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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 21
[ Page 17695 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
The Speaker: Are there any introductions by members?
Hon. G. Janssen: Well, it's not so much an introduction as congratulations to a friend of the House -- and, of course, our Clerk of Committees -- Craig James, on his betrothal and future marriage to Christine O'Driscoll. I ask the House to congratulate Craig and his future bride.
[1410]
R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, let me say to Craig and Christine that on April 15 at 3 o'clock, we won't be at Port Douglas, Queensland, Australia, but our thoughts will be with you. So as you two individuals join hands, hearts and your lives, we from this side of the House wish you all the very best in your future lives together.
Hon. I. Waddell: With us in the gallery today are a number of public health officers, and I'd like the House to welcome them: Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer; Dr. Shaun Peck, the deputy provincial health officer; Dr. Andrew Larder of Cranbrook, the medical health officer of the East Kootenay health region; and Dr. Lorna Medd of Prince George, the medical health officer of the Northern Interior health region.
We have good public health and water control in British Columbia, and after today, we're going to have excellent water control and legislation in British Columbia. I'd like to welcome these health officers, who will play an integral part in it.
L. Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce today a very fine soul who has come to see the workings of this place. I would ask the House to make very welcome Mr. Larry Armstrong.
J. Cashore: On behalf of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and myself, I would like to welcome Karla Decker to the gallery today. Karla started working in this building as a sessional Hansard transcriber in 1987 and in November of 1988 began working in research for the NDP caucus. She worked in that capacity until January 1992, when she worked for a series of MLAs including yourself, Mr. Speaker, as MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. She also worked for Darlene Marzari, Colin Gabelmann, Anita Hagen and the members for Prince George North, Mission-Kent, Yale-Lillooet, Columbia River-Revelstoke, Kamloops, Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Burnaby-Edmonds and Coquitlam-Maillardville. The latter are two of the best MLAs she's ever worked with. This is a remarkable record of service, and I hope that everybody will acknowledge Karla in the appropriate way, especially given that this is the first time she has been introduced in 12 years.
E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today someone here from my riding, who is a founding member for the Cranbrook Archives, Museum and Landmark Foundation. She's also a journalist, she's a writer, and she's been a newspaper editor. She actually was an elected member for ten years and was the Minister of Energy and Mines. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House -- give her a very hearty, warm welcome -- Anne Edwards.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to extend our welcome from this side of the House to Anne Edwards, who served in this House for some period of time and left in 1996. I want to welcome her from this side of the House, and we look forward to welcoming many former New Democrats to this House in the future.
D. Symons: There's a gentleman in the gallery who day in and day out, year in and year out, we see in the gallery. I sometimes worry about somebody, other than we who have to be here, who's in the House that often. Campbell Atkinson has been here so often as a teacher that I think we really should give him a perfect attendance award. So please welcome Campbell Atkinson.
Hon. G. Janssen: Today it is my pleasure to introduce a couple that will have been married for 61 years on June 4: Alana and Tom Cannell. During World War II, Tom was in the Merchant Service, which participated in the evacuation of the troops from the beaches of Dunkirk. He is one of the few surviving Dunkirk vets. Alana and Tom were married in Southampton shortly after his return, and they lived for many years on the Isle of Man where, of course, one of the more famous motorcycles races -- the Isle of Man -- takes place every year.
In the early fifties, they brought their four children to Canada. They have now lived in Victoria for 20 years. Accompanying them is their son-in-law, Alex Peden, whose family were Vancouver Island pioneers and instrumental in Victoria's formative years. Alex was curator at the Royal B.C. Museum for 25 years. Would the House please make them welcome.
[1415]
Introduction of Bills
Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Electronic Transactions Act.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. McGregor: The Electronic Transactions Act will enshrine in legislation British Columbia's move into the global electronic economy. The principal purpose of the Electronic Transactions Act is to remove any uncertainty about the legality and enforceability of electronic transactions conducted in the province. The bill will give electronic signatures and electronic documents the same weight in law as signatures and documents created on paper. It will apply to both the public and the private sectors, but it will not override any existing act that specifies whether electronic means of communication can or cannot be used.
By building a legal framework for electronic transactions, the bill will enable British Columbians in all parts of the province to participate fully in the world of e-commerce. Now electronic transactions, together with traditional methods of service delivery, will provide B.C. consumers with both choice and protection.
[ Page 17696 ]
This legislation is based on the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act, a legislative model that was endorsed by British Columbia and eight other provinces at the Uniform Law Conference in Canada in September of 1999. The Uniform Electronic Commerce Act is the basis of similar legislation enacted in other jurisdictions throughout Canada. To date, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Yukon and Nova Scotia have passed legislation based on this model.
B.C. is already the most connected province in Canada. With the introduction of B.C. Connects earlier this year, we completed the first phase of our commitment to put government services and programs on line and to make that access easy and convenient. It's now time to recognize in legislation the legality of contracts, agreements and activities undertaken in British Columbia's medium of choice, the electronic medium, in all its various intangible but nonetheless bona fide forms.
This bill was originally introduced on July 5, 2000, as an exposure bill. We invited comments from the public, and a number were suggested by the member for Richmond-Steveston. To date, we have received no negative comments about this bill, and it has received support from various stakeholders, including the Law Society of B.C., Minister Ramsey's Business Task Force and B.C.'s information and privacy commissioner.
Bill 13 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. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Drinking Water Protection Act.
Hon. I. Waddell: I move that Bill 20 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
[1420]
Hon. I. Waddell: This bill provides a statutory framework for protecting the quality of drinking water in British Columbia. As I've said, my three priorities as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks are clean water, clean air and the best park system in the world. And we're going to fight to keep it that way.
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Against those guys -- right.
The purpose of this legislation is to enhance the protection of public health and the environment. It strengthens the regulation of water supply systems, it provides mechanisms for protecting water sources, and it establishes the public's right to know about water quality. We have committed partners here: the Ministry of Health, the UBCM, regional health officials, environmentalists and the industry. British Columbia has been a leader in Canada in protecting the environment, public health and drinking water. We made a commitment to work with communities and give them greater influence in source protection and other matters. And the Premier made that commitment last year to the UBCM.
We have consulted across the province, and people told us they want one authority, one office, to deal with water. Environment and Health will have joint custody of one office centrally. There will be 18 regional drinking water officers, one for each health region. This single local authority will be empowered locally to make preventative and remedial orders where a health hazard is related to drinking water.
The legislation includes prohibitions and stiff penalties against contaminating drinking water or tampering with the water system. It requires water suppliers to do assessments. It requires the reporting of potential threats to drinking water. It enables setting water quality standards, and it enables the development of community-based drinking water protection plans.
It amends a number of other acts. Amendments to the Water Act will protect all groundwater resources, not only groundwater used for drinking water purposes. And that's the first groundwater legislation in B.C. It amends the Health Act, which will modernize inspection and enforcement powers to strengthen protection against health hazards. On behalf of the province, I would like to thank all British Columbians who participated in recent provincewide consultations on our drinking water protection plan, and it's now going to be in legislation.
Finally, I believe this legislation and the regulations that will accompany it will make it impossible for a Walkerton-type tragedy to happen in British Columbia.
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 20 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
CARRIER LUMBER CASE
G. Plant: Two months ago, when the government dropped its appeal in the Carrier Lumber case, the government spoke of the urgency of settlement. Yesterday the Attorney General was quoted as saying this: "We are in the mediation process right now. From everything I've been told, it's working." But the lawyer for Carrier Lumber is saying something completely different. He is saying: "We are not in mediation at the present time." So my question for the Attorney General is this: will he tell us why he says the government is engaged in mediation when it appears that the government is not?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: The mediator has been appointed; both parties have met with the mediator. I note that the parties were in court yesterday and received encouragement from Justice Parrett to engage in that process as well. So the ground is laid for mediation, and there have been initial discussions on exactly how that should work. As I indicated yesterday elsewhere, both parties have also agreed that the terms of mediation should be kept confidential.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental question.
[ Page 17697 ]
G. Plant: I have no interest in penetrating the veil of confidentiality. My interest is in making sure that the government is in fact moving forward on this file with some degree of seriousness, rather than hiding it under a rug somewhere so that some next government, whoever that may be, will inherit the problem. I want to give the Attorney General an opportunity to say this.
[1425]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Plant: The lawyers for Carrier Lumber are saying, in effect, that the government is stalling. What assurance can the Attorney General give to the people of British Columbia to make sure that the people of B.C. will know what their exposure is in the Carrier Lumber file before we go to the polls?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: We take this matter very seriously. We're committed to the mediation process. That's why both parties already agreed to the appointment of the mediator. That's why both parties have already met with the mediator.
That's the evidence of our commitment to that process, and we'd like to see it resolved as soon as possible. Counsel for Carrier, in playing the role that he should as counsel, has indicated a rather large sum of money. That's part of the process, hon. Speaker, and we look forward to resolution as soon as possible.
FOUR CORNERS BANK AND COMPLIANCE
WITH LENDING REQUIREMENTS
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a copy of the amended investment and lending policy for the Four Corners bank, which was filed with the Financial Institutions Commission on January 25, 2000. Can the minister responsible for the Four Corners bank tell us whether or not the Four Corners bank has maintained compliance with that filing since it was filed?
Hon. J. Kwan: The Four Corners Community Savings bank is working hard to address the issues that have been identified, and they have corrected the areas where corrections are required.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the question to the minister again: has the Four Corners bank maintained compliance with the filing it put before the Financial Institutions Commission on its lending policy?
Hon. J. Kwan: As I mentioned, with respect to some of the requirements and changes of FICOM on the lending policies, Four Corners Community Savings is working hard to address the issues that have been identified, and many of the issues that have been identified have been addressed.
The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a further supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister responsible for FICOM tell us whether or not the Four Corners bank has maintained compliance with its investment and lending policy that's filed with FICOM over the last number of years? Can he, as the regulator, assure the investors, the depositors and those that have mortgages and loans with the Four Corners bank that they are in compliance with FICOM's regulations?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member refers to a document I have not reviewed. I will review that. To my knowledge, Four Corners bank is regularly reviewed by FICOM, obviously. It meets with them, as does every bank in the province, and it complies with the directions of FICOM to make sure that it is a sound financial institution.
C. Clark: When will the Minister of Finance table that report in this House?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The workings of FICOM with banks, chartered and non-chartered, as you know, are highly confidential. I will review what can be tabled and released under freedom of information and protection of privacy.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.
C. Clark: This is a publicly owned Crown corporation, and the public has a right to know where it stands with respect to compliance under this act. My question for the minister is this. The public should not be required to go under freedom of information to try to extract information from the government that justifiably belongs in the public realm. Will the minister table that report in the House so that all of the public can see it before the coming election?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat myself. I'm not sure the member heard me. I did not say that the member opposite or the public would have to file an application under freedom of information. What I did say was that all these matters between FICOM and banks, Four Corners or others -- or others -- are highly sensitive. I will table what can be released under freedom of information and protection of privacy. There are obviously confidential business matters that cannot be, hon. member.
[1430]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a further supplemental question.
C. Clark: This is a publicly owned corporation, and the minister cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy on this. The reason there is concern about this is because among other things, the 2000-01 business plan talks about the previous year's business plan and says that at that time Four Corners was $8.8 million behind schedule in its deposits, which would threaten the viability of the bank. So I ask the minister again: will he do the right thing, lift the veil of secrecy and table this report for the public to see?
Hon. J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the FICOM report is
[ Page 17698 ]
want to thank the members opposite for raising the issue of Four Corners. Every time they attack Four Corners Community Savings, it serves to actually increase the business of Four Corners Community Savings. I want to thank the members, actually, for their marketing campaign of Four Corners.
The reality is this: Four Corners Community Savings provides for some 6,000 clients in terms of banking services in our community. These services are not being provided by any other banking agencies, because they refuse to do so. This agency, Four Corners Community Savings, provides a service for 6,000 people in our community who would not otherwise get banking services that you and I take for granted. Government does have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have banking services in British Columbia.
PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
E. Walsh: My question is for the Minister of Health. In today's
edition of the B.C. Liberal daily newsletter, the most common version
Interjections.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could you take your seat for a moment, please. Members, I cannot hear the speaker. I would ask members to come to order.
E. Walsh: In today's edition of the B.C. Liberals' daily newsletter -- I think we most commonly hear the term Vancouver Sun being used as their daily newsletter -- the brother of the Leader of the Opposition says and implies that the nurses in British Columbia would do better under an American-style, for-profit health care system. I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether or not he agrees with this assumption.
Hon. C. Evans: I don't actually care whose brother he is. The ideological cant that the hon. member is talking about is anathema in Canada. It doesn't matter if it's Mr. Campbell in the newspaper or the Fraser Institute. Essentially what they are saying is that Canadian health care workers would make more money if we privatized the system and served the rich and the poor in different systems. The truth is that he might be right. A few workers might make more money if we worked on the American system. But in Canada we decided to have universal health care, and we decided to back up the workers with collective bargaining. And as long as we govern, they'll both work.
POWER FOR JOBS INITIATIVE
S. Hawkins: A simple question for the Minister of Employment and Investment. On your ministry's web page, the Power for Jobs program is being touted as a way to encourage new investment. Yet we all know that we're going to have to import power this year and next year just to meet British Columbia's needs. I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Investment will stand up today and explain to us how his Power for Jobs program is going to give away cheap power, when he knows darn well that we don't even have enough to satisfy our own domestic demand.
[1435]
Hon. T. Stevenson: We all know that we have a great advantage here in British Columbia, because of our power prices, over Alberta. This province is far better off. Hon. Speaker, this economy, partly due to the power prices here, is booming. We all know it's booming. It's booming. We created 44,000 jobs in the year 2000. Unemployment is down to a 20-year low. Retail sales are up 6.2 percent. Bankruptcies are down 20 percent in the year 2000. Partly due to our Power for Jobs, the B.C. economy is growing. We're creating jobs, and we're attracting investment.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
S. Hawkins: A simple question didn't even get a simple answer, so I'll try again.
This minister's Power for Jobs website was dated almost two full years ago. I want to ask him again: how on earth does your ministry continue to promote a Power for Jobs program when you know darn well, and the government knows full well, that we're going to have to import power -- bring in outside power -- to meet the current customer demands?
Hon. T. Stevenson: That's absolute nonsense. We know very well that companies -- high-tech companies -- now are coming here to British Columbia from California. They're leaving Alberta to come here, because of the cost of power.
The question I would have is: are you going to sell off that company and make it private, and therefore the prices go higher again?
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Reports from Committees
E. Walsh: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament on the matter of Forest Renewal B.C. business plans for the years 1997-98 and '98-99.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
E. Walsh: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
E. Walsh: I move that the report be adopted.
This report reviews the FRBC business plans for '97-98 and '98-99 and recommends that FRBC continue to adhere to the provisions of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, with particular effort to be focused on year-end reporting and the development of performance measures for the corporation.
Motion approved.
[1440]
[ Page 17699 ]
Tabling Documents
Hon. S. Hammell: I have the honour to present two reports. One is the 1999-2000 annual report of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, and the other is the twenty-fourth annual report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, year ending March 31, 2000.
Petitions
H. Lali: I would like to present a petition, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Proceed.
H. Lali: I present a petition with 120 signatures from residents of the Thompson-Nicola region who are opposed to the banning of grizzly bear hunting in British Columbia.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued committee on Bill 10.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 10; E. Walsh in the chair.
On section 1 as amended (continued).
D. Lovick: I had the interesting experience of sitting in the chamber for about an hour and 15 minutes this morning, witnessing the so-called debate on this particular measure in committee stage. It generated a couple of questions. I had wanted to speak on second reading and didn't have the opportunity, but I noticed that the discussions this morning certainly seemed to resemble a second reading debate. I'm not asking for any special latitude, but in my question to the Attorney, I think I probably have to give it a bit of a preamble. I'm about to do that.
[1445]
Interjection.
D. Lovick: I'm starting with the very beginning -- the same question I would have asked the critic, who asks me what section I am on. I listened to him for the better part of 40 minutes, and as I say, I could never guess whether there was any section being referred to at that point. I'll ask him to simply extend me the same courtesy, if he would.
It seems to be that one of the crucial pieces of this bill is enunciated in the statement of purposes, which, as we all know, is indeed section 2 of the bill. The point I want to focus on is something the Attorney touched on briefly and that I'm going to ask him to elaborate on ultimately -- that is, the second clause under the first part of the purposes section. It says that the purposes of this act are to, first, encourage public participation. So be it. But second -- and here's the part I want to refer to -- is to dissuade persons from bringing or maintaining proceedings and claims for an improper purpose. In my considered opinion, and I don't claim any great expertise in this area, that's perhaps the most important part of this particular measure. What we're talking about is effectively discouraging those individuals who, frankly, have more money, more influence and more power from using the courts and the judicial system to their advantage to intimidate smaller, less powerful people. I want to give an example of how that happens.
About 20 years ago in my community of Nanaimo
Interjections.
D. Lovick: Madam Chair, I've had a little experience in this chamber, and generally speaking, there is a certain level of courtesy. So I would ask members opposite if they would be kind enough, if they can't contribute to the debate meaningfully, to at least shut up while others try -- if they would do that.
Now, having said that and having dealt with that, let me continue this tale I
was telling. What happened in my community and in my neighbourhood
Interjections.
D. Lovick: And I wish the member for Russell and DuMoulin and the corporate sector would listen to this, because maybe he would understand why some of us are concerned about this measure, why we think it's necessary.
The Chair: I will ask all the members to come to order in the House. We do have a speaker on the floor, and should other members wish to speak, they will be recognized when they stand.
D. Lovick: As I was saying, what happened in my community was that the fast-food outlet from a very large restaurant chain wanted to locate in my quiet little neighbourhood. So be it; that's their right. It's also their right, of course, to make a petition to city council for a rezoning application. So far so good.
My neighbours -- most of whom were elderly people, frankly -- got wind of this and were very concerned. What they did was, in a very quiet and dare I say amateurish way, proceed to go around knocking on doors and saying: "We're worried about this fast-food outlet, because it's going to be open somewhere between 16 and 24 hours a day. There's also a road application to make it a loop, which means all that traffic is going to go through our neighbourhood. We don't want that here." They started to take their little petition around, and they went from door to door. They were doing what any citizens group would do to protect its own interests.
[1450]
The problem is that about three days later, magically there is a knock on the door of all these little people, and they are delivered a writ of summons. They are told that they have engaged in "malicious falsehoods." That charge was absolutely phony and absolutely, unequivocally without founda-
[ Page 17700 ]
tion. But guess what happened. All of those people, those citizens -- those victims, if you like -- were scared spitless. They were frightened; they were intimidated totally. And they said: "Oh, we can't fight back because I'll have to go to court. It's going to cost me money. I'm afraid." And who the devil could blame them?
Now, I'm happy to report that we won that one. We one that one because
Interjections.
D. Lovick: No, no. Here's the point: only because there happened to be a few people who by good luck were reasonably well educated and sophisticated and weren't scared of the legal machinery being abused by the developer, they went to city council, and they spoke. I remember vividly what happened, because I was of course one of the speakers. And what happened as we stood up and said in a public forum, a public forum that was televised: "What these guys are doing is dishonest, it's phony, it's baseless, and we are going to fight back"? Guess what happened: the developer disappeared. It had nothing to do with going to court; they disappeared.
We were lucky. The citizens there were lucky, because there were a few people that weren't intimidated. But generally speaking, I suggest, when the larger interest with deep pockets uses its muscle and uses the courts and the language of the courts -- which is not the language known to the people -- the result is intimidation. The result is that the people run.
I'm suggesting that insofar as this legislation does anything, if it can dissuade the people who were responsible for that horrible abuse of the law from ever doing that again to any other group in the province, then, damn it, this legislation is worthwhile on just that basis.
The Chair: I'll remind the member about using parliamentary language.
D. Lovick: Madam Chair, I think I know my Beauchesne fairly well, and I suggest I'm not in too much trouble. But I accept your caution.
Interjections.
D. Lovick: It's always interesting, isn't it? When they can't stand the message, they'll find some other piece of the message to attack you for. But that's fair enough.
I listened with real interest to my friend across the way, the critic for the Attorney General. I was fascinated by the comments. What struck me essentially was this: the status quo is perfectly acceptable because at the end of the day, the law is there to protect us, and we're all, of course, protected. You don't have to worry, because the law is the law is the law.
Now, I want to ask this: is there anybody in this House, anybody in this
chamber, who believes for one moment that the amount of money you have is
irrelevant in our legal system? Does anybody believe that? The truth, of course,
is that
What offends me
Interjections.
D. Lovick: I notice I'm striking a responsive chord. Isn't that fascinating?
What offends me is these guys across the way standing up as the guardians of the law, when in fact what they're standing up to be is the guardians of privilege and wealth and power. How interesting, Madam Chair, that the same day the corporate donations to that party are announced, we have their speaker, the embodiment of the corporate interests, stand up and defend that interest against the interests of ordinary other people. What wonderful stuff.
Interjections.
The Chair: Member, take your seat for a moment. I will ask all members in this House to please come to order. I know this is really exciting, but I would ask all members to be in order. Member, continue.
[1455]
D. Lovick: I confess: they provoke me. I am perhaps being more passionate than I should be. I am willing to acknowledge it.
Madam Chair, the story is this. This bill is about protecting the interests of the powerless, of trying to level the playing field somewhat, so that those with influence and power and wealth can't have their way all the time. It's an effort to simply level that playing field. And insofar as it can dissuade those powerful interests from using the system to their advantage and against the interests of others, it is defensible, and I want to support it.
My question to the minister is just this: Mr. Minister, is it the case that what I'm saying -- that the intention of this legislation isn't to dissuade persons from behaving in this particular way -- is really fairly called the ultimate purpose of the measure?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think that we've had a good discussion. The member's question is about the intent of this bill, and I think we've had a very good discussion about what the intent of this bill is. I think the intent is clear. We've also had a good discussion and debate in this House about what the opposition sees as some of the difficulties with this bill. I think we on this day agree to disagree, and we have a different point of view on what we both believe is a point of principle. So with that, hon. Chair, maybe we'll go through some of the sections and vote.
Section 1 as amended approved.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 17701 ]
Bill 10, Protection of Public Participation Act, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?
Hon. G. Bowbrick: By leave now, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
[1500]
Bill 10, Protection of Public Participation Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | ||
| 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 | |
| NAYS -- 30 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Farrell-Collins | de Jong | Plant |
| Abbott | L. Reid | Coell |
| Chong | Sanders | Jarvis |
| Anderson | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
[1505]
Hon. G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.
VIDEO GAMES ACT
(second reading)
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I am very pleased to move this bill be read a second time.
This government is committed to protecting children and youth from the harmful effects of violence or depictions of violence. Currently violent video game products are available to children in this province without any restriction whatsoever. This bill will provide parents with a tool for understanding the appropriate age for users of video games. Parents will then be able to make informed choices about the games that their children play and will be supported by a regulatory and licensing regime that compels distributors and retailers to sell and rent products only to children of appropriate ages.
This bill authorizes the classification of video games and the licensing and regulation of video game distributors and retailers. Future entertainment technologies can be covered under this legislation as well. And finally, this bill authorizes the creation of an advisory council to assist with evaluating the effectiveness of the legislation. Under this legislation, all video games will be classified and subject to regulations that will restrict the access of children to products that are inappropriate for their age.
Distributors and retailers have been consulted about their role in protecting children from the harmful effects of video game violence. They will be required to segregate adult products from other products, so that they are not visible to or immediately accessible to children. They will also be required to keep mature products separate from other products and to ensure that unaccompanied children only purchase, rent or use products that are appropriate for their age.
British Columbia will retain authority to examine any video game for prohibitive material. If prohibitive material is found in any game, the director of the film classification office may deny or revoke access to the B.C. market until the distributors have had their prohibited material removed from the game. The director may also recall products that are found to contain prohibited material. The B.C. film classification office will inspect video game distributors and retailers and take action against those who do not comply with the new regulations. The bill authorizes the director of film classification to impose fines for non-compliance and to cease prohibited materials.
[G. Mann Brewin in the chair.]
My initial remarks are very dry, and they're fairly technical in outlining what this bill does. But I think we all have to be cognizant of what is out there. The first video game I was exposed to was Pong. Well, video games have come a long way since then. Anybody who's seen the graphic depictions of violence and sex and sexual content in games today would be very concerned if they felt young children were getting access to this.
The games that we see today are intended to be realistic. That's fine for adults. This is not about censorship. This is about ensuring that parents have the tools they need to make sure that they can be the best parents possible. They can monitor what their children are watching and seeing and playing with and, at the end of the day, ensure that their kids are not being overly exposed to violence or material with sexual content which is inappropriate for their age.
When I was a kid, which was in the early seventies, the most violent material that I was exposed to in terms of entertainment was probably "Road Runner" cartoons. There are those who argue that there's a great deal of violence in those cartoons, but Wile E. Coyote doesn't look anything like a human being. I knew that the Acme Company was not somewhere that I could send away to readily and get anvils and things to commit acts of violence against others. These were cartoons.
[1510]
What we're talking about today is very, very different. We're talking about products which allow for a point-of-view shooter, which means that the people who play the game get to shoot at the most realistic depictions of human beings that the industry has been able to come up with so far.
If we ask police how they feel about this, they're horrified. There's a Superintendent Graham over in the North
[ Page 17702 ]
Vancouver RCMP who is completely behind this effort. He has related to me and others how sickening it is to him to hear the sound of shell casings falling. They're very realistic. That turns the stomach of any officer who's ever actually been in a situation where guns have been fired. But this is what our kids have access to now, on an unrestricted basis. Any kid in this province can go and buy that from a store or rent it. Not only are the sounds realistic, but often the point of the game is to maim and torture other human beings. It's to blow people's heads off; it's to blow their limbs off. It's to make sure there's as much blood as possible spilled.
Hon. Speaker, I think all of us in this House accept and understand that our society has undergone a tremendous desensitization to violence in recent decades. That is a difficult thing to stop. This bill will not stop that, but it is one more thing that can be done to ensure that we don't go more rapidly down that road.
The industry has been consulted on this, but there are some industry concerns. I want to address that for a moment.
I should stop for a moment and give a great deal of credit to my predecessor in this ministry, the current member for Saanich South, who began spearheading this effort last summer. We may hear from him in this debate at some point. There was the question of what to do about these types of products. We could have come up with a system that was entirely made in British Columbia and didn't take into account the reality that these producers and distributors of games are doing it throughout the world and certainly throughout North America. We have to take that into account.
That's why what happened was that my predecessor went to Washington, D.C., for example, to talk with industry representatives, to talk with U.S. Senators who are concerned about this issue, to talk with the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. There is universal concern about this issue. The question is: what is to be done about it?
Well, there is a current industry rating system called the ESRB. Our consultations indicated that it's a very good rating system. About 80 percent of all the games that are sold or rented in North America are rated by that system right now. It's an industry-run system, and so naturally there are those who are inherently suspicious of that. But we've done a great deal of due diligence on this and are confident that it's a very good rating system. The concern that was raised in our consultations was that it's really for information only at this point. There were many parents, for example, who said that this rating system should be given the force of law. That's what we're doing with this bill.
We've tried to be sensitive to industry concerns. What we're doing with this bill is creating an enabling statute. We can adopt any system we want by regulation, but what we will be doing is adopting the ESRB system. That will result in as little inconvenience to the industry as possible. It's important to be sensitive to that.
There are only two changes that we're making to the ESRB system. The ESRB has a number of categories. They have a children's category, I believe. There's a general category or everyone category. There is a teen category, a mature category and an adult category. Two of those categories we're changing by one year. So for the products that the industry says are suitable for mature audiences, which they say are 17-year-olds and up, we're saying it should be 18. For teens, the industry says 13 and up; we're saying 14 and up. Now, there are some who say: "Why make any changes at all?" That's a reasonable question.
[1515]
As a result of our consultations, we've been responsive to parents in this province who felt that a year older made sense. And it's also consistent with the approach that we've taken across the country when it comes to film ratings and classification. We typically use 14 and 18 in this country. So arguably, what we're doing in this system is making minor changes to it in order to be in accordance with what I would say are Canadian community standards.
There are also always concerns about the cost to the industry, and those are fair concerns to raise. Right now it costs about $58 a year for a retailer to have a licence to sell or rent videos, if they are of a general rating or the lower ratings. The licence amount will go up depending on how much closer it gets to adult content. So someone who is engaged in the sale or rental of adult products can pay about $560 a year for their licence. It is our intention that that licence amount should not increase by any more than 20 percent. I think it's also important to note that I've made sure that in my ministry's budget for this fiscal year, there is an increase of $360,000 -- I may be corrected on that, but it's at least $360,000 -- to add to the number of inspectors that would be utilized or needed under this regime.
There are those who say: "Well, gee, that's not very many inspectors." I should say that there are three inspectors right now. We're going to increase that to seven. Some say: "Well, that's not very many inspectors for all of British Columbia." Well, that's true; that isn't a lot of inspectors. But retailers will understand, as they already do when they sell or rent videos, that they are subject to inspection at any time, and non-compliance can lead to fines and ultimately even loss or forfeiture of a licence.
I have to say that I think our current system works well for videos and that retailers are very responsible in this province. They follow those rules perfectly well. But it's also a complaint-driven system. So under these new rules when it comes to video games, if I as a parent walk into a local store and see that an adult product is where my five-year-old can see it, you can bet that I'll make a complaint to the film classification office. And they'll have inspectors out there pretty quickly, I would imagine.
So the cost to the industry, I submit, is minimal. We've tried to be sensitive to the fact that the industry already had a rating system in place. We're giving it the force of law now, and I think this is an important step forward. We are the first jurisdiction in North America to do this. Some might say then: "Well, we're creating rules where no one else has, and won't that put us out of step with everyone else?" The fact is that it's apparent that we're rapidly becoming a leader in this area. Manitoba and Ontario have both expressed an interest in proceeding along our lines. I'm hopeful that what may end up happening is that we'll see other provinces right across the country adopt a similar system, and we'll have consistency from province to province.
I'm very proud of this piece of legislation. As a parent of two young children -- who thankfully aren't bankrupting me yet by playing these games; they're aged two and five right now -- I want to have the comfort of knowing, in addition to me doing my best as a parent, as I know so many other
[ Page 17703 ]
parents do, and monitoring what our children do, that when they're a little bit older and they can go out to a store, the laws of this province will back me up as a parent and ensure that they can't get access, at least that way, to materials that I don't want them seeing and I try to prevent them from having access to otherwise.
I have to emphasize in conclusion that this is not a cure-all. I referenced earlier my concern, and I think the concern of many, about the increasing desensitization towards violence in our society. This isn't going to cure that. This is one more tool in trying to push back that tide. There are other ways potentially, with changes in technology, for our children to get access to these materials. For example, right now, as I understand it, the technology is not such that these games can be downloaded over the Internet. Samples of them can be, but not the entire game. That presents another problem at a different level, because there's no doubt, with technology changing as rapidly as it is, that technology will be such that these games will be accessible in that form.
[1520]
That's why we're working with the federal government now to develop a Canadian response to the problem of access to inappropriate materials over the Internet. This isn't going to solve that, but it's going to ensure that parents know that if their kids are going out to a store and they're trying to rent or buy something, they can have confidence that their kids aren't going to get access to that, at least not without the law being violated.
So at the end of the day, I think this is about good parenting. It's about us trying to be the best parents possible, and it's about us having the right as parents to count upon government to assist us in the course that we've chosen for our kids and making sure that we can raise our kids in as appropriate a way as possible. That's all I have to say at this point on second reading debate, and I await the comments of others.
G. Plant: Some of what I'm going to say will go over some of the ground that the Attorney General has covered, but it's probably worth going over it again. There are at least a couple, I think, of important facts that constitute the context, if you will, for this legislative initiative. The first is technological change in the production of what we call video games. If the Attorney General's first experience with video games was Pong, I'm afraid mine was probably Pac-Man. But we sure have come a long way since then. It is sometimes difficult now to distinguish between an image on a TV screen, which is the product of a computer video game, and the real thing as depicted by a camera on a TV screen. The basketball games that you can buy or rent in the video store look awfully like the basketball games you watch on television. If we're not there yet, the people in the software entertainment industry are working awfully hard to get us there sooner rather than later.
I agree with the Attorney General when he talks about this increasing ability of the people who make these games to create depictions that are indistinguishable from reality, to animate in a way that is light-years ahead of what all of us who are adults remember from cartoon images as kids and to do that in the context of games which are interactive and involve a high level of attention and response on the part of the kids who play them. It's not a passive activity, sitting and watching a video game; it's a very interactive activity. So all of that, I think, is something that's changed over the last couple of decades in the world that we live in and is an important fact for legislators.
The second thing that I think is important to remember is that we live in a jurisdiction where the motion picture industry's products are classified, by law. So we have a legislative tradition in this province of a set of classifications, and principles and processes that go along with them, that ensure that we are, as citizens, as members of the public, informed about what it is we're likely to be exposed to when we make a decision to go to a particular movie.
Once you recognize that video game technology has matured to the point where there is little difference between what appears on movie screens and what appears on TV screens as a result of video games, it seems to me you've gone a long way down the path towards acknowledging the legitimacy of the idea of legislating a classification system for video games. I think those two general points are an important part of the larger context of this legislation.
[1525]
I want to, in the context of my own developing awareness of this phenomenon, express my appreciation to my colleague the member for Delta South and her constituent, Cran Campbell, who I am sure is someone who has caught the attention of the Attorney General and his predecessor over the last few months. I know there are others who have worked hard with the Attorney, and the member for Saanich South when he was the Attorney, to try to wrestle with the challenges presented by the context that I talked about and the other relevant aspects of the issue, to come up with a legislative scheme that balances the competing interests that the Attorney General talks about.
The devil is always in the details, and this act is as much as anything a framework for regulations that will in due course be enacted. In part because there is a significant amount of opportunity for continued discussion about the details in the context of the development of the regulations, I think that we can worry a bit less about some of those details now and focus more on the basic proposition of the framework that's being created by the statute. But I do want to make a couple of substantive comments about the approach that the government intends to take here.
The Attorney General talked about the ESRB system, and I think there is considerable force to the argument that he advances and which I suspect we may hear from others on the government side. There is considerable force to the argument that, since that system is in place somewhere and seems to be working relatively well, we should use it here in British Columbia. The challenge, of course, is that the government has chosen to modify it slightly. And the question I suppose that we could pursue, perhaps in committee stage debate or elsewhere, is whether by choosing to tweak the ESRB system, even to the limited extent that the government is choosing to do that, we're losing some of the advantages of that ESRB system. But I don't think that that debate is foreclosed one way or the other by the statute in the form that is presented to us. So that's an issue that I think could be the subject of continuing discussion.
The second point to be made, though, in that context is this question of whether we ought to have a made-in-B.C.
[ Page 17704 ]
solution. That is, rather than go outside British Columbia to adopt a rating system developed, generally speaking, by industry in the United States for an American market, why don't we develop our own system here in British Columbia?
I don't think it would be right to conclude debate on this bill without giving some credit to the force of the argument in support of a purely made-in-B.C. solution, because it seems to me that the law, both common law and statutory, has always recognized the idea of community standards when thinking about issues around censorship, free speech, obscenity and pornography. And, I venture to suggest, the same considerations are relevant in the context of excessive violence, whether that's violence in a movie or violence in a computer video game or violence in any other form of entertainment.
Whether it's in the United Kingdom, or the United States or Canada -- in the various provinces of Canada and sometimes from city to city and town to town and community to community -- we have, as legislators, acknowledged that the standards of one community are not necessarily the standards of another. And from that platform, it's not a very big leap to the argument that we in British Columbia may have our own standards around what is acceptable content and at what age levels, when it comes to sexual content or depictions of violence in video games.
[1530]
There is, I think, a reason, in that context, to argue for a made-in-B.C. solution. That would be a solution that would be constructed from the ground up perhaps -- by whatever means you choose -- to set our own ground rules about how we think video game violence and other mature or adult video game content should be dealt with.
We do have that approach when it comes to movies. We have a made-in-B.C. approach to the classification of motion pictures. In fact, last time I remember looking into this, the made-in-B.C. approach was working well enough that at least one other province in Canada was using it as the basis for their classification system -- which I suppose I put forward as evidence that we have actually done a pretty good job over the last 25 or 30 years in defining for ourselves as a community a set of standards around what is and is not acceptable content in motion pictures and related forms of artistic expression. From that historical background, as well as for the reasons of principle that I talk about, I think there is actually some force to the argument that if we are to legislate here in British Columbia, we should do so using a made-in-B.C. solution.
I also want to acknowledge the force of the other side of that argument, which I think was made well in the course of the Attorney General's comments, when he spoke about the challenge of trying to minimize the burden on the manufacturers and the distributors. If we're going to move to a new era of legislating a classification system, let's be sure that we strike a fair balance between the legitimate need to ensure that the public is protected, or given the information they need to know to protect themselves, from violent and otherwise objectionable video games, but at the same time let's not cripple the industry that manufactures those games and the sector of our economy that distributes them.
The vast majority of these games are, of course, not really why we're here at all. The vast majority of these games do not offend any community standards and are perfectly acceptable for kids and adults of almost any age.
There is, I guess, a bit of a tension -- at least, I see it as a potential tension -- between, on the one hand, people that argue that we should construct our own set of rules here in British Columbia and then require the industry to live up to them if they want to sell their product here, versus an approach that says no, if there's a set of standards that already exists somewhere else that is being used by the majority of industry and appears to be working, then why not simply accept and adopt that set of standards.
I don't think that there is an overwhelmingly right answer to striking that balance. In that context, let me say one or two things -- maybe it's just one -- about the ESRB. The ESRB, as I understand it, works on the basis of a sort of community panel approach. There are questions that people raise from time to time about whether ESRB applies standards consistently enough to be reliable. I'll accept for a moment the legitimacy of those questions and say that they're probably relevant to the dialogue or the dynamic that exists between the two competing objectives that I talked about. It may be that the way to resolve that is for the government or people within British Columbia to begin to take an active role inside the ESRB system, to help the ESRB system work so that it works not just for the American states or the other jurisdictions where it operates but so that it works well for British Columbia.
I think that that would not be a hugely difficult challenge for the government of British Columbia, and we may hear if the Attorney General himself has already done work in that regard to make sure that if we are going to adopt the ESRB approach, it be made to work for us. I think that would be some progress.
[1535]
One of the things I am less clear about at this point than I probably should be is the way in which this scheme will operate in the context of video game arcades. That may be an issue that we can pursue in committee stage debate, or perhaps the Attorney would have an opportunity to say more about that. We're not just concerned about the games that are played in the privacy of our homes. There is also the issue around what happens in public arcades, where it seems to me that the games played are even more intense and interactive and obviously exciting for kids than is often the case sitting at home.
I suppose the last point I want to make is this. It comes back to that question of whether we need to legislate at all. ESRB, as I understand it, is generally a voluntary thing; the industry accepts the classification system and applies it voluntarily. I haven't done the research that would allow me either to validate, confirm or deny the Attorney General's assertion that British Columbia will become the first jurisdiction to legislate a classification system. But I think that in this particular instance, legislation is probably the right way to go.
While I'm somebody that generally wishes there were less rather than more legislation, I am concerned in the case of video games that the ESRB system does not cover the world. I'm not sure that it applies to all manufacturers in all countries. It may apply to most, but it may not apply to all of the games that come into British Columbia from the east as well as from the south. From the east -- in this case, I mean from Asia.
That is, I think, a thing that we need to be mindful of. It certainly is an important aspect of my community. So in order to make sure we have a system that is applied to all of the
[ Page 17705 ]
product that comes into British Columbia and is as close to uniform in its application as possible, I think that a legislated classification system is probably a necessary step. The time to deal with some of the issues that are details, I think, will come either in the course of committee stage debate or during the process for the development of the regulations. But this initiative is an initiative that in principle, at this stage of debate, the opposition will support.
I want to conclude my remarks by picking up on a theme that the Attorney General referred to in his remarks. I don't think that we can legislate good parenting. I don't think that it's the duty of this House to turn itself into the manifestation of the nanny state. But it is a legitimate function of legislators to ensure that the consumers of products are properly informed about the products that they are thinking of purchasing or renting. When we are looking at video games that are produced, and we think about this problem of violence in society and our seeming inability to find a range of magical solutions, this bill does represent, I think, a modest but legitimate, constructive attempt to address one part of this large and complex problem. For that reason, we'll be supporting it.
[1540]
A. Petter: I'm just delighted to be able to stand up in the House today and speak in favour of this legislation and to do so on a bipartisan basis with the previous speaker and the Attorney General, who preceded me.
This is a very significant initiative. We are the first jurisdiction in North America to confront the issue of video game violence with a legislative response of this kind. I think this step is one that we can be proud of, because it's a step that has been taken carefully with much thought and deliberation and it's a step that speaks, I think, to the community and its needs in a number of different ways.
First of all, we talk a lot about crime, and we talk a lot about violence in society. Very often, when we're confronted with the issues of crime and violence, we talk about them in terms of responding to crime or violence that already exists. We don't get a chance to talk about the underlying causes of crime and violence often enough. It's certainly been my belief, and I know it's the belief of others in this House, that if we're really going to deal in a systematic and systemic way with crime and with violence in our society and with the growing incidence of youth violence in particular, it isn't enough to deal with crime itself. We have to deal with the causes of crime.
I think this initiative is one part of the tapestry that we need to put in place to deal with the causes of crime. That part deals with the culture of violence, a culture of violence that is increasingly being represented to young people through what the experts say in terms I never have quite been entirely comfortable with: convergent media. It's this notion that media is becoming much more powerful; it's converging. It's being targeted, and it's being assimilated by young people in a way that it never was. Certainly when I was growing up, I was playing Donkey Kong. The member opposite was playing Pong and those earlier games that the previous speaker referred to.
Secondly, I think this initiative speaks to another important value, and both previous speakers spoke to this. That is really the question of who gets to choose in our society about the kinds of things that young people, children, are exposed to. I talk to a growing number of parents -- I certainly had the opportunity to do so on this issue when I was Attorney General, and I'll fess up and say that as a parent myself, I feel this -- who get a sense of a growing loss of control in terms of the kinds of materials that young people are exposed to.
The number of different kinds of media that are being targeted at young people, many of which are beyond the knowledge of parents, gives parents a growing sense that they in fact are losing control in terms of their parenting. While it may be true that the state cannot make people into good parents -- indeed, I think it is true -- it is also true that the state and government can help to provide the conditions under which good parents can engage in good parenting. It's also true -- and I think it is increasingly true -- that even good parents, in the face of this onslaught of media, are finding it increasingly difficult to practise good parenting skills in a way that's effective, because they haven't had access to information that they need to ensure that they make those good parenting choices.
What this initiative is really about is saying that when it comes to making choices about what young people are going to be exposed to in our society, those choices should not be made by default by those who are in an economic position to derive benefit from marketing products to young people. Those decisions should be made by the consumers, the young people themselves and, where there are young people who are under-age, by parents on behalf of those young people.
[1545]
I believe this initiative, by embracing both a licensing plan and a labelling plan, gives parents some hope of regaining some measure of the control that I think many parents feel that they are losing. So I think that from that point of view, it's important.
I do want to disagree with just one thing that the previous member said. It's not a major point. I think he was making a slightly different point, in fact. He said that from the point of regulation, one cannot really distinguish between movies on the one hand and video games on the other. In fact, there is a point of distinction. And the point of distinction is that video games are more interactive, more likely to condition behaviour, more likely to influence behaviour -- as all the recent studies have shown -- even than movies. So in fact, to the extent there is a difference, it speaks powerfully in favour of a current regulatory scheme being extended to this particular form of interactive entertainment.
Those are just a few prefatory comments, hon. Speaker. I sort of came to this issue as a legislator, in my previous incarnation as Attorney General, as a result of the efforts of people like Cran Campbell and other citizens, who drew to my attention their concern about the violence in video games that had gone beyond even what I was aware of as a parent.
A complaint that had been laid by, I believe, Mr. Campbell -- I think I'm right on that -- in fact resulted in the film classification office designating a particular video game, Soldier of Fortune, as adult material. Under the existing regulatory scheme, there is this extraordinary power that the classification office has. When material is adult, even if it isn't a movie, they can designate it, notwithstanding that it isn't part of an all-embracing plan for video games. In this case, the classification office felt so strongly that this game portrayed brutal depictions of violence that were disturbing and potentially damaging to young people that they used this extraordinary power to say that this was adult material.
[ Page 17706 ]
I think that drove home the point as well. It wasn't just citizens who were understandably concerned but the regulators themselves. The same people who have been looking for years and years at the kind of material that's being shown in movie theatres and rating it found this material as, or more, disturbing.
As a result of that, we decided to take action. And last summer I announced that the province would be moving towards a classification plan that would indeed look at video games. We undertook a major series of consultations with the public, with the industry and with others. I say "we." In fact, I want to give credit to the Ministry of Attorney General and to the deputy minister in that ministry, in particular, who took on this consultation in a very concerted and, in my view, a very effective way, engaging with stakeholders, assembling literature and starting to put together the material that has in fact resulted in this legislation today.
The other thing that happened that I think drove home the point was last summer -- I believe it was last July -- when a number of different U.S.-based agencies issued reports on their findings about the impact of video game violence on young people. There's been an ongoing controversy, of course, as to whether video game violence in fact does influence behaviour, whether the culture of violence that it creates translates into some form of behavioral change. There has been controversy about that. There are some apologists for video game violence who argue that it doesn't or that it's an outlet. We're familiar with these arguments.
Last July the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry all came out together with a common set of findings based on different studies that they had sponsored. The essence of those studies and of that pool of research was that they were now prepared to say that the findings pointed unequivocally to a relationship between exposure to media violence generally -- video violence being an important subset of that -- and behavioral changes in children. They said that kids who watched increased violence are more likely to be aggressive in their behaviour.
[1550]
Kids are certainly more likely to be desensitized to violence, which means they'll be more tolerant of aggression in others and perhaps less aware of aggression in themselves. They said that kids who view violence are more likely to become afraid of becoming a victim of violence, so it creates a climate of fear in which kids become more isolated from each other, in which kids withdraw, in which socialization that should take place in a healthy upbringing can be stunted by the fear of violence created by the culture of violence. And they said that in some cases -- and they conceded this was not a situation in every single situation of a young person, but in certain cases with certain young people depending on the behavioral and sociological background of a young person -- their findings show that media violence could actually result in young people acting out that violence in real life -- imitative behaviour.
Those are four pretty reputable institutions that came together because their findings all lined up on this issue. That, I think, really again reinforced the point and the complaints and concerns of members of the public that the rating agency and the government came to -- that this was an issue that merited action.
I had the opportunity to take this issue to the federal justice ministers' meeting in September of last year and meet with other justice ministers. I think it was an important issue. The member opposite, the critic for the Attorney General at the time, said that maybe I should be dealing with more important issues. But I think this was a pretty important issue, because it did deal with the causes of crime. And the other issues he talked about, we dealt with as well; I want him to know that.
Serendipitously, I guess, the very day that this issue came up there was a
report released from the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. That report looked
at the marketing practices of video game and media companies in the United
States. And I'll come back to that. In part, because of that report
Interjection.
A. Petter: The member says he applauded my initiative. If he did, we both have a complaint against the Vancouver Sun -- if he did. In any event, I'm sure he did applaud it as well -- with one hand perhaps, but applauded it nonetheless. No, no. I appreciate the member's support. He has been supportive of this initiative throughout its development.
I think the priority of this initiative was the right one to bring to that table. I'm very pleased that all the other justice ministers in the country and the federal justice minister agreed, and we set up a national task force as a result. The Attorney General referred to the federal government's action and that national task force, which will now be looking into Internet and other issues beyond provincial jurisdiction. I may be a little out of date, but the last I heard was that B.C. was being asked to play a leadership role in that task force, which I think is again very much to the credit of the officials in the Ministry of Attorney General.
But the report that came down from the Federal Trade Commission, which made my job a lot easier in persuading my colleagues across the country that this was an issue that merited national attention, was really quite shocking. What it showed was that the very companies that were labelling video games according to the ESRB standard were ignoring that standard in their marketing practices. The very companies that were putting out video games that they themselves labelled as unsuitable for children because of the ESRB rating were marketing those games in magazines targeted at children, were marketing those games in television times targeted at children, were marketing them systematically at children.
Let me just read a little bit from the executive summary of the report of the Federal Trade Commission, which really makes the point and, again, really makes the case for this legislation. I'll read two excerpts from the executive summary that deals with this: "Although the motion picture, music recording and electronic game industries have taken steps to identify content that may not be appropriate for children, companies in those industries routinely target children under 17 as the audience for movies, music and games that their own rating or labelling systems say are inappropriate for children or warrant parental caution due to their violent content."
Sure, the companies had set up an ESRB rating system, which is a very good rating system -- I'll come to that in a second. But then they were systematically ignoring that rating
[ Page 17707 ]
system in their marketing practices through their marketing arms by targeting at young children the very games that their rating system was saying were not suitable for young children.
[1555]
A little farther down the paragraph, the executive summary of the report then goes on to say this: "The practice of pervasive and aggressive marketing of violent videos, music and electronic games to children undermines the credibility of the industry's ratings and labels. Such marketing also frustrates parents' attempts to make informed decisions about their children's exposure to violent content."
A very important report. What it showed was that having a rating is one thing, but the industry itself didn't believe that the ratings were any constraint whatsoever in terms of who was going to consume their products, because they were putting their money into marketing games and other media products at kids that their rating system said weren't suitable. So much for the rating system.
Was the fault with the rating system? I don't believe it was. But to find that out, one of the last opportunities I had in the wonderful portfolio I enjoyed as Attorney General was to go down to New York and Washington and talk to the regulators and talk to the Federal Trade Commission and indeed talk to David Crane, who is senior counsel to the Senate committee -- the Lieberman-McCain committee -- that's been looking into media violence in the States.
I spent a day with the ESRB. The member opposite may be interested in this, because he's referred to the ESRB rating system. The ESRB system is in fact operated at arm's length from the industry. It has a reference group of very respected and independent-minded individuals, from educators to other members of the public. Its ratings, I became convinced after spending a day or day and a half with the ESRB, were credible and legitimate ratings. They're based on objective indicators. They're not subjective; they don't try to be subjective. There's always a subjective element in this, but they try to be objective. They try to really target what's going on in the game that they think makes it unsuitable for certain age categories. They will reference particular manifestations of violence that they find disturbing, so a parent, if the parent chooses to, can look at the package and actually determine what's in it.
I became convinced, and the stakeholder process that we held in B.C
I had an opportunity then to go and talk to a number of groups in Washington, D.C. As I say, I managed to meet with the Federal Trade Commission that had done the study, which confirmed in very dramatic ways their findings and that this was a serious problem. Also, as I say, I had a chance to meet with senior counsel from the McCain-Lieberman committee, which has been looking into this problem. It was really quite an exciting trip, I must say, because in the U.S. they do not have the opportunity or they don't have the freedom, perhaps, to engage in the kind of legislation we have here, because of first amendment concerns. So they were very much focusing on the marketing end of this problem.
We were dealing on the consumer end. And they were as interested in what B.C. was doing as the emerging leader in North America on consumer protection from violent videos as I was interested in what they were doing in terms of tracking the marketing practices and trying to put moral suasion on the industry.
The member opposite talked about the fact that some of these -- well, the ESRB in particular -- are U.S.-based. But I don't think there is anything to suggest that the problem is much different in Canada. These companies are transnational, and in fact there's been a fair bit of Canadian research I could refer to that shows that, as big as the video game industry is in the United States, that industry in relation to our country's size is just as big here and that kids are just as exposed here as they are in the U.S.
Also, the studies in Canada are instructive. There's a study that was done by the Laval University Centre d'�tude, released in 1999, indicating that violence on Canadian television is growing at an alarming rate. Violent acts on television increased 50 percent between 1995 and 1998. That increase occurred in spite of the fact that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters made a pledge in 1996 to take action on the issue.
[1600]
Actually, one of my favourite studies on the issue involved kids. I mean, let's ask kids what they think about this. I know that some kids don't like this scheme. I had to deal with my own son on that issue. But interestingly, a study of 650 B.C. youth conducted by the media analysis laboratory, October 1998, at Simon Fraser University found the following: 95 percent of teens surveyed had access to a home computer or a video game machine, and 90 percent owned at least some video games. And I'm willing to bet that in the last two years the number has gone up. Eighty-five percent of teens said that video games can have a harmful effect on kids. Only 15 percent thought they could have no harmful effect, and only 5 percent of the sample said that video games are not addictive.
Well, ask the kids. They think that video games are addictive, and they think that they have disturbing effects. Their findings correspond with the scientific findings of the American Medical Association, and others correspond with the other evidence that has come to light.
So we have now in front of us -- as a result of that and the efforts that have been made by the current Attorney General to move forward with a legislative scheme that is, as he described it, one that is responsive to these concerns of giving parents and kids some real information and real choice on the one hand but being efficient on the other -- a piece of legislation that I think we can all be extremely proud of.
Why is it important to have this form of regulation as opposed to simply allowing the ESRB standard to be there as a voluntary standard? One reason is that a huge number of transactions of video games take place without any parental supervision at all. I don't think we can blame parents for this; parents can't be accompanying their kids every time they go into a video store. Many parents are not familiar with video games, and they haven't perhaps become familiar with some of the rating systems.
What this legislation will do is not censor anyone. Parents will be free to rent, on behalf of their kids, any games they
[ Page 17708 ]
want. But it will create a presumption against games being rented to kids that are rated by the industry as unsuitable for kids. Those who market or rent these games will be required to not rent them to kids unless the parent says so. So it creates a presumption in favour of the parent not wanting their child exposed to material that the industry itself, if we adopt the ESRB standard, says are not suitable for kids.
But at the end of the day, if the parent says, "No, I think that my kid can handle that" or "I'm going to sit down and work that through" or "I just don't agree," the parent is free to make that choice on behalf of that child. I think that is why this legislation is about choice and restoring choice to parents. It's about creating a more balanced playing field on which decisions about violence aren't made by default, in Hollywood or in New York, by marketing agencies. They're made intentionally by parents here, based on their judgments about what their kids should be exposed to. That's what communities are about and parenting is about. That's why this legislation is about enforcing community standards and giving parents the opportunity to regain some control that they have lost.
The ESRB standard -- the member opposite asked whether or not that standard was reflective of community concerns. As I say, the standard is objectively based. However, there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation. If the industry doesn't agree that that standard reflects the particular rating a game should have in B.C., then a retailer here could challenge it. I should also say that my understanding is that efforts have been underway to ensure that B.C. does have input into the ratings board and into the agency with the ESRB.
There has been some resistance in the industry of late. I'm sure the industry will come to its senses, particularly with the bipartisan support for this initiative. Hopefully, we can overcome that resistance, and that will enable us to have greater input into the way the ESRB operates and an understanding of their system. Clearly there are games, as the member said, that may come from outside the ESRB catchment area -- if I can say that -- that will need to be rated in a different way.
At the end of the day, we're taking a very important step here. We're taking a step on behalf of parents. I encourage every legislator here and every parent, actually, to go into a video store and ask to see a clip from one of the games that is rated by the ESRB as unsuitable for kids. Don't stay long. It'll make you sick to your stomach. But it's important to see it, because if you don't see it now, you may see it two or three years from now, and in that interceding period, your kids may have seen it before you, a lot more than you'll ever see it.
It will also bring home the point that this is no longer about Bugs Bunny or
the Road Runner, as the Attorney General said. This is about games that reward
people for maiming each other, games that award points
[1605]
I applaud the Attorney General for having carried through on this initiative. I think it's a great day for British Columbia. We can lead North America. Europe has already got some regulation, but North America does not. Many in North America are looking to us on this initiative. It's attracted national and international attention.
I think that if this House votes unanimously for it, that will send a very strong message to the industry and to others that, while we believe in freedom of expression, while we believe in the creativity that is deployed in the creation of video games, while we love playing video games -- I'm an addict for video games; I've actually got one in my pocket right here that I play from time to time, I confess -- that does not mean that we can allow our kids to simply be steamrollered by messages that desensitize them, that encourage them to be aggressive, that cause a climate of fear in our schools and that in the long run can do much damage to them, to our society and to us all.
This is legislation whose time has come, and this is a province that can be very proud that we're at the front of the pack. I want us all to stand up and support this for ourselves, for our kids and for what we believe in. It's good legislation, and I think we should all support it.
Hon. E. Gillespie: I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my admiration and my appreciation for the work of the previous Attorney General, the previous speaker here, the member for Saanich South, and the work that has been carried forward by the current Attorney General. And I'd like to say also that I'm very pleased to hear today that this legislation, the Video Games Act, will be supported by the opposition as we go through this debate.
The previous speaker said: "At the end of the day, we will speak as parents." I rise today to speak as a parent. I called home about half an hour ago and asked my 14-year-old son to turn on the legislative channel and pay attention to this debate. I hope he has called his friends, so that they too can hear the expression of concern, the concern of the people of this province about the children in this province.
The Video Games Act is about classifying video games into children, general audience, youth and adult categories to control access to video games and to ensure that prohibited material in video games is not available.
Others have spoken about the days of innocence, the early days of video games. I was introduced to Pong in 1976. Pong is a very simple game; there couldn't be a more simple game. There are two bats and a ball. You can vary the speed of the game, and you can vary the size of the bat. That's about as complicated as it gets. Pong games were embedded in bar tables, and the more you drank, the more difficult the game became. But it was indeed a very simple game.
The next game I saw was a tiny Nintendo game that was sent to me from Singapore. It featured skydivers who jumped out of airplanes. There was a boat waiting below, and if the boat caught the skydiver, the skydiver was safe. If he missed, the skydiver fell to the sharks.
[1610]
Well, now I have a son who will be 14 tomorrow. I'd like to take this opportunity to wish him a very happy birthday. What more could a 14-year-old want for a birthday party than time spent with his friends playing video games? What would
[ Page 17709 ]
any 12-, 13-, 14- or 15-year-old boy want more than to rent a Nintendo, rent some games, have some friends over, eat some chips, drink some pop and have a really good time? Well, that's what my son would like to do, and that's what his friends would like to do. And on my son's birthday list are a whole series of video games that he would like to enjoy with his friends.
We've had a lot of discussion in our family about video games, the kinds of discussions that have been referenced by earlier speakers. We know, as parents viewing our own children, what happens when those children come off of two or three hours spent playing video games or watching TV. We see that aggressive behaviour, and we know that it's not acceptable. It doesn't improve our family dynamics, that's for sure. We make efforts to limit that kind of exposure in our family, in order to improve the family dynamic, but also so that our children have the opportunity to experience the whole variety of what life has to offer.
So tomorrow my son and his friends will be at the local swimming pool. We'll gather together later for pizza and chips and pop, no doubt. And I look forward to joining them at that point. But they'll also be talking about their video games, because among them, they buy, they rent, they share, they download from the Internet. The more exciting the game and the more realistic the game, the more those boys want to have access to it.
At the same time, we have a very active debate occurring in our community about bullying, about violence and, in particular, about violence against women and sexualized violence. The focus of that debate is around the school. I would submit, as others have submitted here, that while children spend much of their day in school, children exist in families and in communities that experience violence, that allow violence, that are desensitized to violence. How can we expect, in those communities where people are desensitized to violence, that they will identify and deal quickly with issues of bullying among children in school?
In a couple of weeks, toward the end of April, we will be acknowledging, right across this province, Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. I look forward to the day when that week is no longer necessary in our calendar, when violence against women is not a part of the experience of women's lives, of community lives across this country, but violence against women has been prevented, and there is no longer the need to have that public debate and that public acknowledgment. But today and tomorrow there is the need for that acknowledgment, because we live in a society that is desensitized to violence.
This legislation establishes a framework for regulation, a regulation whose time has come. I am very pleased to hear today that the opposition and government will be voting together to support this legislation.
M. Sihota: I hate to start a speech with a little bit of nostalgia.
But I have to say
[1615]
I think the reason why I feel strongly about this issue is in part that I'm a parent of two children who watch television from time to time and in part that I talk to a lot of parents everywhere I go in my community who feel powerless to do anything about the amount of violence -- the quantum of violence -- that their children are exposed to on a day-to-day basis, be it on television or by virtue of video games. You just seem powerless, as a parent, to be able to deal with all those influences you all worry about that impact on your children. You wonder whether or not there are interventions that the state can make to try to sort of shield children from exposure to things that we all know -- morally, ethically or philosophically -- are unacceptable influences.
I don't know. I like to think that those of us who are in this chamber
believe in our heart of hearts that we can make a difference and that we have an
obligation to take those conversations that we hear and some of the frustrations
that parents feel and some of the worries that parents go to bed with at night
You know, an average child growing up today in North America will spend twice
as much time in front of a television, watching TV or videos, than in front of a
teacher. We all like to think, because this is the way we were all raised, that
teachers make
We acknowledge as a society that teachers have a huge impact on the growth
and development of children. And then when you pause to think that a child
spends twice as much time watching television or video games on television than
he or she spends in front of a teacher, you begin to wonder what kind of impact
this television violence has on young people. And you start to think that
perhaps some of the things we see that occur in society today, some of the
things we don't like -- the amount of violence and bullying and attitudes
towards women and racial minorities
I wouldn't want to lay everything at the foot of television and say that that's the sole contributor to this kind of behaviour. But I will say this, because I believe it. I will say that television is a significant contributor to the development of those kinds of attitudes -- violence or racism or disrespect for human beings, showing the lack of dignity. I think television does shape the behaviour of people.
Inasmuch as the industry may argue otherwise, I think most of us, as parents, know intuitively that what they're
[ Page 17710 ]
watching is having an impact on them. That's why we watch over them when they're watching what they're watching. That's why we try to play some role as regulators -- if I can put it that way -- and as parents, in terms of steering our children away from behaviours or activities that we think are undesirable. Accordingly, to me it has always been obvious that exposure to television violence has a harmful effect on children.
There was a 1986 study that found that television violence
[1620]
Now, you think about that. Think about a young child growing up in an atmosphere of poverty. I have to say that many of the constituents I have the privilege of representing here in the Legislature find themselves in situations of poverty. You think that that might have an impact in terms of people crossing the line and engaging in behaviour just to try to find their way out of poverty. And then you think about them being at home and watching television violence, coming to the conclusion that that, more than their socioeconomic condition, defines the potential for them to be engaged in juvenile behaviour.
Commenting on a speech by my colleague from Saanich South, who did a lot of
good work in this area as the Attorney General
Some may call it this, but this is not some disreputable organization. This is the American Pediatric Society, which for generations has observed, commented on and catalogued the behaviour of young people. And it said that this was the single most significant factor that would serve a remedial purpose.
Now, despite all of that pressure
Surely to God, in the art form that's known as television there must be art forms that are aimed at children that can bring out the best in children rather than teaching them the worst. Surely to God the artistic capacity of people in that industry must be such that they can perhaps channel their programming in a far more positive way.
Now, I'm not talking about mind control or saying that somehow the industry should accept the moral values that I adhere to. But I do think that there's a basic set of responsibilities that they have. But on the contrary, what the industry has done is that it has continued to escalate the amount of violence that is depicted on video games and on television to children -- continually escalated it.
A recent study done by a company called Mediascope was looking at this issue. It found that on television, 40 percent of all violent interactions showed no harm to the victims and 58 percent of the time, no pain. Think about that, hon. Speaker. When you're watching television as a young child, when you're watching a video game as a young child and you see violence being perpetrated on one person by another, when you see an assault of one person on another, almost 60 percent of the time there's no indication that that assault generates pain to the human being who is the recipient of that assault. And 47 percent of the time -- almost 50 percent of the time -- there is no harm inflicted on a person, because they don't show it.
[1625]
You know, think about that. The reality is that if people strike one another, if someone kicks somebody, if someone slaps somebody, if someone takes a fist to another person, then you know there's going to be harm inflicted upon the body of that individual. And yet 47 percent of all violent interactions or scenes shown on television showed no harm to the victim, and 58 percent of the time they showed no pain.
According to this study, 73 percent of all violent scenes show the perpetrators going unpunished. Think about that. We have a Criminal Code that says that you can't hit somebody against their will. You can't go out and strike somebody and engage in the act of assault. Yet on television, 73 percent of all violent scenes go unpunished.
The study went on to show that a total of 25 percent of violent interactions on television involved handguns, and only 4 percent of violent programs emphasized an anti-violence theme. Twenty-five percent of the interactions involved handguns, and most of those showed no consequential behaviour in terms of harm upon the person that was shot.
Now again, let's put this in some kind of perspective. That's not real. If you strike somebody, you harm people. If you shoot somebody, it's not as if the person just gets up and walks away. That's surreal; that's unreal. But that's television. That's violent videos. It's not the real world. No wonder we are raising children today in a society where they're insensitive to the consequences of violence. Whether it's verbal violence or bullying, they are thoughtless about what kind of impact that has on the recipient or insensitive to the consequences of violence, just generally, when it occurs to one person. They laugh at times when people engage in the kind of behaviour we see too much these days in our schools.
It desensitizes people. Other studies have shown that not only does it desensitize people, it also, for some children in society, causes them to live in a world of fear where they think that violence is normal, and they want to have no part of it. And they wonder how others will react to them if they take
[ Page 17711 ]
them on, in some sense of the word. So children live in an atmosphere of paranoia and of fear because of the quantum of violence shown on television and on video games.
I said at the outset that there are things I like to think we can do about
the problems I've alluded to. I'm pleased to be part of a government that is
trying, and in many ways being leaders in North America in trying to do this.
I'm very much proud to be part of a government that has brought this bill before
the House. Not only does this bill allow for a classification system
But by taking some of the other initiatives we've taken in the provisions of this legislation, I do think that we are at least taking away the capacity of children to access videos that have an unacceptable level of violence attached to them by at least saying they cannot be displayed in a public place, that they must be placed somewhere out of sight and that adults only can have access to those games, as is represented in the bill that's before us.
There are some who have said -- and I wish that those in the press gallery were listening now -- that this session of the Legislature is wasted time. They've said that this is an unnecessary session and that there was no need for the government to prolong this session, since the budget has been passed. They argue that the government has run out of mandate and we ought to go to an election.
[1630]
This bill, hon. Speaker, is not wasted time. This is not an unnecessary piece of legislation. This is a bill that is long overdue. And for all of those cynics who have been a part of my life in this building for the last 14 years, perhaps for once they should take the time to comment on the initiatives that this government is bringing forward in terms of regulating violence in video games. They should say, "Good on this government; good on this Legislature" -- because I suspect that the bill will pass on a unanimous basis -- for the kind of statement that we are making in this chamber today in debating this bill, to acknowledge that the session is very much worth it.
We're all here, despite our ideological differences, because we all believe that the kind of society we're trying to create has to be better than the one that we inherited. We're all here to try to craft a society that is better for our children than the one that we found, whether it be in terms of trying to create a better health care system than we inherited or a better education system than we were educated in or a better environment that we breathe in. We're trying to improve society. That is what political life is all about. That is what political debate is all about. It's what this chamber is all about.
I said at the outset -- and I'll end on this note -- that this may be my last speech in this chamber. I don't know if it is or it isn't. I don't know, but it's getting close to that time. I know that much -- right? I can't be prouder of my political party for taking the initiative that it has in introducing this bill. If this is the last speech, I feel great.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm really, really pleased with the comments we've heard in the House today. I'm pleased that the opposition will be voting with us on this, I think. It's an important bill. You know, just last week I met with the district parent advisory council in New Westminster and talked to parents about this initiative, among others, and they're universally supportive.
Very briefly, there were a couple of points made by the opposition critic that he suggested I might address at this point, and I will. There is the issue of whether we do a made-in-British Columbia system. As the opposition critic correctly pointed out in his remarks, this legislation sets up a framework. It allows us to adopt any system we like. We're going with the ESRB system now, because we think it's a good system and because we want to be sensitive to the industry. But if we desire, at some point in the future, if we decide it suits British Columbians better, we can establish a made-in-British Columbia system or some form of hybrid. Arguably, because of the two simple changes we've made around the age rating for teen and mature, we have a minor form of a hybrid system already.
The member for Saanich South may have made this point already, but I wanted to make it clear. The opposition critic also raised the issue of whether we might participate in some way with the ESRB. Those are ongoing discussions. We're trying to negotiate right now, actually, whether British Columbia might get a position on the committee that makes these decisions, in order to ensure that there is British Columbia input at the point at which decisions are made around classifications.
There was also a concern raised about the ESRB. The fact is, as I indicated earlier, it does rate about 80 percent of all games in North America now. But for games that may come from elsewhere, this legislation allows us to review any product we wish. So if the ESRB hasn't rated it, we can certainly rate it ourselves. We will be able to do that by setting up a system by regulation.
[1635]
Finally, there was the issue of arcades, which is an important issue, and it's one of the most frequently asked questions that I'm faced with. This legislation will allow us, as well, to move towards the regulation of arcades. But we want to take this one step at a time, do it right with retailers first, and we expect in short order that arcades will be next. We've said that quite publicly. I've said it publicly, so arcade owners and operators are on notice that this is coming. Certainly, we've already done some work with the arcades that this government runs, which are on B.C. Ferries, to remove some of the games that are a serious problem. We did that last summer. We already know that B.C. Ferries has a committee working on this. They're working already to comply voluntarily with what we're establishing here today. That's all I have to say on second reading.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time now.
The Speaker: If the members could take their seats, we'll be able to do this division, please. Members, the motion is second reading of Bill 19.
[1640]
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 19, Video Games Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 17712 ]
Introduction of Bills
Hon. C. Evans presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2001.
Hon. C. Evans: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, this legislation continues the process of rationalizing and restructuring collective bargaining structures within the health sector in British Columbia. This legislation continues the process initiated with the Dorsey Commission in 1995 and the amendments to the Health Authorities Act in 1997.
These amendments, hon. Speaker, move us to four sensible bargaining units in this sector by merging two presently established units within the facilities subsector and the community subsector into one larger unit covering all unionized workers providing the same kind of service within the health services and support sector.
[1645]
This legislation also merges two trade union associations that are currently established into one new association and ensures that these changes will take place in a controlled and systematic fashion.
I believe that these changes build upon the progress that has very recently been made at the bargaining table and will help to ensure a workable bargaining system in health care in future.
I would urge all members to support these changes, hon. Speaker. I move the introduction and first reading of this bill and I move that it should go to second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 23 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. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 18.
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
FOOD LABELLING ACT
(second reading)
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Will the members come to order.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think this bill actually addresses something that
is of importance to British Columbia. And I would invite
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: If the opposition has a point of order they would like to make, I would invite that. Seeing no point of order, I'll proceed. I move the bill be read a second time.
Yesterday the government introduced legislation on a topic which is of great importance to British Columbians: the right of consumers to know whether the food available to them contains genetically engineered material. I'm pleased to say that this government fully supports that right.
Now, a little earlier this afternoon, we were debating the Video Games Act, which is a video classification system. The opposition justice critic said something which I think was important in terms of a statement of principle and that was that he felt it was the duty of the state to ensure that citizens are properly informed about the nature of the products that they are consuming. That was in the context of the video classification bill. Now we're talking about products that people actually consume, put into their bodies. So the question is: does the same apply here? We believe it does.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. members to come to order. The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston will come to order.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: There seems to be some concern around the nature of an exposure bill. Now, I think the point of an exposure bill is to make sure that it is there for the public to see. And the commitment is that that bill is not passed, that that bill should not become law without further consultation. That in no way curtails the right of government to bring forward that bill for debate, especially in this case. We're talking about debating second reading, which is the point at which we debate the bill in principle.
We have introduced this as an exposure bill. The purpose of the bill is to
promote public discussion and to get input on the best way to proceed with the
legislative response to the consumers' wishes to know whether the food they and
their families are eating is genetically engineered. In many cases, an exposure
bill receives first reading only. I'm rising
Interjections.
[1650]
Hon. G. Bowbrick: Again, hon. Speaker, I certainly am open to a point of order by the opposition if they have one to make, but I'm not seeing that.
As I stated at first reading, this bill will not be enacted during this session. Government now will begin a thorough consultation period involving discussion with the agrifood industry, the biotechnology industry, environmentalists and consumers, with a view to introducing new legislation on the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered food in an upcoming session of the Legislature. I don't think it's a partisan issue. I actually think it's an issue that people care about.
The use of genetically engineered material in the production of food destined for human consumption is rapidly becoming a high-profile issue in many parts of the world. An increasing number of conferences are held on the topic. The media, almost daily, run stories on the issue. Last night I went and visited the CNN web site to see what material was there, and there is a great deal of discussion of this throughout the world and certainly throughout North America. Public opinion polls, including the one I noted at the CNN site last night, repeatedly indicate a growing concern about GE foods.
So the question is: what is genetic engineering? What is the fuss all about? The term genetic engineering refers to the
[ Page 17713 ]
application of recombinant DNA and RNA technologies, which involve the direct molecular manipulation of the genetic structure of organisms or viruses, including the addition of foreign genes, gene alterations, duplications or deletions. The resulting genetic structure is passed on to the organism's offspring.
With the use of GE techniques, genetic material may be transferred within and between species and across the kingdoms of plants, animals and micro-organisms. Methods of achieving this transfer include the use of vectors, such as parts of the DNA of bacteria or viruses that carry a gene into another organism, or the use of a gene gun that shoots tiny gold particles coated with genetic material into an organism.
It should also be recognized that genetic material may be altered through traditional means such as breeding and selection processes, as well as natural means of reproduction. The term genetic engineering in the bill does not include these traditional means of modifying or altering genetic material, nor does it include induced mutagenesis or induced polyploidy -- the exposure to mutation agents, usually radiation or chemicals, to cause genetic mutations. The upcoming consultation process, as well as the recommendations of the proposed expert advisory panel, may lead to further refinement of the definition of genetic engineering and of the types of technology to be included or excluded in any labelling regime.
GE foods have only become widespread in the diets of Canadians in the last four years. The British Columbia agrifood industry has adopted genetic engineering technologies to a limited extent over the past five years. However, technologies currently in development may be widely adopted in coming years. The time for government to act, we believe, has arrived.
In Canada now, the current labelling system for foods sold here does not require food producers, processors or retailers to identify the presence or absence of GE materials in their products, unless the foods contain known allergens or the food has a substantially different composition than its non-GE counterpart. Certification as organic is currently one of the only ways for consumers to be confident they are not buying GE foods. Producers may also voluntarily label their food as GE-free or non-GE if it is not GE food. Food that is not labelled in one of these ways, as GE-free or as organic, remains a mystery to consumers. They do not know and have no way of knowing if the food is or is not GE.
The federal government is not at this time contemplating mandatory labelling of GE foods. However, given the introduction in the House of Commons, on February 28 of this year, of a Liberal private member's bill requiring mandatory labelling of foods containing more than 1 percent of genetically engineered material, it is evident that concern about this issue is widespread. This province would welcome the opportunity to work with the federal government or with other provincial or territorial governments to arrive at a consistent approach on this issue. The province's only concern -- the only concern -- is that the needs of consumers be met.
[1655]
In the absence of decisive federal action, the government is prepared to take the lead. Do we have the legislative authority to do this? The answer is yes. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the province has jurisdiction to legislate on a matter of property and civil rights. This matter has been interpreted to include the authority to legislate with regard to consumer protection and consumer information. This matter is a consumer information matter, which brings us to the health and safety issue.
By introducing a bill on mandatory labelling of GE foods, what is the government saying about the safety of GE foods? The answer is that we're not saying anything about the safety of those foods. This bill is about providing consumers with the information that they want to have to make their own decisions about whether or not they and their families will consume such food. The debate regarding the health and safety of GE foods has been going on for several years and will likely continue for several more.
This government is not taking a position on the health of those foods. All we are saying is that consumers should be provided with the information that they say they want to make informed decisions, based upon whatever considerations they think are important. That's the right of every consumer. Mandatory labelling is about providing that essential decision-making information.
I believe it's the right thing to do, and the province of British Columbia is not the only jurisdiction to think so. I'm proud to say that we're the first in Canada to introduce this legislation on the mandatory labelling of GE foods, but as I've said, we're not the first. The European Union requires labelling and monitoring of foods containing GE organisms. Australia and New Zealand have adopted a comprehensive labelling system that includes regulating the use of GE technology in food and labelling of foods containing genetically engineered material. This system in Australia and New Zealand is scheduled to come into force in December of this year. And Japan has adopted a complex set of mandatory labelling regulations for foods containing GE materials, which are set to become effective this month.
No jurisdiction in the United States has yet enacted mandatory labelling laws, although we're hearing that Mexico is now considering the issue. So we're leading in North America. But this is a clear issue for consumers around the world, and we should heed what consumers are asking for. This is a big issue in Europe; it's an issue in Australia and New Zealand; it's an issue in Japan. It's increasingly an issue for consumers in North America.
British Columbia may be on the cutting edge in North America, but our action with this bill is not unprecedented. Consumers around the world want to know what they're eating. With this, the government is just offering our latest response to that consumer demand.
The bill that we've introduced is a short one. It defines key terms. It provides for the establishment of an expert advisory panel to make recommendations with regard to the complexities of implementing a mandatory food labelling system. It provides that inspectors may be appointed to enforce the bill, and it allows for the making of regulations setting out the details of how a mandatory labelling system would work.
In addition to the bill, my ministry released yesterday a copy of a discussion paper that provides further background and information on this important issue. This paper and bill are both posted on the Internet. The food industry, the biotechnology industry, consumer advocacy groups and the general public are encouraged to take this opportunity to provide government with feedback on the proposal that we've put forward, before any legislation would be finalized in the future. And I understand that many have already taken advantage of the opportunity to respond.
[ Page 17714 ]
That's all I have to say on this at this point in time. I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues in the chamber. I want to emphasize again that this bill will not go beyond second reading. But it's an important issue that I think British Columbians deserve to hear from their legislators about.
G. Plant: Yesterday the Attorney General stood in the House at approximately 1430 hours and said that he was pleased to be introducing Bill 18. He said: "This bill is being introduced as an exposure bill at this time."
Well, an exposure bill is a bill where the government puts it on the order paper, gives it first reading and then says to the people of British Columbia: "We'd like your input. We're not going to tell you what to think on this initiative. We'd like you to tell us what you think on this initiative. And after you have told us what you think on this initiative, after we've engaged in a process of public consultation, then we'll come back. We'll decide whether we pursue the debate of the bill or we withdraw it and pursue some other initiatives or don't proceed legislatively at all."
[1700]
I'd like to congratulate the Attorney General. It's 5 o'clock on this day. That's about 26-1/2 hours -- probably one of the most interesting exercises in public consultation that the NDP have ever undertaken. It only took a day, apparently, for the public of British Columbia to provide all the input that the government needed. Now the government's going to stand up and move second reading, as the Attorney General has just done, and presumably we're going to hear other speakers from the government. Maybe we won't.
It seems to me that the intention here is to hear other speakers from the government benches tell British Columbians what to think about this idea instead of what I thought the idea was a mere 26-1/2 hours ago. That was something that would have been pretty tough for this government, I must admit, something that would probably have been beyond the ability of this government -- to actually listen to British Columbians. But I guess 26-1/2 hours is about all the listening that this government can stand from the people of British Columbia.
I know what this is about. This is about a government that has nothing constructive to do in this legislative chamber, so it's desperately looking for ways to fill up the days and the hours until the Premier turns over that last page in his binder that says: "Today you get to call the election."
An Hon. Member:
G. Plant: No, it will be in his scrapbook eventually. It doesn't get there until he puts it in his scrapbook; it's not in his scrapbook yet. No, we've got pages to go; we've got all kinds of interesting legislation. I was waiting. During the last little bit there was a bill introduced, and I was trying to remember what paragraph in the throne speech that bill was from. But you know, I'm sure I don't even have to bother going to look, because the government wouldn't have talked about that at the time they introduced the throne speech.
So we have this bill in front of us. It raises some important questions; it
raises some important issues. These are issues on which many people in British
Columbia have opinions, and for once I thought this government was going to
listen to British Columbians. The prospect of sitting and listening to NDP
members opposite fill up the last few minutes of a Thursday afternoon of a
government's mandate, to tell British Columbians what to think about an
initiative that 24 hours ago they said they were going to allow British
Columbians to have some input on
Well, now. Let me see if I've got this right. It's: "We're doing things we had no intention of saying." Or maybe it's: "We're not saying things we have every intention of not doing." Or maybe it's: "Oh, my goodness, it's Thursday afternoon, and we've run out of private members' bills to filibuster the hours of the day with. Instead, we're now going to have to drag out exposure bills; we're so desperate for an agenda."
Well, if you want an agenda, go to the people of British Columbia. If you want an agenda, call an election.
Hon. C. Evans: I actually care about the contents of this bill, and I think the people of B.C. do too, contrary to the comments of the previous speaker. The Select Standing Committee on agriculture traveled around the province and talked to the people in the north and through the Okanagan and through the Kootenays and in Vancouver and up Vancouver Island. And you know what the number one issue on their minds was? The number one issue on their minds was: what's in the food? What are we going to do about genetically modified food, and what is government going to do about regulation in the future?
Any hon. member still here who cares about these matters knows that it's true. British Columbians have spoken. This bill is actually a response to what the people outside said. The people outside said that it's a complicated matter and that they want their government to address the question of labelling food. I am the Minister of Health, and to tell you the truth, on the record, I have no opinion on the health value of GMOs one way or the other. I am of the opinion that we don't know enough, and certainly the minister doesn't know enough.
[1705]
I am in support of this initiative from an economic point of view, and that is what I wanted to put on the record. Sitting across from us are some people who passed interim supply -- that means the budget -- in 12 minutes and have no desire to participate in a conversation about anything. That hon. member is going to run for office with silence behind her. When I'm through speaking, although her constituents care about it, she's not going to stand up and tell us what she thinks. So I just thought maybe I'd take an opportunity to talk about this subject so that the people would know where I'm coming from.
I'm not sure that I would support this bill if I were the Minister of Health in Saskatchewan or in P.E.I., but in British Columbia I consider this bill and concerns about food quality to be an economic initiative. As briefly as I can, I want to explain why.
British Columbia cannot compete in agriculture on economies of scale. The hon. member across represents orchardists whose average farm size is 22 acres. I don't know what that is in hectares, but I'm pretty sure that he represents orchardists whose average farm size is 22 acres. Just south of the border, in Washington, the competition is twice that size. And as you
[ Page 17715 ]
move south from there into the corporate farms, you get to ten times that size. In China they just planted seven million hectares of apples. When that product comes on the market, his constituents are not going to be able to compete on the basis of volume.
British Columbia is out of the farming business if you're going to compete
for the lowest common denominator. Anybody over there who actually gives a good
rip about the rural economy, if you could make eye contact
I think I am the only minister of agriculture in Canada that ever asked the federal government not to do genetically modified testing in their province. Why is that, hon. Speaker? Is it because we're afraid of what's in the food? In my case, that's not true. It's because the farmers, the people this side of the House actually care about, said to me: "We are afraid of losing our market share if you allow this to happen in our ecosystem." Isn't that true? I think it was in the hon. member's constituency.
They came to the government and said: "We sell apples and fruit and plums and cherries that are not genetically modified, and we can't sell them in England if the federal government then plants genetically modified trials in our community. Bees take pollen two miles; ergo we lose our marketability." So for the sake of economics in the hon. member's constituency we asked the federal government to please deny the trial. In fact, we didn't even do that. We just said: "How are you going to stop the bees from moving the pollen and hurting the economic advantage of other farmers?" And rather than answer the question "What happened?" the federal government killed the trial. In truth, we are moving on this particular technological initiative before we even know what's going to happen to the markets of our producers.
So although the hon. member opposite says it's irresponsible, the people on this side thought it would be a really good idea, if rural British Columbia is threatened by something that's happening out there, if we brought it in here for debate so the hon. member, who I know has farmers in his constituency, could stand up and say: "What is it that they think?"
Well what I think and am willing to put on the record is that British Columbians have got to aim for the top. We have to be the most pure food producers in Canada in order to stay in business, and because of the Super, Natural image we have around the world, we can do it. We are doing it. Maybe in Saskatchewan they've got to be involved in the race to the bottom and compete with other nations in the world that want the lowest cost of production, but that's not going to work in British Columbia.
Closing my remarks, I would plead with hon. members: look, if you haven't got the wherewithal to speak in here, please go out in your constituency and have a conversation. If you don't like what I'm saying, say: "That haywire Corky Evans wants to talk about GMOs. What do you think?" And I think they'll say: "Please, you do it too." I think they'll say: "Come back here and support this bill or some bill that will give British Columbia producers a chance to say that our food is of a higher quality than food produced elsewhere."
[1710]
I'm going to close on this note. Anybody who thinks that there's not a risk is incorrect. Before I got this job, when I was Minister of Agriculture, I found that producers of non-genetically modified food in British Columbia were precluded by store owners from saying so. Imagine that. We're trying to require labelling. In British Columbia right now you can't even permit labelling. You know that? The store owners are so afraid of the people knowing what's in the food that they won't allow the producer to say "non-GMO." It's true, isn't it, hon. critic? You know it's true, but you won't stand up and say it's true.
I went to Japan, and I was negotiating with the minister of agriculture in Japan to try to get market share for our hogs, tomatoes and apples. Of course we negotiated very formally during the meeting, and then afterwards we went out together kind of socially to have a broader conversation. Late in the evening he said to me: "You know what the greatest danger to farming in Japan is today?" And I said: "No, I don't. Is it imports from other countries?" "No." "Is it that you can't supply your food needs?" "No," he says. "It's the housewife. The housewife is starting to ask what's in the food. And if she wants to know what's in the food, we're not going to be able to sell the food anymore."
We the people on this side of the House want to supply that population. We want to get rich selling them food because we know what's in the food. If you've got any jam, walk over to your seat and say where you stand.
J. Sawicki: I too care passionately about this issue. In fact, I'm amazed at the reaction of the benches opposite. I have a file a foot thick that says British Columbians also care passionately about their food and what's in their food and the right to know what is in their food. This is an exposure bill that would provide choice to people to know that there's something on the label so they can choose whether they eat food that is genetically engineered.
Seeing the hour, hon. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of the debate for today and reserve my right to continue my comments at another sitting.
J. Sawicki moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Janssen: Noting the time, I wish everybody a safe weekend. I move adjournment.
Hon. G. Janssen moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada