2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 16

[ Page 17595 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

P. Priddy: I know we don't have a list of everybody, but I think

almost the entire gallery up there today is nurses who've come from all over the

province to talk about the work that they do and how much their work is worth.

It is and they are worth more, hon. Speaker, which is the point they made so

strongly on the lawns of the Legislature. I would like people to make all of the

nurses who are here welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. Doyle: I'm very pleased today to have in the gallery two

friends. One is a good friend and a lawyer, a QC, who resides in Golden and

practises law there: Glen Ewan. On Glen's right is a young woman, Chris McLaren,

who works in my office. Chris McLaren has to be one of the nicest and most

capable political staff who works in the building for anyone. Make them welcome.

C. Clark: We're joined today in the gallery by two people who are

almost constituents of mine -- they actually reside in Burnaby North -- Celso

Boscariol and his daughter Angela. I hope the House will make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: I had the pleasure today to have lunch with four truly

tremendous community activists from greater Victoria: Ms. Ruth Miller, Ms. Fran

Thoburn, Ms. Florence Best and Ms. Bernice Packford. They are Raging Grannies in

the community, and they rage on behalf of social activism and to better the

community that we all live in -- not only here in Victoria but indeed in British

Columbia. I'd ask the House to make all of these wonderful women welcome to

these chambers today.

Hon. J. Kwan: We have in the gallery today nine constituents of mine.

They are strong community activists who argue and advocate for issues around

poverty, housing, women's rights, child care, social rights -- you name it, and

these women are there. They are also people who work with the Downtown Eastside

Women's Centre. These nine constituents are: Mable MacDonald, Denny Prince,

Gloria Baptiste, Debra Twohart, Ann Marie Clarke, Marie Keyespapamatao, Joanne

Ross, Linda Moreau and Alice Kendall. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

J. Dalton: There are two groups of Handsworth Secondary students

somewhere in the precincts. In fact, maybe some of them are up in the gallery as

we speak. They come from my neighbourhood, and I'm proud to say that two of my

children graduated from Handsworth. Would everyone please welcome them to the

precincts.

Introduction of Bills

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. G. Bowbrick presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, today I'm introducing amendments to

the Provincial Court Act. These amendments will provide sitting justices of the

peace with two hallmarks of judicial independence -- namely, security of tenure

and financial security. These amendments are required due to the October 2000

Supreme Court of British Columbia decision in which Mr. Justice Sigurdson gave

the government nine months to correct judicial independence issues.

Hon. Speaker, the amendments create a new designation of judicial justice.

All persons currently called sitting justices of the peace will become judicial

justices. The amendments will provide judicial justices with security of tenure

by ensuring the judicial office is held until retirement, resignation or removal

from office following an inquiry.

To ensure that the judicial justices have financial security, the amendments

provide that their compensation will be reviewed by a compensation committee

every three years. The committee makes a report to the Attorney General, which

includes recommendations respecting remuneration, allowances and benefits. The

report and recommendations will be laid before the Legislative Assembly for

approval. The first committee will undertake their review this fall and will

report to the Attorney General by April 30, 2002.

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 22 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.

[1415]

Oral Questions

LABOUR NEGOTIATIONS IN B.C.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, today we sit in this House while a number

of labour negotiations are reaching a critical phase. There's great uncertainty,

and there is potential for significant loss of important public services. There

is no question that the government no longer has a mandate to negotiate these

agreements.

So my question is to the Premier: will the Premier put the public interest

first, declare a 60-day cooling-off period and call an election so we can carry

out labour negotiations in an environment of stability where the public interest

always takes precedence?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have always known that that side of the House

doesn't believe in free collective bargaining. We've also known that the Leader

of the Opposition has been asking for the election since May of 1996. He's going

to get one pretty soon.

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has a

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: There are critical public services that may be disrupted

because of this government's incompetence. This

[ Page 17596 ]

government decided to bring all public sector agreements to fruition on March

31 of this year. We are now sitting in a situation where there is potential for

services to be disrupted after the Legislature has been dissolved.

My question is simply put to the Premier: is the Premier willing to put the

public interest ahead of his personal political agenda, call a 60-day

cooling-off period and allow us to get on with negotiating agreements where the

public interest comes first?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I spoke to a couple of hundred nurses

outside today, as did the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that public

servants and health care workers ought to be paid well, and they ought to be

able to engage in free collective bargaining in this province.

We will continue to bargain in good faith, until the writ is dropped, with

anyone in British Columbia that the government needs to engage in collective

bargaining with.

TENDERING PROCESS FOR

MANAGEMENT CONSULTING CONTRACTS

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I have another positioning note here, prepared

for the Minister of Finance this time. You know, between the r�sum�s from the

NDP that are going out and the leaked documents that are coming in, all the fax

machines in Victoria must be busy all the time these days. This note is prepared

for the Minister of Finance about the auditor general's review of management

consulting contracts. The note says: "The auditor general found inadequate

planning, inappropriate contractor selection, poor contract management or a

combination of these factors." And guess what the result was: 25 percent of

the contracts that he reviewed did not render value for money.

So my question to the Minister of Finance is this: how can he justify a

system where one in four contracts awarded does not render value for money for

the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Ramsey: In fact, the review of the auditor general concluded

that ministries did receive value for money from the great majority of their

management consulting contracts. They did indeed also reveal that there are

areas in which ministries should do better. I've received assurances from

ministries involved that they intend to follow the recommendations of the

auditor general and to make sure that, in the future, consulting contracts do

meet the test as we get good value for taxpayers' dollars in British Columbia.

C. Clark: You know, somehow I thought the minister was going to say

that. It's point 5, actually. I can think of a few other points he might have

mentioned, but maybe he'll want to do that in his answer. I am actually sort of

surprised that he's received it, because it was dated Wednesday.

I do want to make another quote from the note that's been provided for the

minister. It says: "Because direct awards are easier and faster, managers

have often opted for efficiency rather than a tendering process that's aimed at

fairness and openness." Since when have the NDP decided that government

should be run in such a way that they would value what's fast over what's fair,

what's honest, what's open and what renders value for the taxpayers?

[1420]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member knows the answers. We are going to make

sure that we get good value for money in these contracts. They've sampled 37,

and they've said that around a quarter of the time there's a problem here. We're

going to make sure we have in process a tendering project at the right level,

and we're going to get good value for government dollars. We have in the past.

That's what the report found out. We're going to make sure we do even better in

the future.

R. Thorpe: I want to read another quote from the leaked positioning

note. It states: "All of the ministries reviewed, with the exception of the

Ministry of Forests, usually awarded their management consulting contracts

directly and not in an open and fair manner as required by government

policy." Can the Minister of Finance explain why all but one of the

government's ministries are violating the government's own policy? Why?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Having made sure the review was underway, having made

sure that all ministries are cooperating, having made sure that the findings are

distributed, having received assurance from the ministries that they intend to

implement the recommendations, we're on track to make sure that exactly what the

member requires to be done is actually done in the public service of British

Columbia.

R. Thorpe: The auditor general's report reviewed five ministries. Four

of the ministries did not award contracts in a fair and open manner. In the

spirit of openness and transparency, when the minister looks at his government

having 19 ministries, will the Minister of Finance tell us how many other

ministries are violating government's own policies?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The whole goal of this is to make sure that we have

policies in place that do work. There are some revisions that are needed. The

auditor general pointed that out. Among other things, he said the $25,000

threshold is one that should be reviewed, and we're doing it. That's exactly

what you need to do to make sure that you're continually improving financial

management in the public service. That's what we're doing; that's what we intend

to implement.

EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT MINISTRY

CONTRACT TENDERING PROCESS

G. Plant: I have a question for the Minister of Employment and

Investment arising out of the same report of the auditor general. The Ministry

of Employment and Investment awarded a contract related to the casino RFP

process through what was initially a competitive process, but it was initially a

$95,000 contract. However, the ministry subsequently amended the contract not

just up to $150,000 or $250,000 but in fact all the way up to $800,000 instead

of going back through a competitive re-tendering process as was and is the

recommendation of the auditor general. Will the Minister of Employment and

Investment tell us: why is it that his ministry feels justified in dramatically

increasing contract values without returning to a competitive tender?

Hon. T. Stevenson: If you don't mind, I'd like to take that question

on notice.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston has a different

question?

[ Page 17597 ]

G. Plant: Yes, I've got another question for the same minister about a

different issue in the report. As I read the report from the auditor general,

it's apparent that . . . . At the back of the report, all of the

responses that the auditor general received from the various ministries of the

Crown are reviewed. They're reviewed at some length. And these are responses to

the recommendations and the general thrust of the report. Now, all of the

ministries except the Ministry of Employment and Investment provided detailed

responses to these recommendations -- responses that went on, in some cases, for

pages.

Can the Minister of Employment and Investment tell us why he doesn't believe,

apparently, that the work of the auditor general deserves a full and complete

and thorough public response from his ministry in order that the public can be

assured that action will be taken on these matters?

Hon. T. Stevenson: In fact, our ministry values the auditor general's

report. We are certainly looking into and bringing about all the recommendations

that the auditor general had.

[1425]

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that the briefing note for the Minister

of Employment and Investment just came in the House, so I'll give him some time

to read it.

The Speaker: Order, member.

ICBC BUDGET PROJECTIONS

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps he can answer us after question period.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week we received documents,

and the minister confirmed that ICBC was to give to the minister by March 31

their explanation of how they intended to meet the $75 million inflated revenue

figure that the Minister of Finance had directed them to. Can the Minister of

Finance tell us whether or not he's received that document, what's in it, and

will he table it in the House today?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the minister responsible for ICBC informed

the House last week on exactly how ICBC is going to attain its target. That

target, by the way -- just to review -- of $75 million would be the lowest

revenue that ICBC would have in its bottom line in the last four years -- the

lowest. I think there's every opportunity for them not only to meet but to

exceed it. ICBC will achieve this by continuing to work, as it has in the past,

on road safety, on reducing the actual need for insurance. They have in place a

comprehensive road safety initiative. They have in fact proposed additional

ones, and the member knows that there's additional moneys attached to it. And

they will bring forward a comprehensive plan so we can look in detail at how

they achieve their target.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader -- supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll perhaps just remind the Minister of Finance

of what he signed in the letter that he sent to the minister responsible for

ICBC. In the first paragraph, it says: "As directed by Treasury Board, ICBC

must provide the following additional information to the Crown corporations

secretariat by March 31, 2000: a revised 2001 budget showing how the $75 million

net income target will be achieved with supporting information on key

initiatives and assumptions . . . . " Will the Minister of

Finance stand up in the House and table those documents today? Or do they even

exist?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance and I have been working away

on this along with the board of directors of ICBC, who met last week to put

their plan in place. It involves a wide range of safety initiatives to carry on

with the good record that already exists over the course of the last five years.

Last week the member for Richmond-Steveston stood up here and said that we

were doing political ads. You know what the ads were that he challenged as being

political? They were about de-icing your car, to promote road safety. That's

what they would do with ICBC. There are other ads and road safety initiatives

around bicycling, around highway barriers and around high-crash areas. We are

taking road safety extremely seriously. What they would do is end each and every

road safety initiative, purely because they want to destroy ICBC.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a further supplemental

question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would have thought that the de-icing ads might

have been more appropriate in the fall and winter rather than in April, but

perhaps . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

[1430]

G. Farrell-Collins: Having been born and raised in Saskatchewan, I

don't need anybody to tell me about de-icing a car, thank you very much.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Has he or has he not received a

submission from ICBC that he demanded be in his possession by the end of the

fiscal year? Has he or has he not received it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The minister responsible and I are working together on

this. We will have that, and we will achieve their target.

But listen, hon. Speaker -- through you to the member. I don't know exactly

where he lives, but I will report to him and to the House that on Saturday it

snowed in Prince George, and I ended up scraping my windshield.

[ Page 17598 ]

The only reason ICBC wouldn't be able to attain a modest target of $75

million is if that opposition formed the government and undertook its plan to

destroy road safety initiatives and privatize the corporation.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 8.

EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE

ACCESS ACT

(second reading)

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 8 now be read a second

time.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today about Bill 8, Emergency

Contraceptive Access Act. This bill ensures that women in British Columbia will

have a viable option to prevent unplanned pregnancies or abortions. On October

26, 2000, cabinet approved amendments to two regulations contained in the

Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act. These amendments were

made to provide women another opportunity when it comes to choice about

decisions about reproduction.

For nearly 30 years the women in British Columbia have had access to

emergency contraceptive pills through public health nurses, doctors, emergency

rooms and also through agencies such as Planned Parenthood. However, in some

communities, particularly in rural or remote communities, access was not always

easy to ensure. In order to work -- that is, to prevent a pregnancy -- emergency

contraceptive pills must be taken within a 72-hour time frame. And access to

ECPs in that time frame has been an issue for many women for many reasons, such

as the inability to

schedule a doctor's visit within the allotted time,

unwillingness of a physician to prescribe the pill for whatever reason, the

inability or unwillingness of some women to seek the prescription from their

doctor and the need to rely on a clinic being open at the right time. Some

agencies in rural and remote communities are open only one or two days a week,

which severely limits women from accessing ECPs.

[1435]

Bill 8 allows pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptive pills in the

absence of a doctor's prescription. This, in turn, obviously increases access to

ECPs. Because the EC program is unique, pharmacists must be trained by a

certified ECP trainer and certified by the College of Pharmacists of B.C. before

they begin to dispense ECPs. Participation in the training program is voluntary,

and to date, more than 1,000 pharmacists in nearly 200 B.C. pharmacies have

attended the half-day course. Training for the EC program prepares pharmacists

to provide women accessing ECPs with a brief counselling session. During that

ten- to 15-minute session the need for ongoing contraception and the possibility

of sexually transmitted diseases are reviewed, as are instructions on the proper

use of the pills themselves and possible side effects. Some women may also be

referred to their family physician, a walk-in physicians clinic, an adolescent

clinic, an agency such as Planned Parenthood or an emergency department,

depending on their circumstances.

Already we know that the average age of women accessing ECPs in B.C. is 20 to

29 years. Too many women for too long have been denied the use of emergency

contraceptive pills, simply because they couldn't get them when they needed

them. This is a product that has been in use for 30 years, because it is safe,

effective and also practical.

The regulations approved last fall were a temporary measure and were put in

place until this legislative confirmation could take place in the spring.

Legislative change is also a temporary measure while women wait for ECPs to

become delisted by the federal authorities. These temporary measures were put in

place so that women would have another option today. This government has always

been planted firmly on the side of a woman's right to choose. This legislation

further enshrines those beliefs and leaves no doubt as to what our position is

on a woman's right to choose.

It's not just that the government supports this legislation; the B.C.

Pharmacy Association and the College of Pharmacists of B.C., along with

organizations such as Planned Parenthood of B.C. and the provincial health

officer, originally initiated this move. It is also supported by the Society of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada. It's also supported by the World

Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses

Association and the Canadian Pediatric Society.

Representatives of these groups sat side by side with the Premier at the news

conference when he made the announcement in October that pharmacists could

dispense ECPs without the need for a doctor's prescription. That conference was

also well attended by media and received favourable national attention. Since

then there has been overwhelming public support along with support from medical

organizations, women's issues groups and individual medical practitioners.

National newspaper editorials have congratulated the Premier and emphatically

stated that his example should be followed in other provinces and territories of

Canada. I am pleased to follow up on that campaign by presenting this

legislative change to members of the House today.

I move second reading of the Emergency Contraceptive Access Act.

C. Hansen: This bill is about giving pharmacists the ability to

dispense emergency contraceptives without a doctor's prescription. While I do

not have a problem with that decision, I do have a problem with how this

particular initiative has been reached in terms of the process that it's gone

through over the last year.

I was in receipt of a letter from the Deputy Minister of Health -- it's a

letter dated August 11 -- where the ministry's position was set out rather

unequivocally. I'd like to share some quotes with the minister, because he was

not Minister of Health at that time. In his closing remarks, I hope he will

address these specific issues as to what changed from the time that his deputy

minister wrote this letter.

We have had for the last number of years a process underway by the Health

Professions Council to look at the scope of practice of a whole range of

different health professions in British Columbia, including the role of

pharmacists in British Columbia. That report was only just released last week.

So certainly in October, when this order-in-council was first changed, we were

still waiting for the final report of the Health Professions Council; in this

letter the deputy minister addressed that very specifically. And she writes:

" . . . even if the act were to enable such a regulation, the

threshold policy

[ Page 17599 ]

issue of whether or not pharmacists ought to have 'prescribing' within their

scope of practice must still be addressed. As you know, this matter is presently

being considered by the council, and its preliminary recommendations were not

supportive of such a change."

[1440]

She goes on to say: "As previously indicated to the college, the

government would be unwilling to make a policy decision of this magnitude

without receiving the final recommendations of the council on this point."

Later in the letter she refers to the relationship with the federal government,

and she says: "It would be unprecedented for the Minister of Health to

depart from current practice by recommending changes to the provincial drug

regulations with the intended effect of 'delisting' certain substances."

Later she writes:

"The ministry would not be willing to proceed to enact a regulation with

the express purpose of circumventing this process. I am pleased to note the

collaboration with the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall. The College

of Pharmacists and the College of Physicians and Surgeons have made progress in

the development of a pilot project to improve access to emergency contraception

in British Columbia. In light of what I understand to be significant progress of

the pilot project, I do not see the need to revisit the issue of the requested

amendments to the drug schedules regulation at this time."

Well, something changed shortly after that letter was written. Basically what

happened was that the Premier -- I would suggest on somewhat of a whim --

decided that this would be a great initiative to happen. And suddenly things had

to change to meet the announcement that was made by the Premier, in spite of

what was clearly the advice and consideration coming from the Deputy Minister of

Health.

So in the closing remarks to this particular piece of legislation, I would

like the minister to rationalize what is contained in this letter from his

deputy with that of the process that has subsequently been followed. Hon.

Speaker, in closing I would like to tell the minister that at the time this

announcement was made, as official opposition Health critic I supported it. I

will support this legislation, but I think the minister still has some questions

that this House deserves answers to.

Hon. C. McGregor: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and

support Bill 8 today. I must say, I was getting extremely disturbed by the

Health critic's comments just moments ago. I find it of concern to me that the

women members of his caucus seem unable to respond on something that I see as a

very important women's health issue.

It's interesting. I have this very same debate on the question of women's

health issues and whether or not increased access to reproductive services is an

important issue in communities and amongst the women's health community. I said

to the reporter: "Well, unnamed reporter, if we had new services available

for heart surgery, would we be having a debate about whether or not you get to

keep the old level of service because that was good enough? Or would we be

insisting that we have access to those new health services in every community

around the province?"

I went on to say that if we were talking about knee surgery and there was

this new tool and new types of, let's say, laser therapy that's used to correct

a knee problem in a non-surgical way, and that improvement became widely

available around the province, would we say it's okay that people in some parts

of the province can just do with the services that currently exist? Or would we

say that every person, regardless of where they live, deserves to have access to

that better health treatment?

Women's reproductive services and access to abortion and the emergency

contraceptives fall in exactly the same category. These are improved health

services to women, and don't let anyone in this House or outside this House be

fooled by some little mystical legend they have on the other side of the House

that somehow maintaining existing services is a commitment to women's

reproductive rights. It is not, hon. Speaker. It is not.

[1445]

Over the years I've come to know and respect many of my colleagues on the

other side of the House, and I'd say that's particularly true of my women

colleagues on the other side of the House. I think it's very disappointing that

they are being gagged or silenced by their House strategy to not speak on this

important issue, because I do think it's worth all of us standing together on

improving access to this service for women, no matter where we come from.

The Health critic talked about being opposed to this on the matter of process

-- or he's concerned about the process. I won't say he's opposed, because I did

gather from the end of his comments that he actually did support the

initiatives, so that is also very good to hear. But he talked about waiting

until we had a scope of practice report or waiting until physicians and

surgeons, the College of Pharmacists and others came to some common

understanding about when might be an appropriate time to deliver this new

service or a different type of practice, and give pharmacists the capacity to

dispense emergency contraceptives.

If we always waited until there was a consensus around how to move forward,

we would all still be treading water on so many issues; we would, in this House,

be stagnant. We have to take efforts to move things forward. We did have a

considerable level of consultation with a number of agencies and organizations

including the pharmacists themselves, who agreed that it was very appropriate

for them to have higher levels of training and to make sure that they were

counselling young women as they accessed this emergency contraceptive in order

to avoid a pregnancy.

Of course consultation is important. But do we put consultation ahead of

giving women access to a service, a tool, that would enable them to avoid

pregnancy before it happens? Or should we instead say: "You'll just have to

wait, young woman, until you can get into your doctor's office -- perhaps next

week -- because you live in a more rural or remote part of the province. Or

perhaps you won't have access at all, in fact, because the local hospital in

your area or local physicians in your area don't agree with the dispensing of

certain types of medications, and so your choices are limited?"

Is it not better for us to make available now to young women and other women

who find themselves in a position where their original form of birth control

failed . . . to be able to access a guarantee that they would not be

able to get pregnant if they didn't want to? That is a fundamental right that

here, on this side of the House, we acknowledge. And I urge my women colleagues

across the House to stand up and support this bill, because it is important to

put ourselves on the record as standing together as women, working together for

women's health issues.

[ Page 17600 ]

I spoke briefly to the question of rural access, and I think that's one of

the points that the minister responsible made in his opening remarks. I do

believe that the question of access is different in different parts of the

province. And in fact, as we noted earlier, the weather can also be different in

different parts of the province. But we need to make sure that there is a

service accessible to young women and other women who might find themselves in

need of the use of this pill in order to avoid pregnancy, and this provides one

other method through which that can happen.

Young women, in particular, are very interested in the availability of this

drug. I understand that the women's health bureau has done some work with campus

organizations, young women across British Columbia, to make this information

available so that women who find themselves in a position where they're not

certain whether or not they've become pregnant as a result of sexual activity

are able to access this new service. And it's been highly successful. In fact,

in the 12 weeks since the December 1 effective date, 1,207 women have received

emergency contraceptive pills from a licensed pharmacist. And of those -- I

think this is an interesting statistic, and it's from the press release -- more

than 55 percent needed the pills because their first line of defence against

pregnancy had failed. So I think it's a significant issue for us to remember

that in many cases, this is a backup for young women and other women who have

used a certain type of contraceptive that they believe may have failed. And this

gives them additional protection to avoid pregnancy when they don't want it.

[1450]

We had a visit from a number of health care professionals in the Legislature

today -- nurses from all over the province. I noticed there was at least one

representative from the Kamloops area. And it reminded me of the links between

what we're doing here today around this question and health generally. We cannot

delink these matters. Women's health and access to reproductive services, new

drugs, pharmaceuticals and alternative forms of pregnancy avoidance are all a

part of the net of hospital services that nurses, who are here today, support.

And so do all of us on this side of the House. I think it's important for us to

remember, in the context of the importance of health services, that reproductive

services for women and new services for access to emergency contraceptives are

something that we must do to move forward on the women's health front. We cannot

separate out this health issue from other women's health issues.

I do want to quote briefly from an

article that I read in the Globe and

Mail in October of last year, when we first made the decision to pass,

through regulation originally, the capacity for pharmacists to deliver this

product to young women. It starts off by saying: "Here's a click of the

champagne flute to British Columbia Premier" -- and it names our Premier --

"for his announcement that the morning-after pill will soon be available to

women over drugstore counters."

Let's talk about why it's important. I'm just going to select one paragraph

from this. It's not about process, hon. member, with all due respect. It's about

giving patients better access to the kind of information and services they need

in order to control their own decisions about when to have children. And here's

how it's phrased: "The Premier's announcement is a step forward in the

growing trend to give power to the patient. A woman in British Columbia can now

decide for herself whether to use this preventative measure. She does not have

to face a potentially hostile or indifferent doctor to get a prescription. She

doesn't have to wait a week to get in to see her family doctor and then miss the

opportunity to forestall a pregnancy she doesn't want." And then, hon.

Speaker, the alternative is other kinds of more interventionist health services

in order to end that pregnancy.

This is the right thing for all of us to stand up and support in this House.

This is about the fundamental value of giving women the right to choose and to

control their own bodies. This is about making a commitment to improving health

services to 52 percent of the population of this province, and that's women.

I urge the members here to support Bill 8, and I hope to see some of my women

colleagues across the way stand up and speak to it as well.

L. Boone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand here on what I

see as one of the most progressive bills that I've seen come through this

Legislature in the 14 years that I've been here, whether it be as a member of

the opposition or as a member of the government. I heard some colleagues over

there indicating that we were filibustering our own bill. However, hon. Speaker,

I'll have you know that I'm speaking on this not because we want to prolong this

debate, but because I and many of my colleagues believe that this is an

extremely important issue and one that we want to express our support for. I

would hope that others might stand up and also express their support.

I also believe within my heart -- and I hope they're not going to show me

differently -- that the opposition will in fact vote for this bill. It is a

progressive bill, and it's one that is about choice. It's one that shows that

women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. It gives them an

alternative to some conditions and situations that may not be ones that the

opposition would like to see, such as abortion.

This is not an abortion pill. Some may think of it as being the abortion

pill, but it is not an abortion pill. What it in fact does is, if taken within

72 hours after unprotected intercourse, preferably within 24 hours . . . .

The aim is to prevent an egg from being fertilized. If that fails, the hormone

levels raised by the pill are meant to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting

in the walls of the uterus. Trials show that the pill works as often as

three-quarters of the time.

[1455]

So for me, this is giving women a choice, an opportunity to make decisions

about their bodies, about the medical procedures that they want to be involved

with. I look back and think: why hasn't this been around for a long time? Maybe

I'm wrong, but you've got to think that sometimes it may be because men are

making a lot of these decisions. I think that we ought to be able to make the

decisions.

I strongly believe that our first line of defence against unwanted

pregnancies has to be education, has to be informing individuals about how they

can prevent unwanted pregnancies and what they can do with their bodies. But if

that fails, if the education has not seeped through and they haven't understood

what this information is, and a woman or young girl finds herself in a situation

where she could possibly be pregnant, from my position I believe that this pill

is the best alternative for that individual -- rather than undergoing an

unwanted pregnancy and having to face the situations that she does or having to

have an abortion later on if she wants to.

To me this seems like a way for a woman to make a choice about her body that

I wish had been there had I been a

[ Page 17601 ]

young girl. Mind you, I was a young girl once, wasn't I? I don't remember

those days. I was lucky not to have to ever make that decision. Both of my

daughters were wanted pregnancies, and I was lucky that I had parents that

informed me and gave me lots of information and lots of options. So both of my

daughters -- I'll say this quite publicly -- were wanted pregnancies; they were

both there. And I love them very dearly. I was never put in a situation where I

had to make a decision such as that. But I know many who have been, and I know

that they wish they had an opportunity to have this pill available to them.

So from my perspective, hon. Speaker, I see this as being a landmark piece of

legislation. If people may question why the Premier intervened and why he

brought this in now, I'm saying: "Right on." If he went ahead and

said, "I'm not waiting for more discussions on this; I'm not waiting for a

body to make a decision on this. I believe this is the right thing to do,"

then right on for the Premier. He's done the right thing as far as I'm

concerned, and he ought to be applauded for that, not chastised.

When it comes down to the final vote, I think the members opposite -- many of

whom I know, as well, especially my female colleagues -- will stand up in

support of this bill. I look forward to seeing them join with the government in

celebrating a bill that truly gives women an alternative to abortions, an

alternative to unwanted pregnancies and something that I think will be well

received throughout the population.

Hon. S. Hammell: I rise to support second reading of the Emergency

Contraceptive Access Act. Before I go into the body of what I want to say, I do

want to comment on what I understand the opposition's position on this issue has

been to date. I understand that one of the major positions the opposition has

taken is that choice is a federal issue and therefore should not preoccupy the

minds or the time of provincial legislators. Now, the delivery of health

services is quite clearly a provincial issue, as are a number of the issues that

we deal with in general around the abortion issue.

But I did get somewhat confused, because then I understood from the

opposition that the first . . . . Their position on choice was that

it would be a free vote -- fair enough. That's a way to express differences, and

people could then take a position on this issue depending on their consciences.

[1500]

But then I understood that choice was a confidence motion, so that anyone who

spoke out against -- and I believe it was -- the status quo, given these issues,

would be considered . . . . Any breaking of rank or voting against

the issue would be signalling non-confidence in the Leader of the Opposition.

But then I watched the third choice come along, where the disciplined, united

voice against affirming and extending the rights of women to control their own

bodies, through the motion that was presented in front of the Legislature, was

issued or made clear by the opposition.

It is disturbing because as my colleague has mentioned, we are moving into

the twenty-first century. And as we move in any health field, new information is

discovered. There are new breakthroughs, given the constant search for new ways

of doing things. If we are to make these things available to women, we have to

be prepared to move with the times. Therefore the status quo is not good enough;

it is just not good enough. I think that nothing could say it clearer than the

emergency contraceptive.

Imagine a women's concern when she discovers that the first line of defence

in birth control has failed, and she begins to worry about the possibility of

pregnancy. We all know -- and many of us know very well -- that there are other

options. If you are pregnant, you can continue with the pregnancy; you can have

an abortion; if you're young, you can actually keep the child -- and many of us

support a young mother doing that -- or you can give the child up for adoption.

But this option provides the possibility that you don't get pregnant. You

actually don't get pregnant.

We know that we believe that women should be able to decide whether or not

they get pregnant. And here is a pill, a method of contraception, that actually

prevents pregnancy. It's new. We are now talking about the fact that we're

rushing. I mean, it's been around for a long time. Maybe we shouldn't be worried

about the fact that this pill today can make a huge difference to women in this

province.

We said that too many women, for too long, have been denied the use of

emergency contraception pills simply because they couldn't get them when they

needed them. Whether it was because they couldn't

schedule a doctor's

appointment within that necessary time limit, because they had doubts about

getting them from an emergency room or because the local agency dispensing ECPs

had limited hours of operation -- that isn't the point. The point is that

emergency contraceptive pills should be readily available to all women and not

just some.

For many women the difficulty in accessing emergency contraception means a

great deal of heartache and unnecessary anxiety. But with the passage of this

legislation, we will now have a legislative basis for broad and convenient

access to ECPs directly from pharmacies. Allowing pharmacists to dispense ECPs

without a doctor's prescription enables women to have closer control over their

own bodies.

[1505]

ECPs have proven safe and effective, and as mentioned in the House last week,

they have been in use in B.C. for almost 30 years. Now, I know we shouldn't rush

into things. I know we should maybe wait a bit longer. Basically they are a form

of birth control that, as has been said, when taken within 72 hours prevents

unintended pregnancies. ECPs are a form of backup when other prevention methods

have failed.

Over half of the women who have received ECPs directly from the pharmacist

since this was taken in received them on weeknights and weekends -- exactly when

they are not available through prescription from their family doctor.

The average age of women requesting ECPs is 20 to 29 years old, the same

group that is most likely to have an abortion. What we're doing here is

preventing the pregnancy in the first place. To make women wait any longer for

something that has proven to be medically safe and highly effective is

unnecessarily callous.

After the passage of this legislation, ECPs will be widely and readily

available to all British Columbia women. This change to legislation is right for

women and right for all. The move to legislate easy access to ECPs was first

initiated by the B.C. Pharmacy Association and the College of Pharmacists of

B.C., together with such agencies and organizations as Planned Parenthood of

B.C. and the provincial health officer. It is also supported by the Society of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, the World Health Organization, the

Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian

Pediatric Society and many more.

[ Page 17602 ]

With that kind of support from so many professionals, it would be

unconscionable not to provide women with easy access to ECPs. Acting in the

interests of all women in B.C., I lend my full support to this legislation. I

know that across Canada, the medical professions, policy-makers, researchers,

educators and women watching the B.C. government as we take a leadership role in

women's health initiatives applaud us.

Improving access to emergency contraceptives will help reduce teen

pregnancies, which are alarmingly high in particular parts of the province. It

will also help reduce abortion rates across the province.

I would like to note that the World Health Organization recognizes that the

emergency contraceptive pill is highly cost-effective. The cost of supplies and

services to provide ECPs will be more than covered by the savings to the health

system in preventing unplanned pregnancies and abortions. In the long run, it

will also mean savings in the social services sector.

But the most compelling reason to make this change is simply because women

have the right to choose, and this government supports that right.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I too am pleased at what I think is a historic

moment to rise and offer my support for the Emergency Contraceptive Access Act

and to talk about it a little bit in terms of the experience that I've had over

the last ten years in what I considered to be an honour in many of the jobs that

I've held in government and also as a person who is integrally involved with

educating youngsters.

[1510]

I must say, hon. Speaker, that when I was given by then Premier Harcourt the

honour of my very first assignment, which was then Minister of Social Services,

I was on a very steep learning curve. I came from a background where my family

was working class, but we were never faced with poverty such as the poverty that

I saw when I became Minister of Social Services. Some may remember that in those

days the portfolio included not only financial assistance, social assistance,

but also the welfare of children.

While our province was a rich province and we had a high standard of living

-- and we do have a high standard of living -- there were people living in

poverty throughout this province. I saw the effect of that deepening poverty

when young women, particularly teenagers, had children that were a result of an

unwanted pregnancy. There were many reasons for those unwanted pregnancies, but

the first and foremost reasons were (1) the lack of education on how to prevent

pregnancies and (2) the lack of ability to quickly stop the effects of their

actions.

We know that teens who are young moms and young dads -- but mostly young moms

-- end up single parents in the vast majority. They end up having to struggle

out of a life of poverty. They also, until the very last decade under our

government, usually faced having to end their education. Our government reversed

a lot of those horrible situations that young moms faced. We provide day care in

many high schools in this province. We provide for young moms to get an

education, through social assistance and special assistance, to make sure that

their educational training is not broken. We've also changed the student

financial assistance rules so that young moms have a much better chance of

completing a degree or completing an aspect of post-secondary education and are

then able to support their child.

But when you talk to anyone, they will say -- whether it be the grandmom, the

granddad or the parent: "My gosh, if only I had the opportunity to reverse

the effects of being a mom too young. If only I had the opportunity to have

available as much education as I possibly could have in order to practise proper

birth control. If only there could have been something to help me avoid

pregnancy." That doesn't mean that they don't love their children; they

love their children. But they struggle each and every day, and the child

struggles each and every day -- that child who is the result of a surprise

pregnancy.

What our government has done is taken a very courageous step. On the one hand

it is a courageous step, but on the other hand it seems almost a required,

natural step: to take advantage of the medical technology available to allow

every child to come into this world wanted and well supported. And that's what

the emergency contraceptive pill is all about. It's called the morning-after

pill, because it's taken the morning after, and it prevents pregnancy from even

occurring.

Some may say that this is an unusual subject to have in the Legislature. In

fact, as a cabinet minister very committed to ensuring that there's broader

access for women's reproductive choice, I can't tell you how many times I faced

that question last week. "Why are you doing this in the Legislature? Why

does this belong in the Legislature?" And I expect some of the young

students who are here with us today may be a little bit taken aback by the

debate that's occurring. But the provision of health services is the

responsibility of legislators. The provision of health services is not only the

responsibility of legislators but the responsibility of provincial legislators.

That's why the services for reproductive choice that are offered in Prince

Edward Island are entirely different than the health services for reproductive

choice offered to women in B.C. That's why our education system addresses this

matter in a way that's much different elsewhere in Canada.

[1515]

I must say that as I tour the province as Minister of Education now and go to

towns that are outside of the lower mainland and outside of the lower Island,

students are very interested in ensuring that they have every viable opportunity

as they move forward to have a strong, secure financial future. They understand

that the issue of reproductive choice is front and centre in providing them with

those future opportunities and the best chance in life.

So today our government is passing legislation that ensures the provision of

the emergency contraceptive pill and that entrenches this health right for women

in British Columbia. It is certainly being lauded in other parts of the country.

Just as with so many things that happen in British Columbia, one must go outside

of B.C. to actually have people celebrate the advancements that occur here,

because there's so much din and noise and so much doom and gloom from the

official opposition around so many issues that it overrides the wonderful health

news that exists. And this is a perfect example of this, hon. Speaker.

Members of the opposition would stand up and say that the status quo is fine.

What status quo? I'd like them stand up and say exactly what they mean by the

status quo. Is it back in the late eighties when the same people that are now

running

[ Page 17603 ]

as Liberal candidates stood up -- I think it was in this Legislature or

certainly in the precincts -- and said: "If you're on welfare, you won't

have your abortion paid for"? That same person is running as a Liberal

candidate in this upcoming election. Or is it that the same candidates would

prevent having this discussed in the education system? Is that the status quo

that they're supporting?

You know, this is a legitimate discussion to have. It isn't just about

abortion. I understand that that's a controversial topic for people to discuss

in public, even though it's a women's health issue. But it's about the future of

young people. It's about people being able to have access to every health care

service available to make their future better. It means that if a child breaks

her leg when she's a young person, she should be able to have that leg repaired

so that she can go on and have a bright future and she isn't disabled by that

broken leg. It means that a young woman who finds herself in a situation that

she chooses not to be in should be able to avail herself of every health care

service available to change that health course. It's no more complex than that.

So what status quo is the opposition talking about? If they were talking

about the status quo, we would be in a declining situation each and every day

from having women have this women's health service available to them. Eventually

we would be in a situation where the health care service probably wouldn't be

able to be provided. The emergency contraceptive pill is not a breakthrough. As

my colleagues have said, it's been available for 30 years. But it is a

breakthrough in British Columbia. Yes, it is, just the same way that our

provision of the national clinical trials around mifepristone -- RU486 -- is a

breakthrough for women in British Columbia, just the same way that our providing

security against horrible attacks on health care providers of these services is

a breakthrough for British Columbians.

[1520]

Others say we're courageous. That bastion of national discussion, the Globe

and Mail , has said that we should be lauded for our progress in the area of

early contraception. They don't say it's the status quo, though. They say it's a

breakthrough; they say it's something that needs to be done to advance with the

women's health agenda. So what's status quo? I really need to understand the

definition of status quo that the Liberal opposition would say exists in British

Columbia.

I must also say that if the Liberal opposition refuses to define their status

quo, each and every woman is at risk in obtaining a legal health service. If

they refuse to say what that is, every woman in this province should fear that

every service is at risk, because things have changed substantially over the

last decade. This whole area of health service has changed substantially over

this decade. And if we cannot be guaranteed, as women in British Columbia, that

not only are all of the gains made in the last decade assured but also the

newest advances guaranteed, then they're all at risk.

This emergency contraceptive pill will help each and every young woman in

this province learn to be able to make sure that any unforeseen actions can be

reversed and that that young woman is given a chance to be fully educated on all

of her reproductive health care choices. That's what the resolution was about

that we debated last week, and that's what this bill is about this week.

This is truly a good moment in time for health care in British Columbia. It's

a good moment in time that we're having this open debate. Public policy is made

in the open. Public policy isn't made around such an important issue by

remaining silent, by refusing to say what your position is. I really hope, as is

often the call from everyone in this Legislature, that debate may break out,

because that's exactly what's needed now, hon. Speaker.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to stand in this House to speak in

favour of this issue. It's been quite interesting, but not at all surprising, to

watch what's happening on this issue both from the members opposite and in the

media, where we've seen various columnists -- all male -- say that this is not

an issue. The speaker on the other side, because they refuse to debate anything .

. . . They take home their paycheques but don't do their work. But the

man who spoke from the other side said: "This is not an issue."

In my 12 years in elected office, I can honestly say that there has never

been an issue like this one has garnered such widespread attention in my

constituency. It's not a huge issue at the moment, because this government,

since 1991, has made it very clear that every single member on this side of the

House will protect women's right to make their own decisions about their own

bodies and their own lives. The starting place for women's equality -- the

starting place to start moving the majority into some semblance of equality,

which doesn't exist now -- is for a woman to have the right to control her own

body and therefore her own life.

But we've listened to man after man, whether it's in the opposition or in the

media, say: "It's not an issue." Well, it is an issue; it is a very

serious one. It can be a life-threatening issue for women. I've seen that when

free-enterprisers took over the board of my hospital in Nanaimo a few years back

to impose their views on all of the women in the mid-Island; it was a huge

issue.

There's a number of ways that one can deal with this issue. One is that you

can be gutsy. You can stand up and take a position, and you can defend your

position. The other one is to hide under your desks or in your office and

pretend it's not an issue. I guess what that says is that there is clarity on

this side of the House. We believe absolutely in a woman's right to reproductive

choice; the members opposite do not. That is very clear.

[1525]

We have, for example, a member from Whistler who wrote a letter of fear a

couple of years ago to his leader, his caucus colleagues, saying: "You

know, one of our members has been promoting the pro-life agenda, and I'm worried

about our drift to the right." He's initiated meetings. He's had meetings

with John Hof, who's a very rabid known anti-choice person in British Columbia,

and I respect his views. I just don't respect any right of his to impose upon me

or anybody else. But that's happening in the Liberal caucus. There's a real push

to move the agenda to the right, and some of the members over there are very

worried about that. I'm sure the member from Richmond, who's a feminist in many

ways, is very worried about that.

According to that letter, John Hof has identified 13 people in this caucus

who are against choice for women -- 13. Hon. Speaker, you add to that people

like Graham Bruce, who spoke up against the decriminalization of abortion and in

[ Page 17604 ]

favour of Bill Vander Zalm's actions to make it very difficult -- in some

cases, impossible -- for women to have access to legal, safe abortions. Graham

Bruce has changed his hat, I think, for the third time; I think he was a

Reformer for a while there. But he's back, reincarnated as a B.C. Liberal for

Gordon Campbell. And he took a strong a position in support of Vander Zalm and

against decriminalizing abortion.

A little bit farther up-Island, Stan Hagen, who was a Socred -- who is now a

Liberal -- did exactly the same thing. And Claude Richmond, the one that sold

out one of my communities during the 1991 election, also takes the same stand.

And I think there's another former member of the Socred caucus who's now running

for the opposition. All of them -- every single one of them -- stood against

women's right to choose.

So that's 13 identified today by a letter from a member from that opposition,

through one of the people they meet with all the time and talk to, evidently. I

know of four more that were elected and took action against women's right to

choose. And there is a whole string of former Socred candidates who were

unsuccessful. Heaven knows what their position is, but it seems to me the odds

are about 50-50 on whether or not they would support women's right to

reproductive choice.

South of the border we have a President who shares many of the same values as

the members opposite: money first, private gain over public good first. Massive

tax cuts which primarily benefit the most privileged and elite among us should

be a priority. Pay equity is no good. Child care should not happen. Public

education, etc. -- anything that we do collectively or for ourselves through

government -- is somehow a terrible thing and therefore should be pushed back.

Well, we know that the members opposite are against child care; we know that

they're against pay equity. We know that they're against many things that have

helped to close the poverty gap and the wage gap for women and to make this a

better place to live for huge numbers of people who otherwise had huge

difficulties.

So we know that there's a same value shared south of the border by George

Bush and the members opposite -- many of them, huge numbers of them. They won't

tell us exactly how many; they refuse to do that. They keep hiding under their

desks and in their offices, hoping that they can duck this like they duck every

other issue, and trying to make placating comments to the public so they won't

find out their real agenda.

But this is an issue. Women are losing the right to reproductive choice.

There are some 20 percent fewer physicians who will do abortions now; therefore,

even just to protect the status quo, you have to continue to move forward. The

members opposite continue to say that they'll protect the status quo; yet you

have the member for Matsqui standing up and saying that they're going to go back

to hospital boards. Well, guess what. That makes it real easy for those

free-enterprisers who believe the same way a whole number of the members

opposite do to take over those hospital boards.

[1530]

What about when they do massive tax cuts which will erode the tax base to

support social programs such as health and education? Every single year they've

voted against our increases in health and education. They admire Alberta and

Ontario, where they've shut down hospitals and restricted access to education

and cut programs for children. We know that's what they believe in. They think

that a tax cut, where most of the benefit will go to a few at the top, is a

priority.

But what happens if in fact they had the opportunity to do that? What

happens? They're going to have to cut something. We all know that. Even their

economists, like David Bond and the chartered accountants and the WEFA Group and

a whole range of them, have said that all you ever get back from a tax cut

through economic growth is around 35 to 40 percent. So that means that 60 cents

on every dollar is lost permanently from the public purse and the public good.

So what happens? What are they going to cut? Well, I would be willing to bet

that they'll just kind of find that they don't have enough money to fund

abortion services. So I'll be watching very carefully to see what these members

do or don't do on this bill. They have, for five years at least, ducked the

issue; they've refused to tell British Columbians clearly where they stand. I

think they owe it to the public to do that, whatever their position is. I think

it's important that we move forward on these kinds of issues.

I want to just speak briefly about some of the reasons why I think this is

very significant to the majority. We're not talking about a minority here,

although they like to have referenda on minorities. Maybe we should have a

referendum on this one. That would be great, because we're talking about

majority rights, not minority rights. What we're talking about here is women's

right to choose. This morning-after pill, as it has been called, is about

expanding women's right to choose.

When the opposite member's party in its previous incarnation, Social Credit,

was in power, they were happy to have in place a system where a women who made

her own decision about reproductive choice was a criminal. They were happy to

have in place a system where three physicians -- men, usually, just because of

the demographics of this country -- got to decide whether or not it was an

emergency, whether it was life-threatening. In some very, very restrictive

circumstances, those three -- usually men, or predominately men -- could decide

a woman's fate, quite frankly, and they were happy with that. They cut funding

for abortion services. They turned a blind eye when hospital boards were being

taken over by a handful of people who would deny abortion rights to women. It

happened in my community, and there were almost absolutely tragic circumstances.

So they stood by. They turned a blind eye without taking any proactive steps

to shut down abortion, other than cutting funding. Of course that's in the name

of restraint or something, which the opposition is setting itself up for again.

What happened was not proactive. They didn't have the guts to bring legislation

into the House to say: "We on this side oppose abortion." No, the

Social Credit didn't have the courage to do that. They didn't duck and weave

quite as much as the opposition, the current incarnation of free-enterprisers,

does. But what they did was turn their backs, and we had a situation where huge

numbers of women were effectively denied the right of reproductive choice, and

we're staring that in the face again.

This is about women making their own choices, not the three physicians --

which was the law that was struck down sometime ago against the will of the

free-enterprisers of the day. It's about women not having to go through a

physician or an abortion clinic or the harassment that women get when going to

an abortion clinic to end a pregnancy. This is about

[ Page 17605 ]

expanding contraception. It's a woman's decision; it's a decision that is

hers alone. By taking this step to allow pharmacists to dispense the

morning-after pill, at last women can walk in, and nobody will know whether

they're buying aspirins or they're buying a morning-after pill. At the end of

the day, that is, in my view, one of the most significant things about this

piece of legislation. We are the first in Canada to take this step, I understand

-- the first. It's an enlightened step that puts our money where our mouth is,

which says that we do believe that women should have the right to choose, and we

will take whatever steps available to us to make sure that happens. So this is

about broadening the choice that women have to control their own bodies and

their own lives.

[1535]

Secondly, one of the ways the opposition is ducking and weaving and hiding

and squirming is to pretend that this is a federal issue, which is an absolute

red herring. It's about as honest as many of the other statements I've heard

coming from that side of the House. It is simply not true. Obviously, at the end

of the day, it is here in the provincial Legislature where this issue is

decided. Whether or not you'll have people who impose their views by neglect or

by conscious proactive effort doesn't matter -- it has the same effect. Or

whether you have people in this Legislature, the majority of whom will defend

women's right to choose . . . .

So it is a health issue in great measure as well as an issue of women's

equality. Anybody who knows anything about this issue knows that unless we take

these kinds of measures to make reproductive choice and abortion services

readily available to women where needed, the consequences are horrific. There is

an absolute parallel between restrictions on reproductive choice, access to

birth control and abortion services, and women dying from backdoor abortions.

Thank God that doesn't happen now that women have the right to make that choice

and to have wider access to contraceptives and abortion services when they need

it.

This is a health issue. It's about the health of women in the first place.

It's about the health of families in the second place. Ultimately, it's about

the health of communities when women have the right to control their bodies and

their lives. There's a line in the song that we sing every year on March 8,

which says that the rising of the women is the rising of the race, and that's

absolutely true. So if we really want to promote women's health and community

health, we need to make sure that women have access to this and to other means

of controlling their own reproduction.

Thirdly, there's a cost factor here. There are a large number of abortions

done every year. I don't think there's anybody who thinks that abortion is

necessarily a positive thing. The issue is about who gets to make the decision

about what happens to an individual woman -- whether it's that individual or

whether it's places like this, which continue to be male-dominated, that will

make those choices. There is a cost factor. And with this breakthrough -- and it

truly is a breakthrough -- in British Columbia, where pharmacists can now

provide the morning-after pill to women who decide they need that service,

clearly it's an awful lot less expensive in every way imaginable to provide this

emergency contraception. There's a huge cost saving to providing this emergency

contraception as compared to all of the alternatives where pregnancy is

unwanted. So this is a cost-effective measure, as well, and should be applauded

for that.

The fourth reason I would say is that, sadly, we have seen in this province

that when government takes the appropriate stand to say, "The decision

about reproduction and the decision about abortion are decisions to be left to

the individual woman and whoever that individual woman chooses to deal with in

making that decision . . . . " We've seen that when government

takes that very appropriate decision, what happens is that those who want to

impose their views on women go sideways.

[1540]

For example, when we funded the freestanding abortion clinics, we have seen

intolerable harassment of women and physicians and support workers to the point

where we had to put a bubble zone around those clinics to protect the women, to

protect the service providers, to protect the people who work there. The

opposition voted against it. They evidently don't mind harassment of women and

doctors. They certainly don't like the freestanding clinics; a number of their

members have made that clear in comments through the media and various places.

But what we have here is that by having access to a morning-after pill, we

are providing women with what I believe is their right to contraception to

prevent a pregnancy without the kind of harassment and abuse, quite frankly,

that has been happening since we protected women's right to choose. Similarly,

this will obviously, as I say, be a cost savings to the system. But it also will

protect physicians and other workers in hospitals and in clinics, in their

offices and in their homes from the kind of harassment and abuse that we have

seen too often from people who want to impose their views -- their own religious

and moral views -- on others.

So I think that this is an excellent step forward; it is groundbreaking. I

applaud my colleagues for taking this difficult step to make sure that women

have the right to the morning-after pill for those reasons as well.

At the end of the day -- and maybe this is what some of the opposition to

women controlling their own bodies is about -- this is about power. It's about

empowering the citizens to make their own health decisions, and that is a trend

generally. We've sent out a book to people that provides them with information

and places they can call to make their own health decisions, which is a good

thing. It's about empowerment of citizens, which is always a good thing. This

fits with the trend that we've been following in British Columbia for some time

now. I think it's a good thing.

Secondly, it's about the power of women. It's about the power of an

individual woman in her own individual circumstances to make her own individual

decision about something that will profoundly and permanently change her life.

And that is a good thing. Women must have the power to make their own choices,

and the freedom of reproductive choice for a woman is the building block on

which everything else that we build towards women's equality rests. Without the

right to control your own body and your own life and your own family, women's

equality can't happen; it simply cannot happen. So this is about the power of

individual women in their own individual circumstances to make their own

individual decisions. That is a good thing, and it's a necessary thing.

But at the end of the day, this is about the power of women. If the 52

percent of the population that are women have the ability to control their own

lives and bodies, then we can build towards women's equality. There are some who

still think that there's a hierarchy and that women have a place defined in

years past by churches -- and still in some. There

[ Page 17606 ]

are some that still think that they should define what women's role is and

that it should be very narrowly restricted to the home. Some still think that

women must put all of their own interests aside, and they should not be

empowered to move beyond that traditional role and do whatever their talents and

interests dictate they can and should do in terms of contributing to the larger

society.

So at the end of the day, in the debate around abortion, or more correctly

reproductive choice, who gets to decide is the issue. It's about power. It's

about control of women or control by women. And this takes a step in the right

direction to make sure that what we have is control by women, not control of

women. So I'm extremely pleased on that basis, as well, that we're taking this

important step forward.

[1545]

I always find it interesting that the anti-choice agenda comes in an

interesting package. On the one hand, those who take the anti-choice position

are generally right wingers; they're generally free marketers; they're generally

small governmenters. They say government shouldn't intervene in the marketplace,

but on the other hand, it's okay for government to intervene in the most

personal decision in women's lives. They are people who say that government is

inherently bad and therefore we should cut taxes in a massive way, which

undermines the tax base. Then we get an excuse to privatize health care, as

we've seen in Alberta, or to cut services for children, as we've seen in

Alberta, or to make education far more expensive, as we've seen in Alberta, or

to drive the gap between the haves and the have-nots, as we've seen in Alberta.

On the one hand, the people that are anti-choice tend to carry the economic

agenda that says we should cut taxes, that government is bad, that we should get

out of people's faces. But what they do by doing that is erode all of the social

programs we all benefit from that help women and families to survive, quite

frankly.

When we brought in the B.C. family bonus a few years back, within just over a

year 22 percent of single parents were able to move off welfare. Of course, with

single parents we're talking almost entirely about single mothers. Just by

providing a cheque that they took with them, putting their children on an

entitlement instead of welfare -- an entitlement that follows them into the

workforce -- along with free dental, optical and medical for their kids, that

allowed 22 percent of single moms to move into the workforce and to become

independent. And it's also allowed about a third of the children living in

poverty to move above the poverty line. But those kinds of things are the kind

of so-called government intervention that the same ideology that says women

shouldn't have the right to choose tends to strip away. It's that "money

first, private gain over public good" attitude and ideology that we see

from the other side.

It's not surprising, then, that we see the Liberal opposition ducking this

issue, hiding in their offices, pretending it's a federal issue, and bobbing and

weaving in every direction to avoid taking a position as a caucus, which they

ought to and have an obligation to. They have an obligation to the people of

British Columbia to do that. So it's not surprising that we see that kind of

ducking and bobbing and weaving going on, because we know they object to child

care, we know they object to pay equity, and we know they object to virtually

everything this government has put in place that is closing the poverty gap,

closing the gap for women, bringing people together, building community and

civil society within which women can function.

It's always interesting to me that the same people that say, "We're

going to tell women what decisions they have to make. We men -- predominantly --

here in the Legislature are going to decide," at the same time are the same

people who take away all the supports for women so that they can in fact have

children and live without living in poverty, which is far too frequently the

case here and everywhere else.

It's all part of a package. We see it in Alberta. We see it amongst the

Reform/Alliance party, which many of the members opposite are. They work for

them federally. There are people who are high profile in the B.C. Liberals who

were high profile in the Alliance campaign. And we see it south of the border

with that same package of so-called free enterprise values. Part of it is a

moral agenda that is usually imposed through either funding cuts or tricky

little manoeuvres like restoring hospital boards, like the member for Matsqui on

the other side said that they will seriously consider, so that individuals and

communities can take them over and deny women their rights.

I think it's very important that we take this step, that we provide women

with a means of controlling their own reproduction that is not invasive, not

expensive, not public. It gets the debate out of this Legislature and puts it

firmly in the hands of women. Protecting reproductive choice, in my view, is

part of a progressive agenda that does fund child care and pay equity and the

family bonus, and essentially puts the supports in the middle- and lower-income

earners, not in the highest, as the members opposite would do and will do if

they're given the chance.

[1550]

I simply want to say that I am very pleased with this step. And for all of

those men in the opposition and in the media who think it's not an issue, you're

absolutely bloody wrong. It is an issue. For all of the 52 percent of women who

gain power, gain control and gain health from this kind of a move -- and being

one of them -- I know the vast majority will applaud this move and this

government for taking this step.

I simply want to close by saying that I think it's a good thing that we're

doing this. I'm proud of doing this. This is a critical and important issue in

the lives of women. It's an issue that I came into politics on. In my riding it

was the free-enterprisers of the day -- Socreds then, Liberals now, all of them

-- who took over the hospital board and denied women their right to choose. We

see them all coming back: Graham Bruce in my riding, Stan Hagen, Claude Richmond

and many others, who are coming back and would by default or design deny women's

right to choose.

So I am pleased we are taking this step forward. I applaud it. It's a

progressive thing to do, and it's just one of many things that are needed in

order to actually protect women's right to choose. And if the members opposite

mean anything they say, they will stand and support this motion, because it

protects the status quo.

Hon. C. Evans: I don't see any other speakers, so I rise to close the

debate. Traditionally, the minister that introduces a bill sits and listens to

the debate and takes note of speakers' questions or objections to respond to.

It's kind of difficult, because there are a couple of things going on here. One

is that only one person spoke. The second thing is that I take from the comments

I've heard that the opposition is actually going to support the bill, is

pro-choice and is going to take a progressive position maybe today and maybe

forever.

[ Page 17607 ]

I want to deal first, though, with the one issue that the hon. critic raised.

He rose right at the beginning of the debate and read from a letter by the

Deputy Minister of Health to the College of Pharmacists. The deputy is saying:

"Well, gee, we're not going to do this right now." And the hon. member

is saying: "What's changed?"

Well, hon. member, I guess one thing that's changed is leadership. We're

being led by a Premier who wants to deal with the issue and wants to stand on a

question of choice. He's saying: "Okay, we're going to deal with it."

And deputy ministers . . . . With all due respect, I have served and

had the good fortune to work with quite a few wonderful deputy ministers. But

one of the things that ministers tend to do is take the really hard questions

that they don't want to answer and hand them to the deputy and say: "You

answer this, because I don't know what to do right now." Then deputy

ministers get really good at writing letters that say: "Here's why we're

not going to do something right now."

The antithesis of that is the government actually saying: "Okay, let's

deal with it. Let's not have any more of those letters go out that say, 'Maybe

we'll refer it or think about it,' or 'It's an inappropriate moment.' Maybe

we'll just go do it, because" -- as in the case of this piece of

legislation -- "it's the right thing to do." So the hon. member will

be on his feet as soon as I stop, affirming that it's the right thing to do, and

then this whole Legislature will be in agreement.

I just want to say one tiny thing about the ambience around here. There has

been some insinuation that this bill had something to do with some kind of

politics or attempt to create division rather than just good public policy. Hon.

Speaker, in about five minutes or three minutes, or at a moment chosen by you, I

think everybody in this room is going to stand up and support this bill. Well, I

would say the majority are going to stand up, because the majority are actually

pro-choice.

[1555]

From my standpoint, getting that on the record is a wonderful event.

Everybody that's up there should write down the day they were here, because

something is actually going to happen where some of the people here are going to

take a position. You're going to get to watch people down here decide something,

go on the record and stand there forever and ever. I think that's so exciting

that I move second reading.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[1600]

Second reading of Bill 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 71

Conroy

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Kasper

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

McKinnon

Goodacre

NAYS -- 2

Coleman

van Dongen

Bill 8, Emergency Contraceptive Access 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.

D. Miller: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Miller: In the members' gallery is an old friend of mine, Daphne

Scott, who I had the pleasure of sitting on the Prince Rupert city council with

many, many, many years ago. It's always nice to see Daphne, now a resident of

Victoria. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 21.

ABORTION SERVICES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: Bill 21 provides important new safeguards to make

the right of British Columbia women to reproductive choice stronger and more

secure. It enshrines new protection in the statutes of British Columbia and

ensures that personal information is protected, so that women and their doctors

are free to choose without fear of harm or harassment. Under existing

legislation, 33 hospitals throughout B.C. are required by regulation to provide

abortion services. Bill 21 amends the Hospital Act to include this list of

hospitals, not as a regulation but as an integral part of the act. In addition,

one more hospital, Kelowna General Hospital, will be added to the list. The new

provisions will allow more hospitals to be added to the list at any time, but

none may be removed without full debate in the Legislature.

[1605]

Bill 21 also ensures, through amendments to the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, that when a woman makes a personal choice about

reproduction, her decision will remain personal. Bill 21 adds a separate

section

to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to specifically

prohibit the disclosure of information related to abortion services to an

applicant who makes a request under

section 5 of the act.

Currently there is no presumption in the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act that information

[ Page 17608 ]

related to abortion services automatically qualifies for protection. This

legislation will create an automatic provision that does not require a

case-by-case assessment of harm in order to withhold the information.

At the same time, a woman will not be prevented from accessing her own

information, that is her right. Her right to that information will be

maintained. The public will still be able to request information about abortion

policies or statistical information related to total numbers of abortions

provincially or by health region.

I'm sure the members of the opposition will stand up and quote from a letter

that was sent to me as Deputy Premier from the information and privacy

commissioner. It's a thoughtful letter. It will be -- I'm sure, because they've

already released it to the media -- his objection to Bill 21. I fully respect

his opinion, hon. Speaker; however, it is one of the areas that we disagree with

the information and privacy commissioner -- we respectfully disagree. Over the

years the consultation that has taken place between the freedom-of-information

and protection-of-privacy office and us . . . . We fundamentally

disagree on the need to protect women and health care providers under the FOI

Act.

His objection is forcefully stated in a letter to me, and he objects to the

fact that now a specific nature of information rather than a class of

information will be protected from release. And I would respectfully say this.

While we have been the leaders in freedom-of-information and

protection-of-privacy legislation in this province and will continue to be,

there is a fundamental difference in the information that we will be exempting

from the FOIPPA. This information leads to the safety and security of health

care providers and women who access those services. I cannot think of another

time when, as a class of people, the health care providers providing this

service have been collectively at risk. Their safety and security collectively

has been threatened.

And even though there are those who would say that this has not been an issue

front and centre, that safety and security are not under threat, and why are we

stirring up this issue . . . ? That's simply not the case. This

information is requested each and every day from health care providers, and it

is abortion service providers who have asked for this very specific exclusion

under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

So, yes, I do understand that the freedom of information commissioner himself

objects to this, and I'm sure the Liberals will use that as a reason why our

government is overstepping its bounds. But it's a fundamental disagreement, and

we have decided to side with the protection, the health and safety of the

abortion service providers.

[1610]

It is a discussion that we've had at length, and we value greatly the

wonderful legislation that we have brought in. But after much consultation with

abortion service providers, we have chosen to ensure the protection of this

information by its exemption from the FOIPPA.

Our government believes that this action will protect women and their doctors

from potential harassment or harm -- future harassment or harm, because the

harassment and harm has occurred already in this province.

This new legislation affirms that this government does and always will

support women's right to choice in dealing with reproductive issues. It's not

for us to debate and decide what choices a woman should make; rather, it's our

responsibility to ensure that the right to choose is given the strongest

possible protection and support. This government has always believed that women

have the right to choose, and this bill reaffirms that commitment.

Hon. Speaker, I hereby move second reading of the Abortion Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2001.

C. Hansen: This bill that's before us is an attempt by this government

to politicize a very personal issue. It is an attempt to scare the women of

British Columbia. It is all about dividing British Columbians, not bringing them

together.

Right at the outset I want to put my own personal views on the table. I am

pro-choice, as are the overwhelming majority of British Columbians. The

overwhelming majority of British Columbians want abortion services to be

maintained in this province and do not want their government to stir up the

divisiveness of this issue.

In the B.C. Liberal Party, our platform and our position clearly reflect the

majority view. We are committed to maintaining abortion services. We will not

change legislation as it affects access to abortion, and abortion services in

this province will not be reduced. We believe this reflects the public view that

this issue should not be inflamed in this province.

In the public there is a minority that opposes abortion, and our caucus is

reflective of the different views that exist in our society. But we have said

that after the election, there will be no change in legislation and no reduction

in access to abortion services. Not only is our caucus 100 percent supportive of

that position, but 100 percent of the candidates who are standing for the B.C.

Liberal Party in the coming election are supportive of that position.

This government has chosen to do something that we have said we will not do

after the election. Today this government has chosen to make legislative change

regarding access to abortion. There is a difference between the B.C. Liberal

Party and the New Democratic Party. While both parties support and promise

continued access to abortion services, we in the B.C. Liberal Party seek to calm

public fears rather than inflame them.

The majority of our caucus will support this legislation. But I also want to

put on the record that a few of our members will exercise their right to vote

against this legislation that is before us today. Just before I close, I want to

mention a particular member who would oppose this legislation, but who has,

unfortunately, been called back to his constituency on very short notice. The

member for Abbotsford wants to stand in this House and vote against this

legislation. This morning a tragic accident in Mission claimed the life of a

very close friend of his, so he is leaving to go back to his constituency to be

with his family and his friend's family. But were he here, he would stand to

oppose this legislation.

In closing, I just want to say that we regret that this government has chosen

to divide British Columbians. Our caucus will reflect some of those views. A

majority will be 100 percent behind it, and there is a minority who will oppose

this action by this government.

[1615]

Hon. E. Gillespie: Last week in this House we debated a resolution

that had many parts. The resolution on improving

[ Page 17609 ]

women's access to reproductive choice has 11 parts. Parts of that resolution

will be determined by budget decisions, parts will be determined by policy, and

parts will be brought into force by this legislation.

The Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act has two parts. The first part

addresses the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have heard

directly from abortion service providers and from agencies that support a

woman's right to choose about the effect of access to information about the

provision of abortion services. There are groups that use this information in

order to target specific facilities or specific individuals who provide service,

therefore creating an extremely dangerous environment in which they work. It's

very important that this freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy

provision be brought forward into the light of day so that British Columbians

understand the importance of information in this case.

The second part of this legislation refers to the Hospital Act, and it names

hospitals that will provide this service. I heard the critic for Health speaking

just a moment ago, who said that his party would maintain the status quo with

respect to abortion services in this province. We spoke at length last week,

when we debated the resolution, about how the status quo is simply not good

enough. That is, provincial government must take a proactive stance in order to

ensure that women have access to reproductive choice in this province. They must

take a proactive stance by providing for the security of providers. They must

take a proactive stance through ensuring that we are training health care

professionals who can provide this service. The provincial government must take

a proactive stance by ensuring that there are hospitals, which are named in the

light of day in this Legislature. They must take a proactive stance to ensure

that women have access to the emergency contraception pill.

This whole package, of which this legislation is a part, is extremely

important for women in this province and is being watched by women across this

country. This whole package takes the range from ensuring that there is access

to information, education, birth control choices and abortion services, where

the safety of providers and the safety of women seeking access to abortion

services are guaranteed . . . .

I stand before you as Minister of Women's Equality to support this

legislation. My ministry has three top priorities in the struggle for women's

equality in this province: stopping the violence against women, economic

equality and health care. Under the priority of health care, we work to ensure

that our health care system respects women's right to control their own bodies,

including when they have children. It's not acceptable for anyone who claims to

support women's equality and women's equal rights to pay lip service to the

importance of women's varied roles in family and society, especially if they go

on to ignore or downplay or dismiss women's reproductive health and reproductive

rights. Our support for women and for their advancement must be demonstrated in

real terms. Equality for women includes respecting and actively supporting their

right to choose.

Once again I would say that it is important to address these issues in the

light of day before the public, in order for the public to understand how

important these issues are. Women must be empowered to choose when and how they

have children, and no one has the right to impose reproductive decisions on

them. This legislation will enhance prevention of unwanted pregnancies, improve

access to both prevention and abortion services, and increase the safety of

those providing abortions. Standing still on women's reproductive health is not

an option. Every day we must continue to move ahead.

[1620]

Reproductive rights involve far more than simply the right to reproduce. They

involve support for women in activities other than reproduction, freeing them

from a system of values which insists that reproduction is their only function.

There was a time when a woman's value was determined by how many children she

had. That is a trap from which women in this province and in this nation were

freed some years ago. When I spoke in support of the resolution, I spoke a

little bit about the experience of women who have fought for that right to

choose over the years -- indeed, have fought for over 100 years to ensure that

women have the right to choose. And having the right to choose means that there

must be access to abortion services right across this province.

The freedom to choose improves women's health, education and economic

opportunities. It helps secure and stabilize their families, and it's one of the

keys to sustainable social and economic development in this province.

Reproductive choice is one of the most fundamental and yet most vulnerable of

women's rights. It deserves the strongest protection and support that government

can provide.

We have heard in the debate on the resolution -- and we will hear in the

debate on this legislation -- just how vulnerable that right is. The right

without access is no right at all. This legislation will protect access to

abortion services across British Columbia and ensure that when a woman makes a

very personal decision, her decision will remain personal, that it will be

supported and that she will be able to access the services she needs. Women must

have the right to make those most intimate of all decisions free from

discrimination, free from coercion, free from harassment, free from fear of

violence. This legislation supports and protects this decision.

As you know, to enact change we must involve not only women but the community

and the society in which they live. A woman's health is crucially dependent on

the quality of services that she's offered and the choices that are available.

We know this. We acknowledge it in all sorts of areas, so in this particular

area of access to abortion services we must act on it.

The task before us now is not to have another emotional and divisive debate

on a woman's right to choose. We've had this discussion, and the decision has

been made, but this legislation adds protection. It is protection in the light

of day, protection that is open to view by all British Columbians.

We know that this issue can escalate to one of violence. But privacy equals

protection for health practitioners providing abortion services and for women

seeking abortions -- protection from those who would wish to do them physical

harm because of the services they provide or the services they seek. The concept

of reproductive rights did not magically appear out of one group or one country.

It's a universal concept, which reflects the experience of women all over the

world. Women's reproductive choice must be protected from persecution, protected

from violence, protected from coercion and, most of all, supported by access to

appropriate services. Bill 21 carries out these tasks.

It's time to move this global, national, provincial consensus from discussion

to legislation -- to bring it out into the

[ Page 17610 ]

light of day, to move it from paper into practice. We must dedicate ourselves

now -- and I dedicate myself now, for the future -- to the task of transforming

rights into realities for all women in British Columbia.

[1625]

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to begin by clearly stating for the record

how much respect I have for the individuals in the Liberal caucus who just stood

up and voted against the previous legislation. Now, that might sound a little

strange, because I fundamentally disagree with them, but it takes a great deal

of courage to stand up and be counted when you're dealing not only with this

particular difficult issue but with other difficult issues where you are in a

minority. For the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the member for

Abbotsford, that is exactly what they did. It took a great deal of integrity,

and I compliment them for that. What politics is about, in my view, is standing

up and being counted. It's about clearly putting on the record what you stand

for and allowing the electorate to judge you accordingly. So for the individuals

that may indeed share the views of those two but did not have the courage to

stand up, I feel a great deal of sadness.

Hon. Speaker, this is an issue that is of utmost importance to women and men

in this province. It's of particular interest to women, but I am so pleased that

there are significant numbers of men that stand with women, insisting on their

right to choose and their ability to make decisions for themselves. When there

are those amongst us who say that this is not an issue, that we needn't talk

about it, that it is divisive to talk about it, what I hear ringing in my ears

is, "Be quiet. Behave yourself" -- the kind of patriarchy that has

ruled this province and this country for decades.

I was first elected in 1986 and had the privilege of representing Surrey-Whalley

in opposition in those years. In preparation for this debate I went back and

looked at the Hansard s during that time, just to refresh my own memory. I

have to tell you that I was startled by the language and by the issues that were

being dealt with and, indeed, how they came about. I want to share that with the

House, because I'm afraid that too many people have forgotten.

You know, I've heard speakers before me reference the history in the United

States, how some of the decisions with respect to choice had been dealt with and

resolved in the United States. With the election of President Bush we are seeing

all of that ground taken away from women. It can happen here as well, although

it won't happen in the same way.

The issues with respect to choice and the struggle that women have been

engaged in for so long have been dealt with in a myriad of different ways. When

you look at the history of the Social Credit in this province and you look in

particular at the Vander Zalm years, that's an example that I don't expect to be

replayed, because time and place . . . . Issues change; people

change. But it really points out the vulnerability of the system. We heard the

Leader of the Opposition say to the people of this province that on difficult

issues like this he was committing his government, should he form government, to

a free vote. And when the pressure came, he back-pedalled and said: "Well,

maybe not a free vote; it'll be a confidence vote. But don't worry. It's not a

provincial issue; it's a federal issue."

[1630]

When we look at history, we can clearly see the impact that a provincial

government can have on this issue. That was one of the reasons we brought

forward the motion, and it's one of the reasons we're dealing with the

legislation today. But when I look back at what happened during the Social

Credit era . . . . I just want to refresh some people's memories.

Back in January of 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that Canada's abortion laws were

unconstitutional and that the constitution comes before the unfair Criminal Code

provisions. So what the provincial government said at the time, and it was under

the Minister of Health, Minister Dueck, is that the illegal abortion committees

would stand.

Now, I have to confess: when I was first reading the Hansard s, I was

perplexed. The abortion committees -- I didn't quite remember that piece. But I

think most of us in this province will recall that hospital by hospital by

hospital throughout this province there were three-member committees -- more

often than not there were three men on the committee -- that sat and looked at

an individual's health records and decided yea or nay whether a procedure that

was prescribed by a doctor could proceed in that hospital. It is hard to imagine

how difficult it would be for most women to first have to come to that decision

in seeking a medical abortion and then subject themselves to a committee of a

hospital that would make a decision, often in the absence of that individual's

being able to represent themselves.

So what the Health minister said was -- this particular piece that was deemed

to be unconstitutional -- that the abortion committees would stand. When he was

challenged, he said then that only those abortions approved by the committees

would be funded. So this is the issue with respect to the Medical Services Plan

and the funding of services.

At that time, Attorney General Brian Smith said the government would fight

the Supreme Court decision. The then Health minister announced that doctors, not

the committee, would determine funding for the abortions. So you can see that

line of history doesn't even begin to focus people's attention on the impact of

the decisions made in these buildings in the absence of representation from, as

one of the speakers on the opposition side said, the majority view in this

province.

Finally, the government cut off all funding for abortions. And the quote that .

. . . Well, I'm not even going to introduce the quote. It was a very

difficult time in this House, and I remember it well.

On March 2, Claude Richmond . . . . We heard earlier that the

critic for the Ministry of Health said that 100 percent of their members and 100

percent of their candidates would support this bill and would support the status

quo. I understand that Mr. Richmond is running for the Liberals. He's one of

their candidates. Let me tell you that on March 2, Mr. Richmond introduced to

the House an amendment to the GAIN Act which would see abortions not accessible

to women who were on income assistance, to poor women, in this province. So

there was an amendment to the GAIN Act that eliminated funding for abortion

services. On March 8, 1988, the B.C. Supreme Court decided the government must

pay for abortions.

[1635]

It's interesting that during this period there were a number of opportunities

where we in the opposition questioned the government members and tried to bring

pressure and show the impact of these decisions. When we introduced the

[ Page 17611 ]

resolution, we heard the member from Peace River criticize the government for

introducing the resolution and this topic. He was a very strong and dignified

voice in this House who said that the government was introducing a very divisive

issue and somehow implied that by doing that it was an indication of how

desperate the government was. He recalled his days and implied that it was their

motivation at that time. Well, it's interesting to look at the time, because the

Socreds dealt with this issue in 1988. The election was not until 1991. There's

no connection whatsoever.

The hon. member from Peace River also indicated that he was pro-choice and

stood up strongly in support of women's right to choose and that he stood on the

side of women. Well, I checked the Hansard , and you know, hon. Speaker,

he never had the integrity, the strength and the backbone that these two

individuals had in standing up and ensuring that their voices were heard. The

only issue that he was raising at the time was the subject of ethanol gasoline

-- he was a proponent for ethanol additive in gasoline, a good topic -- but

certainly not this one.

There's also another member of the old Socred caucus that is running for the

Liberals in the next election, and I'm wondering if, given his history, he is so

readily willing to sacrifice his principles because of his lust for government.

That would be Mr. Hagen on the Island here.

I want to quote from Mr. Hagen's response to the throne speech. This was a

throne speech that was brought in, in 1987. He says: "I believe that we

must strengthen the moral traditions that have patterned Canadian life. My

Christian commitment helps me to have the compassion to understand the problems

of others." He goes on to quote the Bible. He says: " . . . I

will continue to do so in this House. This concern and commitment to all aspects

of life, the unborn, the disabled and the aged enables my ready support of the

Premier's throne speech initiatives to address the increasing number of

abortions." At that time he had the integrity and the strength to stand up,

to speak strongly with respect to his morals and his values. Hon. Speaker, I

wonder if he's doing the same today.

What this bill does is put into law that reproductive services, abortion

services, must be provided in hospitals. Some might say: "Why is that

important? Why do we need to do that here in British Columbia? Surely we are

past that time in our history." Well, not very long ago we saw a doctor who

provides these services attacked and his very life threatened.

We heard from the member representing Matsqui that he thought it was

important that we go back to the bad old days of elected hospital boards. My

very first recollection of this issue was in my own home community of Surrey,

where hospital services were . . . . The Surrey Memorial Hospital

board went through a process of signing up new members. It went from a hospital

auxiliary of something like 300 members to having to hold its hospital meeting,

a meeting of the society, in the Cloverdale Raceway, because that was the only

facility in all of Surrey that had enough seats to seat all of the new members.

[1640]

What that battle was about was abortion services. It wasn't until after that

fiasco . . . . I say fiasco because, as one of the members who

attended that meeting, it was probably one of the most horrifying experiences of

my life, walking through a gauntlet of placards that were, in my view, perhaps the

most frightening betrayal of what I understood to be Christianity.

We don't need to go back to those bad old days. But you can imagine, if we

ended up in this province with an individual in a position of responsibility who

really believed in attacking or diminishing the right of choice, that all it

would take would be an initiative wrapped in the guise of democracy and Closer

to Home to put us right back into those kinds of horrific spectacles in each and

every one of our communities.

I want to speak to the other part of this bill, and this is with respect to

freedom of information. I know that there was a considerable amount of work done

by a standing committee of the House on the issue of the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act. I also know that there were submissions made on

this issue. But the submissions that were made were made in confidence, because

the people that made the submissions were afraid -- afraid, hon. Speaker -- that

their submission would be made public and that through that they would

themselves be vulnerable.

In this province today, when you call together a meeting of service providers

and advocates, they hold those meetings in secure rooms with security guards.

They don't circulate the list of attendees, because they understand their

vulnerability. I have to tell you that that makes me angry. And I want that side

to be angry too. Nowhere in this country, in this province, should any citizen

be afraid to participate in the business of government, in the business of

making decisions about either the provision of service or the seeking of

service, and feel personally vulnerable -- with good cause.

To say "status quo" and to suggest that everything is fine . .

. . That is just not right. We need more people with integrity and the

moral fortitude to stand up and be counted. While I disagree with those two that

voted against, I have to commend them for having the moral fortitude to stand up

and be counted, representing who they are and what they stand for.

[1645]

But I'm digressing a little bit. I want to talk about the submission that was

made to the freedom-of-information committee. In that submission they talked

about some of the history of how some of the most radical anti-choice activists

have used access to information to increase the vulnerability of service

providers. They gave examples of information that was obtained through freedom

of information that ended up on web sites down in the United States.

A particular web site is known to a lot of pro-choice activists. It's a web

site out of Denton, Texas, called Life Dynamics Inc. The web site that they

service, lists information of service providers by including the area where they

are providing those services, making information readily available to people

that may not be very stable. Information about pro-choice activists that was

accessed through freedom of information in this province was placed on that web

site. I have to tell you that scared a lot of people.

Activists in this province have advocated for and have publicly stated that

they support capital punishment for abortion providers. They have gone on to let

it be known publicly that they have sought out firearm acquisition certificates.

You wouldn't think that that would happen in a province like British Columbia,

but it's part of the public record. When members on the other side say that they

support the status quo, they are saying that they will not deal with these

issues.

These are issues that are relevant today and that are important to women, to

service providers and to those that are

[ Page 17612 ]

responsible for the administration of justice in this province. We have to

continue to learn and understand. The worst thing that could happen is if we

were quiet and knew our place and didn't say difficult things. We are not here

to be quiet, to know our place and not say difficult things.

I am happy that we have the opportunity to look at the successes of the last

ten years. I had the opportunity to be at a tenth anniversary of one of the

freestanding clinics here in B.C. a few months ago. At the anniversary, they

went through and recalled what it was like with the demonstrations outside of

the clinics. They recalled what it was like to struggle to provide this service.

They recalled the relief that they felt when the province, with the new NDP

government, came forward with core funding, which provided stability and

security for the clinic. What a relief it was for them to get on with the

business of providing a high-quality service for women, rather than having to

deal with protesters and with issues of private fundraising to ensure the

service would be available to women. How happy they were to work with the

government and with the University of British Columbia to develop training

modules for other practitioners so that they could learn from their experiences,

ensuring that other women had the access to the high-quality service and

expertise that they had developed.

When I thought about that, and of the role that we, as a government, were

able to provide in support of women, I was truly proud of those years. I look

back, and much has changed. But we have a lot more work to do. Here in British

Columbia teen pregnancies are still far too high. We heard the Minister of

Health talk about the fact that the numbers of teen pregnancies are coming down,

and they are. But when we as adults understand the impact of an unwanted

pregnancy -- a child having a child -- and what that means to that child's life,

whether it's the mother or the infant, I think most of us understand all too

well the difficult life that they face.

[1650]

So for us as legislators to come forward with a package to bring it into the

public eye, to stop the denial, to say to parents and to women in this province,

"We are firmly standing with you to deal with this issue," that we

intend to deal with a comprehensive program, from sex education in the school

all the way through to dealing with terrorists . . . .

And hon. Speaker, I believe those people are terrorists for the intimidation

and threats that they perpetrate against service providers and individuals

seeking a legal medical procedure. I not only say to you that it is the right

thing to do, but I say shame on those that want to make politics out of it by

saying that we shouldn't be talking about it. Shame on those who do not have the

moral fortitude to stand up and be counted if they disagree with what the

government is bringing in. If they're not prepared to stand up and be counted on

this important issue, then, hon. Speaker, what else is for sale?

P. Priddy: I want to say to the House that I'm pleased to stand and

support this legislation -- the two pieces to this legislation. Many of the very

good points, I think, made by the previous speaker, the Minister of Labour, I

will leave to her good words.

I just want to speak about a few, a couple, of the other pieces. I want to

talk about the divisiveness that people talk about in this legislation or in

other pieces of legislation. I hear people saying -- I hear the opposition

saying -- that we're trying to drive an agenda that is divisive. I fail, quite

honestly, to understand how anything in this legislation could possibly be

divisive.

I don't understand in any way how it could be divisive to protect service

providers. I don't think that anybody -- and I'm sure that nobody on either side

of this House -- would see a service provider at risk. This speaks to, partly,

the security of service providers. How can that possibly be divisive, hon.

Speaker?

I'm puzzled about how it could be divisive to name, in legislation, the 33

hospitals, which are already named in order-in-council and have been for some

time; that's been there for a number of years now. How is it divisive to move

that into legislation? How is it divisive to guarantee, through the naming of

these hospitals, that there will be local access? Well, not perhaps as local as

we would like it to be, but there will be access throughout the province --

guaranteed. Why is that divisive, that we would guarantee to women that in at

least 33 places throughout the province a legal Canadian health care service

will be available to them? I don't understand how that can be divisive.

I'm not sure, also, how it can be divisive to stand up and vote on an issue.

Surely your views are more than well known to your constituents, to the public,

to your family, to your party. So why is it divisive to put on the legislative

record those views which people already know that we hold