have provided for their personal health.
[1125]
Therefore, in the introduction of this bill, I think it is important that we
keep our eye not only on the choice issue, not only on what is available with
respect to practice, but on how well those physicians who choose this course of
action are treated among the medical profession generally. And we have to make
sure that those people who determine that there are alternative courses outside
of conventional drug treatment or conventional surgical treatments or those
treatments which are often advocated by science, western science predominantly
-- science that is often developed in concert with the major pharmaceutical
companies
So I think it is key that we understand what we are doing here today. We are, on this side of the House, giving voice to many, many thousands, if not millions, of Canadians -- certainly those who live in British Columbia, where we are starting to match legislation that has already been introduced in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or to have similar kinds of legislation. We are now saying in British Columbia that the time has come, the time is today, when we will recognize and
[ Page 17630 ]
seek to protect those who have recognized before us that there are alternative systems of medical treatment that can provide a well-founded cure and well-founded treatment for many of the ailments that we face.
I'm delighted to stand in support of this bill. I certainly congratulate the member for Victoria-Hillside for his tenacity in bringing this forward and making sure that this is heard today. This is a historic day in the sense that we do not pass too many private members' bills in this Legislature. I think that's something that all of us might want to reflect upon, because those of us here are elected by constituents who seek to have us represent them. They would be better served if this Legislative Assembly more routinely allowed private members' bills to come forward to be adequately and properly debated and voted on in due course.
Congratulations to the member. Congratulations to all of those who are
progressive and enlightened enough to support this bill. And my profound
disappointment in the members of the opposition, who seem to be too closely
wedded to conventional medical authorities
J. Weisgerber: I too rise to speak in support of this bill. History with my family and much anecdotal evidence would suggest that complementary medicine is an important part of medical treatment available to British Columbians. I too believe it unfortunate that it has been so long in being addressed.
Obviously there's a good reason why the Minister of Health wouldn't bring the bill forward, although I haven't quite figured out yet what it is. But given that there must be an impediment for the Minister of Health, I say that it provides an opportunity for a private member's bill. And I think that's important. It's an important part of our parliamentary process for private members' bills. Sadly, the experience of this House is that they rarely get past first reading. If they're introduced by a member of the opposition, almost never do they get past first reading.
The Minister of Forests knows from his own experience that it depends a little bit on which side of the House you sit, what kind of progress your private member's bill is going to have. And that's unfortunate, because this morning we've seen two very good private members' bills brought forward -- two very good, solid private members' bills that I don't believe were partisan in nature, either one -- that addressed specific issues in our society. I'm not rising on a point of order, but I believe both could be construed to have an impost on the Crown. If someone wanted to make the point, I believe you would only have to look to section 5 of this bill to find that there is exactly a parallel to the point raised by the Minister of Finance when he, for some reason or other, decided to put an end to the debate on the workers compensation bill.
[1130]
It's important to understand that we have private members' bill in this House, and many good private members' bills are introduced, but only private members' bills put forward by government backbenchers have any chance of succeeding. Mr. Speaker, while I'm happy to support this bill because I think it's a good one, I think it also points out some of the dysfunction that exists in this House and in our parliamentary system. There are obviously advantages to being in government, and government deserves an opportunity to set the agenda and to move forward with its agenda. That's what a majority is all about.
But we also have a mechanism for private members. It astounds me to believe that for some reason, that government agenda has to extend itself to private members' bills. One small opportunity for members who want to address an issue that is not partisan in nature, but that for some reason or other the government wants to bring forward, is only, in reality, available to members of the government back bench.
That's a tragedy. It's a tragedy that my colleague and friend from Malahat-Juan de Fuca, because he'd left the government caucus, saw his bill brought down on a technicality. I want to say again that I think this very same technicality could be used to bring this bill into question. I have no way of knowing, Mr. Speaker, how you would rule. That would be presumptuous of me. But I believe the same basic fundamental applies, and I'm delighted that the opposition didn't use that same mechanism, because they certainly had an opportunity. They had certainly been exposed very early on to the mechanism that's available to kill a private member's bill.
But that didn't happen. The member for Victoria-Hillside has done yeoman service. He has provided a voice for a group of physicians who I think contribute significantly to the health of British Columbians, and I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to support this private member's bill.
B. Goodacre: I'll be brief with my comments here. I want to address three matters that came to mind as I listened to the debate and as I thought about and followed this bill from the time that the member for Victoria-Hillside first brought it to our attention.
The number of petitions that all of us have received, either through personal
approaches or actual formal petitions, from both citizens and physicians who
have expressed their concern about the power that the B.C. Medical Association
has over those physicians who choose to practise what has come to be known as
complementary medicine
[1135]
I'd also like to speak for a moment about the most ancient form of complementary medicine that we have in this province, which is the herbal remedies that come from our first nations friends throughout the province. A good friend of mine in the northern part of this province was diagnosed with cancer several years ago and was supposed to live for two years. That was well over nine years ago. One of the main features of his treatment is a thing he calls Tahltan tea. You'll never get him to suggest for a moment that he would be alive today if it were not for the herbal remedies that he was able to obtain from the Tahltan people. I think it brings to mind that while it may be anecdotal stuff, western medicine does not have all the answers to everybody's problems, and we need to
[ Page 17631 ]
always bear in mind that we have to be open to anything the world has to offer, especially when it relates to our personal health and well-being.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The third matter I wanted to touch on is this question of, again, science. There are two authors in the field right now. A man by the name of Kenny Ausubel has put together a very extensive treatment of the relationship between the American Medical Association and an alternative cancer therapy known as the Hoxsey treatment. This goes back well into the early part of this century. The efficacy of that particular treatment was never, ever in question. It's almost shameful that we have ended up in the position where a political battle between two views of medicine led to the discontinuation of this treatment for people who had shown extremely positive results over a period of 50 years. Another author by the name of Dr. Samuel Epstein has written a book called The Politics of Cancer that goes into much greater detail on the efforts of the American Medical Association, which parallels the kind of thing we're seeing here.
I think it's really important for us as legislators to remove from the act the ability of the B.C. Medical Association in this case to take arbitrary action against physicians who are acting in the best interests of their patients. We have no problem with people being removed from the list of practising physicians when they are in fact doing harm to their patients, but that is the only criterion that we really want them to have available to them.
I thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and obviously I'm supporting this bill.
Hon. E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in favour of Bill M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001.
It's not often that we debate a private member's bill in this House. This is a private member's bill that has been before us before. It was before us in the year 2000, and I'm very pleased that it has been brought forward for debate and indeed for passage in this Legislature.
What is this bill? This bill is really a very simple statement. There are two statements here, actually. One, it defines complementary medicine. Okay, what's complementary medicine? "A broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems, modalities and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system." One very simple statement, hon. Speaker. And the second statement is that it protects physicians who practise complementary medicine from charges of unprofessional conduct solely for the practice of complementary medicine.
I get a lot of mail in my office, as I'm sure we all do. I've been deluged with mail on the federal gun legislation. I've been deluged with mail on the grizzly bear moratorium. I've been deluged with mail on the Vancouver Island Highway project. But I have never received as much mail as I have from my constituents who support complementary medicine, who use complementary medicine in their daily lives.
[1140]
We are pretty good, by and large, in our traditional medical practice at dealing with acute health concerns. But people who experience chronic pain, chronic fatigue, a number of debilitating chronic conditions, find themselves looking to alternate care, alternate forms of treatment, because the standard medical treatment that is provided no longer has the answers for them.
I was pleased to hear my colleague from Bulkley Valley-Stikine talk of Tahltan tea, because I returned to my office briefly during this debate in order to pick up a tape I received when I was up in Prince George a while ago called "The Warmth of Love," featuring a woman named Sophie Thomas. Sophie Thomas is a native healer. She's one of the people who makes Tahltan tea, and she describes the way in which that helps people who've been diagnosed with cancer and indeed cures people who've been diagnosed with cancer.
I hear regularly from my constituents who use chelation therapy in order to deal with blood conditions, conditions of the heart, and who see themselves as avoiding the risk of surgery by continuing in this chelation therapy. I see an individual who has suffered for years from chronic fatigue syndrome who, again, used chelation therapy, to great relief.
We have a group in our community who meet regularly to provide support and information to each other regarding the chronic pain that they live with. And they look at all forms of relief from that pain, whether it be through hypnotism, through massage or through acupuncture. There are many ways of dealing with this pain.
I think of my own experience just last week, when I had to travel by air and then had a long taxi ride through busy rush-hour traffic. When I reached my destination, I was feeling quite travel sick and nauseated from inhalation of fumes, and so on. I had the luxury and the privilege of being treated by someone who practises healing touch, and within moments I felt that nausea lift.
There are many, many ways that we deal with our human condition, including
the condition of wellness and the journey to wellness. I am someone who has
always practised and promoted prevention as the most important step to be taken
on that journey to wellness that we all carry out. And many of these
complementary medicine techniques are actually techniques or practices of
prevention -- prevention of disease, prevention of distress. I think, too, of
the attention that has been brought to laughter of late -- medical practitioners
using laughter to encourage people suffering from chronic conditions and, in
particular, people who suffer from cancer. What's the scientific basis of
laughter? But we see that through the use of laughter, of humour, of light
brought into the lives of people who face a bleak future perhaps, a future of
despair
In 1996 the B.C. Medical Association found that 62 percent of doctors in this province supported alternative therapies as useful adjuncts to conventional practices. Both patients and physicians want complementary therapies. This legislation -- very simple, very direct -- defines complementary medicine and protects the physicians who practise complementary medicine.
I would propose, now, to adjourn debate.
Hon. E. Gillespie moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
[ Page 17632 ]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We've got some other business. I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[1145]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Today I have the pleasure of introducing three guests who are joining us in the gallery: Jillian Skeet from the Coalition Opposed to Violence in Entertainment; Jamie Graham, a superintendent with the RCMP, North Vancouver detachment; and Penny Bain, the executive director of the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence. These individuals are joining us today for the imminent introduction of a bill, and I want to thank them for their ongoing work in this important area of public education -- namely, video violence. I ask all members of the House to join me in making them welcome.
Introduction of Bills
Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Video Games Act.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 19, the Video Games Act. This bill allows for the classification of video games, the licensing and regulation of video game distributors and retailers, and allows that future entertainment technologies can be covered under this legislation, as well as allowing the creation of an advisory council to assist with evaluating the effectiveness of the legislation.
This bill allows British Columbia to be the first jurisdiction in North America to provide a classification and regulatory system for video games. The system will help parents determine the suitability of video games for their children. Through the B.C. film classification office, the province will have the authority to examine video games for prohibited material and to recall video games if necessary.
The bill also sets out a new regulatory regime for video game distributors and retailers. They must respect conditions for displaying, renting and selling video games so that violent or inappropriate games are not accessible to children. An advisory council created by this bill will evaluate the effectiveness of the program and report back annually.
Advances in technology have allowed more graphic video games and, unfortunately, more graphic and realistic violence. This bill recognizes working classification systems that already exist and minimizes the effects on B.C. businesses while providing parents with the tools they need. The bill is not about censorship, but it is about protecting children by informing families about video game content and restricting access to inappropriate products.
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.
Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Bowbrick moved adjournment of the House.
The Speaker: Prior to that, the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside rises.
S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Orcherton: I just want to reintroduce all the people that are attending today and watching the debate on complementary medicine and to invite them and all members to a coffee and tea reception in the Ned DeBeck Lounge. If they're not sure where to go, I will meet them in the lower rotunda and guide them there.
The Speaker: The Government House Leader has moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada