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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 13

[ Page 17535 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

[1410]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the gallery are Hannah Roman, the University of

British Columbia Students for Choice; Cathy Anstey, University of Victoria

Students Society; and Janet Baird, a birth control pioneer. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Robertson: Today in the members' gallery we have a special

guest from Chile: Francisco Marambio, the newly appointed consul general of

Chile at Vancouver. Having served in Chilean embassies around the world for the

past 20 years in countries such as Spain, Japan and China, this is the consul

general's first posting to Canada. I would ask the members of the House to

please join me in welcoming Francisco to both British Columbia and Canada.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to welcome, on behalf of the House, some

leaders in the environmental movement of British Columbia. There are two groups

of people I'd like to introduce. The first is Lloyd Manchester, who's with the

British Columbia Environmental Network, parks and wilderness caucus; George

Smith, conservation director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; and

my old friend Vicky Husband, from the Sierra Club of British Columbia. Would the

House please make them welcome.

And from that little island that is so much in the news, Saltspring Island --

that beautiful gem of an island -- I have three friends here: Briony Penn, Irene

Wright and Pat O'Neill. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Mann Brewin: I have two introductions I'd like to make. First, on

your behalf, if I may, hon. Speaker, I'd like to welcome the following folks to

the gallery for question period: Mr. Art Thompson, Dr. Jo-ann Archibald, Dr.

Jean Barman and Dr. John Lutz. Would the House please make these four

interesting people welcome.

My second introduction is another interesting person, a young woman whose

name is Poonam Mistry. She's on her first visit to the Legislature. Poonam is

married to one of our communications officers in the NDP caucus. She's a native

of Bombay, India, and emigrated to Canada in August. They are both residents in

James Bay, my constituency. So would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted to have with us today several women

in the gallery: Joyce Arthur, the Pro-Choice Action Network; Jaimie Matten, the

UVic Students Society; Kristen Gilbert, the UBC Students for Choice; and Skye

Stuart, who works for Wiebe Medical Abortion Clinic. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Hon. G. Janssen: I ask the House to welcome today two people from

Trinity Christian School in Victoria and friends of my able assistant, Barbara

Hogan: Jason Cook and Jacob Cook.

[1415]

Hon. E. Gillespie: I have four guests I'd like to introduce today:

Karen Seaboyer, who is a representative from Planned Parenthood in Vancouver;

Liza Haldane, from the Terrace Women's Resource Centre; Erin Kaiser, from the

Pro-Choice Action Network; and Carman Benoit, representing Justice for Girls.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

S. Orcherton: I'd like to join with my friend the MLA for Alberni in

welcoming the students and teachers from Trinity Christian School in my

constituency. I hope you enjoy your day at the Legislature and learn lots about

parliament and parliamentary procedure in British Columbia. This is where you

can make a difference in terms of what happens in British Columbia. Please,

House, join me in welcoming these students to our assembly.

Introduction of Bills

SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT REMUNERATION

ALLOWANCES AND PERQUISITES ACT

(SCRAP ACT)

R. Kasper presented a bill intituled Senior Civil Servant Remuneration

Allowances and Perquisites Act (SCRAP Act).

R. Kasper: This bill is being reintroduced. It is identical to a bill

that was introduced last year. It lays out a very clear process in determining

salaries for senior civil servants in British Columbia. Senior civil servants

are clearly defined, and remuneration is defined in the bill as well as the

opportunity for adjustments to be made to those salaries.

The bill also strikes a citizens panel and recommends the makeup of that

panel: a member from the trade union sector, the business community and the

public at large. The chair of the panel would be an arbitrator from the Ministry

of Labour. The bill also has the authority for the panel to make

recommendations, and those recommendations shall be made public and shall be

binding on the Legislature and the Minister of Finance.

This bill takes into account the findings last year by Judi Korbin, who

chaired a special committee that did a review of deputy ministers' salary

adjustments and the salaries of heads of public sector bodies, and in the

recommendations it recommended such panels be struck or established by

government.

I view this as a friendly opportunity to forward the government to take

steps, as they chose not to last year.

Bill M206 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUSKWA-KECHIKA MANAGEMENT AREA

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Amendment Act, 2001.

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

time now.

This bill implements recommendations contained in the Mackenzie land and

resource management plan. Approval of

[ Page 17536 ]

the Mackenzie LRMP allowed us to become the first jurisdiction in Canada, and

one of the first few globally, to meet and exceed the United Nations goal of

protecting 12 percent of our land base. In this respect, the Mackenzie LRMP

epitomizes the culmination of our achievement that everybody in British Columbia

can be very proud of. I believe we're already one of the greenest jurisdictions

in North America, if not the world.

The Mackenzie plan also reflects a balance -- that is, the community's need

to ensure a working land base to protect jobs for today and in the future while

also preserving the unique beauty, special environment and wilderness values of

the area.

Bill 14 responds to the decisions of the Mackenzie LRMP planning table. It

adds 1.9 million hectares to the Muskwa-Kechika management area -- we call it

the Northern Rockies -- increases funds paid into the trust fund by $1 million

annually and extends the period for contributing funds to the trust fund to

2005. These amendments demonstrate our commitment to specifically manage the

Muskwa-Kechika management area and to ensure that adequate funding is provided

for planning, research and conservation work. Enshrining these changes in

legislation will ensure that these commitments receive the highest possible

degree of legal protection, and the animals, the birds, the insects and the

plants can last therein forever.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

The Speaker: We'll do the motion on the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

[1420]

The Speaker: The second motion is as the minister stated.

Motion approved.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

Hon. I. Waddell presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2001.

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

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Waddell: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this other

bill today, one that builds on and advances British Columbia's international

leadership in the establishment of protected areas. As I said, British Columbia

is the first jurisdiction in Canada, and one of the few globally, to have met

the UN-Brundtland standards of 12 percent of land protected in parks and

protected areas. This bill implements decisions achieved through community-based

land use planning processes contributing that goal.

Bill 15 establishes new class A parks and one new ecological reserve. It also

makes additions to six existing scheduled class A parks. Together these new

areas and additions encompass approximately one million hectares. The creation

of these new parks and ecological reserves is the result of the dedicated

efforts of many British Columbians at land use tables.

Hon. Speaker, we believe that BC'ers want parks and ecological reserves to

forever preserve outstanding ecosystems that represent this province's

exceptional diversity of wildlife, fish, vegetation and geographical wonders.

The government has listened and worked hard to ensure the protection of some of

the most ecologically significant and breathtakingly beautiful pristine

wilderness areas in our province.

Bill 15 is an important step in this government's response to the demands of

the people of British Columbia and their families, and I'm pleased to present

this bill in the House today.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

KEOGH GENERATING STATION

G. Plant: For the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Last July B.C.

Hydro wrote to the B.C. Utilities Commission asking for permission to shut down

the Keogh diesel plant, which Hydro then described as uneconomic and

deteriorating. B.C. Hydro then said it could not justify spending the millions

of dollars that would be needed to make the plant reasonably reliable and, in

its words, "to address the safety and environmental concerns."

Yesterday the Utilities Commission received another letter from B.C. Hydro.

But this time B.C. Hydro says it would be, in its words, advantageous to spend

$4.5 million to refurbish Keogh and keep it running until the year 2002.

My question for the minister is this: if Keogh was such a wonderful goldmine

for the government, why hasn't it been running it flat out for years?

[1425]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The Keogh plant was scheduled to be decommissioned.

Hydro has recently reviewed the situation due to low water inflows in its

reservoirs and the high price of electricity on the North American market. They

believe it not only is economical but will have a very positive effect if they

refurbish and run the Keogh facility. They will be seeking permits to do so.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental

question.

G. Plant: Well, it's going to take a bit of work and a lot of money

and a bit of time to get Keogh back up and running. In

[ Page 17537 ]

fact, to get one of its two generators running, it's going to take six months

of work. And despite this, despite all of this work and all of this money, B.C.

Hydro claims that it can generate $71 million worth of revenue by essentially

running one turbine flat-out 24-seven for however much is left of the year. You

may recall that it started out at $100 million; now it's down to $70 million --

tens of millions of dollars.

My question for the minister is this: how is it that a plant that just a few

weeks ago was no longer even a useful facility for generating electricity can

suddenly turn into a $70 million revenue-generating facility for the government?

And if the minister truly believes that, I've got a couple of Honda generators I

could sell him, and I'm sure we could make a buck.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's the last part of the member's comments that I

find objectionable. I have . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I have served in this office of Finance

minister with diligence and with integrity. The targets I set for Crown

corporations last year were prudent and cautious. They said they were going to

come in at a negative $179 million. In fact, they earned over $600 million.

The targets that have been set in Budget 2001 have been done with the same

care, with full involvement and advice of staff. They are sound, as is Budget

2001. This opposition knows it; that press gallery knows it. I have served with

dignity and integrity, and I intend to do so in the future.

M. de Jong: When I think of the targets the minister has set, it's the

word "mythical" that comes to my mind.

I'm trying to put this Keogh plant into some sort of perspective, because in

his mythical budget, Mr. Speaker, the minister says that he is going to receive

$70 million -- as the figure is now -- from a facility that B.C. Hydro had

completely written off to the point where they were actually giving away the

diesel fuel.

Last November Hydro gave away the last 11,000 litres of Keogh's diesel fuel

supply to the Rotary Club in Campbell River, because they knew the plant was

going to be dismantled. So the question remains: on what possible basis does the

minister expect us to take him, his party, his government and his budget

seriously when he is estimating revenues from a facility that was giving away

its last drops of diesel fuel?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1430]

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's interesting. World Theatre Day was actually

yesterday, hon. member.

If the opposition has not noticed, the price of energy has changed over the

last couple of years. As a matter of fact, on the California market -- the west

coast market in which we buy and sell -- it's risen approximately by a factor of

ten. This creates very different economics for hydroelectric and utilities and

others. What did not make financial sense, when electricity was at $35 a

megawatt hour, makes eminent sense when it is $350. And if that party ever have

the opportunity to sit here, maybe they would look at some of these factors as

they look at what can be done.

But beyond that, all targets in this budget have been set after full

consultation, after advice from the very public service that this Liberal

opposition purports to support. They have looked at this. They have worked with

me on these targets. These targets are attainable, and the numbers in Budget

2001 are solid.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: I'm trying to reconcile what the minister just said with

the fact that the application to dismantle, to decommission the plant, was

actually made last August, when power prices were at their highest and, I think,

Hydro executives were getting their bonuses.

But there's another question that comes to mind, and that is the fact that

the minister is now telling us that he is counting on receiving $70 million

worth of revenue -- and he's budgeting on this basis -- from a facility that he

may not get a permit to operate. He may not actually get the permit to operate

it. That's what this letter of yesterday is all about.

In addition to that, the web site says that Keogh's job is to provide

short-term energy during transmission interruptions on north Vancouver Island --

except he's budgeting on the basis of full-time operation. Why is the minister

expecting full-time revenue from a part-time plant?

Hon. P. Ramsey: B.C. Hydro is seeking permit approval. It will go

through the regular permitting approval, as any plant would have to.

The reason why it makes sense to run this facility is twofold. Number one is

electricity prices, and number two is the low inflows in reservoirs, which means

that Hydro does not have as much water in its reservoirs. B.C. Hydro is

examining all options to supply electricity to British Columbians for the coming

year. It will. It will meet the target that we've set for it, unless it is faced

with a minister and government that tell it not to or that sell it off.

C. Clark: The Minister of Finance says that everybody in this House

and everyone in the press gallery understands what he's talking about with his

budget. I've got a message for him on behalf of the opposition: "Son, you

just don't get it."

He admits today that it's possible that this plant won't even be running if

it doesn't get the permits. And among the permits that are required are the

permits from the Minister of Environment. Keogh is subject to pollution control

permits that limit its restrictions, and now Hydro is saying to the Utilities

Commission in this letter that they're trying to get new environmental permits

so that they can operate this plant 24 hours a day for a year. Will the Minister

of Environment confirm for us that if he approves those permits, it's going to

mean a huge increase in the amount of dirt that that plant belches into the air?

Interjections.

[ Page 17538 ]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm always pleased to be called "son" by a

future mom.

B.C. Hydro runs a range of hydroelectric facilities and other

power-generating facilities. It also has access to power trading with the

northwest United States. Using those facilities to the maximum, it can meet

those targets. Of course B.C. Hydro will go through the normal permitting

application, and everybody will have a chance to look at the results of that.

But this is the member who advocates for crippling B.C. Hydro and disposing

of its major assets, the one that it relies on in a low-water year such as the

one we're facing, and she would sell it. This is a good Crown corporation. This

is something that can meet the targets that have been set for it, and it will.

[1435]

C. Clark: You know, it's important to point out that it's not the

Minister of Finance that gets to grant the environmental permits. It's the

Minister of Environment that gets to do that. And he might want to talk to the

Minister of Environment about his comments about Burrard Thermal, because it

seems to me that that's where the disagreement currently exists.

B.C. Hydro says in its letter that if the permits are not granted, the plant

will not be able to operate. In other words, unless the Minister of Environment

clears the way through all the environmental hurdles, the Keogh will not be able

to help the Minister of Finance meet his budget proposals. My question to the

minister is this: has he already decided that he's going to rubber-stamp this

proposal in order to support this government's absolute sham of a budget?

Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that it would be totally

inappropriate to make any decisions right now on that. We have an environmental

process in place, and the hon. member knows that Hydro can go through -- as

anybody else will go through -- the process. We have high conservation

standards. They will be applied in that process. That can be done in a few

months. If the member doesn't like the results, she can come back in a couple of

months, rise in her seat in the opposition and ask me again what she thinks

about it.

SUMAS POWER FACILITY

B. Penner: For much of last year Fraser Valley residents fought

against the proposed SE2 power plant without any help from this government. When

asked about his government's lack of action on SE2, the Premier blamed his

former Environment minister, saying she was "late in coming out of the

gate." But we have obtained Ministry of Environment documents that show the

NDP's general lack of action and concern on this matter. One e-mail dated just

weeks after the NDP decided not to intervene in Washington State states:

"To date we have not had much success in generating a governmentwide

approach to this issue." Does the Premier still blame the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, his former Environment minister? Or will he take

responsibility for the entire government's dithering that cost B.C.'s seat at

the intervener's table in Washington State?

Hon. I. Waddell: This is absolutely misleading the public. The hon.

member knows that I went down and spoke to about 5,000 people in his back yard

in Abbotsford and took a strong position against Sumas 2. That's on the record.

And the hon. member should know that the former minister, my colleague, made

interventions behind the scenes with the Governor of Washington and was quoted

in the American environmental report, which was on our side. That's what she

achieved in doing that. So tell the public the truth; don't mislead them.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member. Members will wait till they're recognized,

please, by the Speaker. The red light has come on. You were on your feet. I'll

give you time for a short question, and hopefully we'll get a short answer.

B. Penner: SE2 is currently appealing Washington State's

recommendation against the plant. But because the NDP chose, last year, contrary

to our request, not to seek intervener status in Washington State, we are not at

the table as the province of British Columbia to oppose SE2's appeal. That job

has been left to local communities, and the province still refuses to provide

any financial assistance in the fight against SE2.

The Speaker: Please state your question, member.

B. Penner: Will the current Environment minister -- at least for a few

more weeks -- tell us why the NDP continues to leave local residents holding the

bag in this battle against SE2?

[1440]

Interjection.

The Speaker: The hon. minister will wait until he's recognized,

please.

The hon. Minister of Environment, Lands and Forests.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker.

Very briefly, when I became minister, we hired a lawyer to appear and

represent the government and the people in front of the NEB. I was there in

front of the NEB, and I appeared as minister with the lawyer. We have done

everything we possibly can. So please, would the member tell the truth? And I

ask the residents of the Fraser Valley and all British Columbia: who would you

trust with the environment? Would you trust that party over there, which would

mine in parks, or would you trust the party with the best environmental record

in North America?

The Speaker: The bell ends question period. The member for Chilliwack

has a point of order?

B. Penner: Point of privilege. I ask that the member for Mission-Kent

retract the statement that he made about me using unparliamentary language.

The Speaker: The Chair was listening carefully and heard nothing out

of order.

[ Page 17539 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I seek leave to table a report. I have the honour to

present the annual report of the year 2000 for the criminal injury compensation

program.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice on the order paper a Motion 4 in the name

of the Deputy Premier, which contains some 11 separate items relating to a whole

range of measures. Obviously members of this House may feel differently on any

of those 11 items -- maybe in favour of some, maybe opposed to others. I think

it is only appropriate that that motion be severed, that members be allowed to

take some time to consider whatever the severing may end up being, whatever

groupings there may or may not be for the 11 items that are contained in that.

Members at this point don't know what that severing might be, if the Speaker

decides that it should be severed, and they may want to reconsider a position on

which they were basing their decision, based on what was before them.

As well, before the House this afternoon . . . . It was my

understanding when I came in here today that Motion 4 is up for debate. There

are two other items on the agenda, which has been, I guess, dictated by the

Government House Leader. One of them is Bill 6, the Adult Guardianship Statutes

Amendment Act, second reading, and the other is Bill 17, the Human Rights Code

Amendment Act, in committee.

Both those items, obviously, the government is prepared to debate because

they're prepared to call them. Mr. Speaker, if you find that the motion requires

severing, I would urge you to allow the motion to be severed. Perhaps there

could be some discussion between opposition and government members on the

grouping of how that severing might happen. We could not call this motion; we

could proceed with Bill 6 and Bill 17 and come back to the motion once that has

been decided.

Hon. J. MacPhail: To be procedurally fair, I call the motion standing

on the order paper in my name, and then I'll address the concerns.

The Speaker: Are you speaking to the point of order, minister?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm calling . . . . The motion isn't

before us. I assume that in addressing the point of order, we don't miss the

opportunity for actually being able to call the motion on the order paper.

The Speaker: The Government House Leader on the point of order.

Hon. G. Janssen: The motion has been fully on the order paper for two

days. The opposition had two days to bring this point forward. It should be

obvious to the House that the attempt by the Opposition House Leader is to

deflect the motion from today. I'm prepared, as indicated by the Minister of

Education, to call the motion today, and we will call the motion in the form

that the Opposition House Leader suggests.

[1445]

The Speaker: Further on the point of order, the Opposition House

Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly I don't know what form the motion may take

if it's severed. I don't know how it would be severed, what the groupings might

be that the government has ultimately decided upon, so it's pretty hard for us

to do that. And it's pretty hard for us to be comfortable with that not knowing

what the severing might be. I'm not attempting to deflect the issue. What I'm

saying is that there are two other items on the order paper that can be debated

this afternoon. We can come back to this either later today or at another time.

Clearly I think that's only fair for members.

This is a very contentious issue. It has been on the order paper for two

days. Members have had to decide whether they're going to vote yea or nay based

on the 11 items that are before them. If this is severed into various groups,

there may be 11 separate items they have to decide upon separately. There may be

groupings of three or two, where they may agree with one part of that grouping

and not the other part. These are very serious issues for members to discuss and

debate and to ultimately decide how they intend to vote on. A great deal is at

stake, and I think members don't want the public or this House to misinterpret

their positions on those various motions that may ultimately result from the

severing. I'm not comfortable with the minister moving on, calling a motion and

just severing it without any discussion with anyone else in this House. That

seems to me very manipulative.

The Speaker: The Deputy Premier on the point of order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. Speaker, I seek your advice on proceeding

with the point of order and it not having, at this stage, an effect on the

original motion. Shall I proceed to address the point of order?

The Speaker: No. I'm taking points on the point of order now. When

members have finished on the point of order, we'll decide where we go from

there.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All right. Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. As my

colleague the House Leader has said, this motion was tabled on Thursday evening

of last week. Certainly, hon. Speaker, under standing order 58, whenever the

Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the

rules and privileges of parliament, he or she shall apprise the House thereof

immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule of

authority applicable to the case.

It's my understanding, hon. Speaker, that you have not made that call at all

-- that you are putting the question and that you have not offered a ruling on

the matter, as is required under standing order 58. So we on the government side

accepted that the motion as it appears can stand. However, it is our firm belief

that the motion does deal with the very comprehensive program of one topic: a

woman's right to reproductive choice. The rights of all members who oppose

protecting the right of a woman to choose are fully protected.

[ Page 17540 ]

They can vote no. Those who support parts of it can move amendments to delete

sections of it or can speak against any portion they wish.

According to MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia ,

dealing with the severing of motions, dealing with the point that the member

opposite has raised, the general rule is that the House may permit the division

or severing of a motion which contains two or more distinct propositions to

permit a separate vote on each proposition. That would be the lesser of our

preferences, hon. Speaker, as you make your ruling on this. But it is this House

that should decide whether a motion is severed or not. However, I also may say

that it is the government's right in this parliament to decide what is put

before this House. The orders of the day are established by the government, and

I expect that that would be the same no matter who's in government. I doubt that

that rule would be up for debate.

However, if the members opposite want to have this motion divided into

different sections, we can do that right now. I have three different motions.

I'll give them to the Clerks in my name. This is the same motion severed into

three. I also have copies available for the House for each of the three motions.

They're exactly the same substance as the original motion. They're divided into

three. I've tabled the three different motions, and here are copies available of

all three for each and every member of the House.

[1450]

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: Given the sensitive nature of this issue and the

desire of members to be able to make their positions clear, I'm not comfortable

with the government bringing forward an arbitrary severing of this motion. The

government may choose to steamroll ahead and do what they want. That's fine;

they're allowed to do that. They command the Legislature until such time as the

Premier gets the guts to call an election. But they do that. So, Mr. Speaker, if

the government insists on arbitrarily severing this motion into three motions,

as I guess it is now, I would rather . . . . If there's not going to

be any consultation to try to get some sort of consensus around this, I would

rather that the minister move the motion in its entirety, and we can vote

against it in its entirety based on the political manipulations of that minister

and this government.

D. Lovick: How interesting, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order,

that even when the government attempts to accommodate the opposition, we are

accused of nefarious practices.

The issue, of course, is about severing of the motion, and there is a

provision in our standing orders for severing the motion. I'm happy to advise

the Opposition House Leader, however, that his comfort level is not mentioned in

the standing orders; that's not part of how we adjudicate.

There's a reason for severing the thing. Let's be clear what the reasons are

from the opposition. The procedural niceties notwithstanding, the real issue is

that those folks on the other side are divided on this issue. They want to

provide some of their members an escape clause, so they can support it on the

one hand and speak against it on the other hand. That's the reason for their

point of order. It has nothing to do with anything else. I say that in all

sincerity.

Let us proceed with the option that the Deputy Premier has presented to us.

It's very straightforward; it's very clean. Let us then give the opposition the

chance to stand up and courageously vote against it for what they will call

political purposes, but which we all know is really because their own caucus is

hopelessly divided and they can't reconcile that. They don't have the courage to

tell the House that is indeed the case; rather, they're hiding behind procedural

wrangling.

The Speaker: I'll take two more submissions.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have one final submission to make. The position

of the opposition has been clear. We support the status quo of services for

abortions for women in British Columbia and will never roll them back. We've

been clear on that.

I object to the attempt to manoeuvre, to politically manipulate this. But,

Mr. Speaker, based on the arguments I've heard from the Deputy Premier and the

member opposite, I think the best course of action is for me to withdraw the

point of order. Let's proceed with the whole motion. We'll vote against it and

let the people decide.

J. Weisgerber: The member for Nanaimo suggests that the opposition is

looking for a way to sever the motion so that their members can vote either for

or against the motion. I would remind the Speaker that a few days ago in this

House, on Motion 1, after the first speakers on this side of the House, the

government leapt in with an amendment that radically changed the whole intent of

that motion. Indeed, it was then approved by the Speaker. So I guess my point

is: if it's ducking and hiding that the government's concerned about, it appears

they're experts in that area.

The Speaker: Final submission on the point of order.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is, of course, our preference to proceed with the

motion as was originally intended, standing in my name on the order paper. But

just let me be clear. The reason why I provided copies for the entire House was

so that they could feel comfortable -- as was their request, as was indicated.

[1455]

Perhaps we had considered that they may make this submission to you, hon.

Speaker, although they haven't before now. So we provide copies immediately that

show the motion merely severed into three parts. Our preference, of course, is

to debate them all as one, but the copies are there. Unlike what the member for

Peace River South tries to intimate, this is merely the original motion severed

into three parts, without change. But our preference is to debate the whole

motion as was originally intended.

The Speaker: I want to thank members for their input into the point of

order. I understand from the Opposition House Leader that the point of order has

now been withdrawn and that there seems to be agreement from both sides of the

House to proceed with this matter. It is your House, members.

[ Page 17541 ]

Motions on Notice

Hon. G. Janssen: I call Motion 4 standing in the name of the Minister

of Education.

MEASURES TO PROTECT

WOMEN'S RIGHT TO MAKE

CHOICES ON REPRODUCTION

[Be it resolved that this Assembly supports the following enhancement

measures to help protect the right of BC women to make their own choices on

reproduction:

Increased financial support to school-based and community-based services

which help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia

including, but not limited to, sex education, birth control, and counselling

Enhanced access to emergency contraceptives across British Columbia

Increased financial support to UBC medical school to expand physician

training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related services

Increased financial support for additional nurse clinicians at BC Women's

Hospital to increase their ability to offer counselling, outreach and other

services and to assist regions who are providing amniocentesis services for the

first time

Requiring under provincial law that obligations for hospitals to be operated

and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be lifted by the

Legislative Assembly

Improving the availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions,

including further financial support to investigate the efficacy and safety of

mifepristone (commonly known as RU 486) through the national clinical trial

currently being led out of Vancouver

Calling on the British Columbia Medical Association to agree to an increase

in fees paid to doctors who provide abortion services, which are currently lower

than they were in 1982

Helping ensure the ongoing security and safety of doctors and other health

care providers through additional financial support for security assessments,

education and training and security devices for homes and offices

Providing additional financial support for law enforcement agencies to

co-ordinate and gather intelligence to identify groups and individuals who are

prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect

to abortion issues

Ensuring through provincial law that public bodies must not release abortion

information, excepting abortion statistics at a global, regional and provincial

level and personal information, unless provided to the person about whom the

information pertains; and

Urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code, including

designating abortion service providers as a protected group under current hate

provisions and making attempts to criminally harass or harm abortion service

providers an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to speak in support of the motion in the

orders in my name. In 1994, in recognizing the unique health care needs of the

women of British Columbia, our government created the women's health bureau as

an important part of the Ministry of Health. That bureau has been the leader in

recognizing and helping to solve many women-related health issues, from violence

against women and gender-specific HIV and AIDS research and treatment to

reproduction and abortion issues. Those issues, reproduction and abortion, are

the most fundamental yet vulnerable of women's rights. As a government that has

long supported and protected the unique health needs of women, we need to

protect and support these issues as well.

We know that currently the number of abortion providers in the province is

decreasing. To remain true to the status quo, we would have to accept those

decreases. But we know that the status quo is simply not good enough. To serve

the women of this province more effectively, we must do better than the status

quo. In the past decade, this government has supported a woman's right to choose

when it comes to reproductive issues. And we will continue to provide support

through appropriate means, including support programs, regulations, legislation

and motions in this Legislature, so that the women of B.C. will know that their

choices are enshrined in law.

This government has worked hard to ensure that abortion services are included

in the Health ministry's core services policy. By requiring the provision of

abortion services through designated hospitals in B.C. and by protecting the

information about abortion services provided by the health system to individual

women, we continue to side with women of British Columbia and act on our

commitment to their right to choose. We're working to ensure that the safety of

women seeking abortions and the providers and facilities that deliver these

necessary medical procedures are protected. Women today shouldn't have to worry

that a personal decision that has such huge impact on their lives may be subject

to undue scrutiny.

But there's more to women's reproductive choices than abortions. Let's talk

about pregnancy prevention for a moment. We want to increase financial support

for school-based and community-based services, including sex education, birth

control, counselling and all of the above to deal with such issues as teen

pregnancy, because we know that unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are largely

preventable. It is through education about safe sexual practices and what

resources are available that we will help bring down the number of unplanned

pregnancies, particularly in our teens.

But choice is also important not just for couples that haven't been careful

enough or who, no matter what prevention measures were taken, still find

themselves facing the dilemma of a possible unplanned pregnancy. Last fall

Premier Dosanjh and this government made a nationally important decision to

increase access to emergency contraceptive pills without a doctor's

prescription. Instead, women were able to access the emergency contraceptive

pills through their local pharmacy. This was and is a very important issue.

[1500]

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

contraceptive pills through public health nurses, doctors, emergency rooms and

agencies such as Planned Parenthood. However, in some communities, particularly

remote and rural communities, timely access to ECPs through the sources was not

always possible. In order to work -- that is, to prevent a pregnancy --

emergency contraceptive pills must be taken within a 72-hour time frame. Access

to ECPs in that time frame had been an issue for many women for many reasons.

Let me just list a couple of those: inability to

schedule a doctor's visit

within the allotted time; unwillingness of a physician to prescribe pills, for

whatever reason; inability or unwillingness of some women to seek a prescription

from their doctor; and the need to rely on a clinic being open at the right

time. For example, some agencies in rural

[ Page 17542 ]

and remote communities are open only one or two days a week, really severely

limiting women from accessing early contraception pills.

Pharmacists dispensing ECPs took special training that helps them to identify

women who may be at risk due to their lifestyle choices or socioeconomic

factors, giving pharmacists the tools to counsel these women and, where

appropriate, to make the proper referrals. To date, more than 1,000 pharmacists

in nearly 200 B.C. pharmacies have attended this training and are now dispensing

the early contraceptive pills.

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

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

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

effective and practical. It would be unfair and, I submit, unjust to continue to

leave early contraceptive pills out of the reach of many women simply because

they are denied another way of accessing them.

Another resource that this government wants to fund is an increase in

financial support to the University of B.C. medical school to expand physician

training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related services.

We would provide the funding to the UBC medical school so that they can develop

the proper training tools to enhance support in the area of training for service

providers for abortions, counselling and related services.

We would also like to see increased financial support for additional nurse

clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to increase their ability to offer

counselling, outreach and other services. We are currently making sure that

amniocentesis tests are available throughout the province. We are offering those

services on a regional basis, and we need nurse clinician support in order to

offer the full range of services along with regionalizing amniocentesis tests.

We also hope to see the improved availability of safer, less invasive medical

abortions, including the ongoing investigation of the use of mifepristone,

commonly known as RU486.

We would also call on the B.C. Medical Association to agree to adjust the fee

to doctors who provide abortion services. We fully accept that the review that

was done a few years ago was done in a thoughtful way with no intention of

targeting any particular fee, but the fact of the matter is that the fee for

abortion services now is at the rate of about the 1982

schedule of fees under

the Medical Services Plan. Perhaps we all need to acknowledge that there is an

increased safety and security aspect in terms of the provision of abortion

services, and we ask that the B.C. Medical Association include that in its

consideration for establishing the fee for a therapeutic abortion.

We will also be providing additional financial support for law enforcement

agencies to help identify groups and individuals who may resort to criminal

activity to support their beliefs with respect to abortion issues, as we've seen

in this province too many times in the past.

[1505]

Finally, we will urge -- and I would hope that the entire Legislative

Assembly joins us -- the federal government to strengthen the existing Criminal

Code to designate abortion service providers as a protected group under current

hate provisions. Physicians in this province are well trained. They provide a

wonderful service, and they deserve proper protection and to be free from having

any hate crimes directed at them. We will be asking all members of this

Legislature to offer that protection to physicians in this province.

This government has always been planted firmly on the side of a woman's right

to choose. It's important to the women of British Columbia, and therefore it's

important to the government of British Columbia. Women's bodies are their own.

They have the right to decide what is and isn't right for them and what is or

isn't right for their bodies. That's a right that should never, ever be denied.

To deny reproductive choice denies women protection for their status as

individuals, and it denies our right to have the ability to make sound, informed

decisions.

This can be a very good health day for the women of British Columbia. We can

all come together on behalf of all of today's women and our children of the

future.

C. Hansen: I want to start by saying that when it comes to abortion

services in British Columbia, we have been very consistent in our position.

Abortion services are available in this province, and should our party be asked

to form a government, they will be maintained. We have been very clear. We want

safe and secure health services for women across British Columbia.

But this resolution is not about ensuring that women have continued access to

safe abortion services. It is about politics; it is about a cynical attempt to

scare women in this province. There are elements in this resolution that call

for enhanced funding, more financial support. There are elements in this

resolution that call for new legislation. If this government were truly sincere

in their motivation behind this resolution, they would not have brought it in,

in this format; they would not have brought in a resolution. They would have

included the new dollars in their budget. They would be tabling the legislation

for first reading. And they are doing neither of those, hon. Speaker, because

this is all about politics. This is about the most personal and profound

decision a woman can make. We should respect that, not try to politicize it.

I want to be very clear. We will maintain abortion services in British

Columbia. B.C. Liberals are united and firm on this point. It is in our

platform; it is our position. And unlike the NDP, we will keep our word.

Hon. Speaker, I consider this resolution to be an abuse of this Legislature.

It is unacceptable. Just over a year ago this Premier committed to be a cool

voice for a hot province. A year ago this Premier had some credibility. Many

thought that he might actually bring some integrity back to the Premier's

Office, integrity that was so noticeably lacking over the previous four years.

Now we find that he is no different. He, like his predecessor, is prepared to

abuse this Legislature. He has shown he will stoop to using this House for a

desperate and cynical attempt to scare women. Mr. Speaker, this Premier and this

minister should simply apologize to the women of this province. Who are they

trying to frighten?

To the health professionals in this province and to women generally, I want

them to know that they live in a safe and secure place where they can exercise

their personal choices. Abortion services will be maintained, and a B.C. Liberal

government will never seek to frighten women or take away their

[ Page 17543 ]

rights. Therefore we will stand together to oppose this government's attempt

to divide British Columbians. We will stand together to oppose the political

games that this government is playing, and we will stand together to oppose this

resolution.

[1510]

Hon. E. Gillespie: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to

support this motion -- this motion which engenders a difficult and sometimes

divisive debate.

Hon. Speaker, let me begin my remarks by responding to the previous member's

comments. I look forward to the opportunity to debate the budget, Budget 2001,

because in this budget we have made commitments to the very things that we see

here in this resolution. I look forward to that opportunity. I look forward to

bringing this budget into fruition in British Columbia this year.

Let's go through this motion step by step. This is an 11-point motion, and

that's what gives me particular pleasure in bringing it forward at this time.

Each year that I've been here, there has been a motion in my name on the order

paper as a resolution to protect reproductive choice for women. And this year we

see this resolution coming forward in its full form. This resolution addresses

the full range of choice that is absolutely essential for women in this

province. It puts together that whole range from healthy sexuality and learning

about our sexuality, about preventing unwanted pregnancy, about the provision of

access to choice, about the kinds of choices that are available in a woman's

right to choose and about securing the safety of abortion service providers.

This is a difficult debate, and it's a difficult debate because in this

society -- as much as sexuality is romped all over the books we see, Internet

sites that can be visited and movies -- we are in our own lives very reluctant

to talk about our human sexuality. This affects every one of us as parents. It

affects our children, and it affects our ability to grow as sexual human beings

-- and we are. It is very important.

We've seen the good work that's been done by Planned Parenthood over the

years to provide support and education in communities. The first part of this

resolution talks about increasing the support to an organization like Planned

Parenthood, support for "school-based and community-based services which

help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia,

including, but not limited to, sex education, birth control, and counselling."

We know that for every dollar invested in sex education and in education

about healthy sexuality, society saves $10 in the provision of abortion

services, saves $10 in income support that is required for young mothers and

their children. That's a dollar well spent. This increased support is intended

to support women, not just youth, but also women in communities and particularly

in rural communities where they may have difficulty getting access to good

information about birth control, good information about choices available to

them.

Let's look at the second item on this resolution: "Enhanced access to

emergency contraceptives across British Columbia." On December 1, 2000,

pharmacies across this province began to have the ability to prescribe the

emergency contraceptive pill over the counter. We provide support to pharmacists

in order that they can spend time counselling women and ensuring that all

appropriate steps are taken as they have access to the emergency contraceptive

pill.

[1515]

In the first weeks of that program over 800 prescriptions were filled. That

says something to me about the need for access to something as simple as an

emergency contraception pill. Why are people accessing emergency contraception?

Because the contraception they've used has failed or because they have failed to

use contraception at all. Emergency contraception must be accessed within 72

hours of unprotected intercourse. In small communities, in communities where

doctors may not be available on short notice, in communities where there are

lineups in the emergency department, it is particularly important that the

emergency contraceptive pill be available through pharmacies.

"Increased financial support to the UBC medical school to expand

physician training and support in providing abortions, counselling and related

services." This is an extremely important area. When I look at what has

happened over the last ten years in the loss of abortion service providers in

this province . . . . Why? Because they're retiring. Because

training is not required, and perhaps training is not even promoted, in this

very important area for women. The status quo is not good enough. It's not good

enough for any government to stand by and allow this continuing decline in the

number of providers without some kind of intervention to provide support and to

remind providers how important this service is, particularly in the smaller

rural communities outside the lower mainland, where women may have to travel

great distances in order to access abortion services.

The fourth point in the resolution: "Increased financial support for

additional nurse clinicians at B.C.'s Women's Hospital to increase their ability

to offer counselling, outreach and other services, and to assist regions who are

providing amniocentesis services for the first time." Under the health

action plan there will be five additional amniocentesis sites in this province,

and it's important that the nurse clinicians be in place to provide that

support. And when we have the opportunity to debate the budget, we will be

talking about these kinds of things, because we are providing for these within

the 2000-01 budget.

Putting all of these 11 points together in a resolution that shows the full

range of choice that's required around reproductive rights for women is

important for framing the package. You have to frame the package. We have a

prevention part of the package that is important in this resolution. We have an

access part of the package that is important in this resolution, and we have

safety issues that have to be addressed in this resolution.

"Requiring under provincial law that obligations for hospitals to be

operated and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be lifted by

the Legislative Assembly." At this time we have, by order-in-council,

established hospitals across this province that will provide abortion services.

But where better to debate this particular issue than in this House? It's

important for the women and the health providers of this province that these

decisions be made and debated in public. That's why this resolution asks for

requiring under provincial law that these obligations be determined.

"Improving the availability of safer, less invasive medical abortions,

including further financial support to investigate the efficacy and safety of .

. . RU 486 through the national clinical trial currently being led out of

Vancouver." We seek to continue, complete and indeed expand on this trial

to, once again, provide safe choices for women who require access to abortion

services.

[ Page 17544 ]

"Calling on the British Columbia Medical Association to agree to an

increase in fees paid to doctors who provide abortion services, which are

currently lower now than they were in 1982." The point I would like to

raise here is that we see across this province the danger that abortion service

providers put themselves in as they do this work. This is work that brings risk

to themselves and their families. I commend physicians who carry on with this

work in the face of tremendous risk to themselves and to their families and

certainly discomfort to themselves in their own communities.

[1520]

This is important work. I will never forget the words of a constituent of

mine, a woman who has nursed in this province for 50-some years, who said to me

when we were speaking on the issue of reproductive choice: "I will never

forget the smell of the women's ward." And what she was talking about was

the smell of infection that comes from botched or self-induced abortions. It is

absolutely clear that whether or not abortion services are legal, if they are

not accessible, women will -- as they have always done -- take things into their

own hands. And that is not all right. That's not all right in this day; it's not

all right in this province; it's not all right in any community in this

province. This is a legal, safe procedure. It is a right for which women have

fought over the centuries, and simply to maintain the status quo is to allow the

possibility of the access slipping away.

"Helping ensure the ongoing security and safety of doctors and other

health care providers through additional financial support for security

assessments, education and training and security devices for homes and

offices." The people of British Columbia may not know that this is an

activity that government engages in now and has committed to continuing to

engage in. We know how important it is to assure the safety of service providers

in order that they can continue to do this important work assisting British

Columbia women.

"Providing additional financial support for law enforcement agencies to

co-ordinate and gather intelligence, to identify groups and individuals who are

prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect

to abortion issues." This is something that abortion service providers have

been requesting for some years, and we do now have a letter from the RCMP

indicating their commitment, their willingness to do this work, to link into a

national network by which they can monitor activities and pursue criminal

activity related to abortion service providers.

"Ensuring through provincial law that public bodies must not release

abortion information, excepting abortion statistics at a global, regional and

provincial level and personal information, unless provided to the person about

whom the information pertains." Information is a very potent tool.

Information about abortion services, about the provision of abortion services,

particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would

wish to limit women's access to choice. It is important that we provide

security, both to the providers and to the women seeking access to the service,

in order that we can continue to offer good access to abortion services across

this province.

And finally: "Urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal

Code, including designating abortion service providers as a protected group

under current hate provisions and making attempts to criminally harass or harm

abortion service providers an aggravating circumstance in sentencing." I

would urge all members of the House to support this resolution and to support in

particular our negotiations with the federal government to strengthen the

Criminal Code in this particular provision, because we must ensure the safety,

the security, of abortion service providers in order that we can continue to

offer this health service for women in this province.

I've brought with me today a little information about Margaret Sanger. I do

that because it's important to remember how long this battle has gone on and how

important it is to mark our progress day by day, year by year, and once again to

remind all of us here that the status quo is not good enough.

[1525]

Margaret Sanger began her activities in the early 1900s, teaching birth

control information, because she believed profoundly that . . . . It

says here that as an early advocate of birth control, Margaret Sanger opened her

first clinic in 1916 and battled her whole life to break through the curtain of

silence that surrounds all matters of sex and reproduction. And I would submit

that in the year 2001 we still have a curtain of silence around this issue.

Margaret Sanger talks about unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. "For this

is the miracle of free womanhood, that in its freedom it becomes the race mother

and opens its heart in fruitful affection for humanity. How narrow, how

pitifully puny has become motherhood in its chains!" And once again,

Margaret Sanger's approach was "every child a wanted child." And I

believe that in British Columbia that should be our approach as well.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to make very brief remarks on this very

important issue.

This is really an issue that goes to the core of fundamental rights in

British Columbia. This is an issue that can't be swept away by saying: "We

will maintain the status quo." Choice for women can never, must never,

stand still; it must move and be enhanced with the times.

If one uses the logic of the opposition, if by some misfortune they had

formed the government in 1991, none of the steps that have been taken since 1991

would have been taken to enhance choice for women, to protect the providers and

to protect those women that need these medically necessary services.

If I had called an election before we made the emergency contraceptive

available through pharmacists, and if by some misfortune the other side had won,

the women in British Columbia wouldn't have the emergency contraceptive

available through the pharmacists everywhere in British Columbia. I say that

simply to highlight the absolute lack of logic and lack of justness in the

position taken by the opposition. And I say this because I believe that what we

need to do is continue to re-examine this issue, not based on partisan politics,

not based on emotion but based on what needs to be done.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

If the opposition had been in power a couple of years ago, when I was the

Attorney General, they wouldn't have granted more money for protection of the

providers as I did -- a quarter of a million dollars.

It is important that we take into account that very issue -- the issue of

continuing to ensure that new devices, new pro-

[ Page 17545 ]

cedures, new approaches . . . . As they become available to the

women of British Columbia, they ought to be available by law, and we must

continue to examine those issues and make sure we enhance and expand that

choice.

That's the essence of this resolution. That's why this resolution is before

the House: to ensure that we continue to re-examine this issue to make sure we

do everything possible to update, to strengthen, to enhance and to expand choice

for women and protection for the providers.

[1530]

Now, there are several points in this motion, and I'm not going to speak to

each and every one of them. But I do want to speak to one. That is the issue

around ensuring that we have designation of hospitals enshrined in legislation

rather than just in regulations. That is, to make sure that if there is ever to

be an interrogation from that level of service . . . . And we're not

talking about expanding. We're simply talking about at least making sure that

that service ought to be available, unless it is changed by this House, and not

by cabinet. I want to make sure that we introduce that piece of legislation in

this House to ensure that those hospitals are designated. It's imposing no more

obligations on them than exist today, but they are enshrined in legislation so

that that service is there, so that no elected boards, if they ever happen to be

around in British Columbia, can overturn that obligation without this House

actually changing that obligation.

In closing, I just want to say that it is important that the Leader of the

Opposition speak to this issue. He has spoken to the issue outside the House, I

understand, to the media. And if I'm wrong in describing what he has said, I'll

stand corrected, because I do this with no malice. I believe he has said to the

media outside that he has problems with some parts of this motion. Well, I would

urge him to come into the House and tell the public of British Columbia what

portions of this motion he has trouble with.

This motion is about enhancing law enforcement capacity. This motion is

providing more protection to the providers. This motion is entrenching in

legislation what exists in regulation. This motion is about making sure that

emergency contraception, the morning-after pill, is available by law. This

motion is about many other things to simply enhance and expand choice.

I just want to say to the people of British Columbia that this is not an

issue about partisan politics. This is an issue about women's right to

reproductive choices and the government's ongoing obligation, no matter who the

government is, to continue to expand, enhance, protect and improve that choice

for the women of British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: I can't say that I'm pleased to rise in this debate,

but I feel compelled to rise and speak to this motion. I think most people in

this chamber and, I hope, most people in British Columbia understand where I'm

at with respect to a woman's choice. I've made it public through my public life.

I was a member of the Vander Zalm government and a member of the Vander Zalm

cabinet, and I stood up for women's choice. I was the leader of the Reform Party

of British Columbia when, if not the majority, a large percentage of the members

disagreed with the position that I took with respect to women's choice and with

respect to same-sex rights. I've stood up for those consistently, regularly,

publicly, when it was to my advantage and when it wasn't.

What I understand is how divisive this issue is for British Columbians, how

they don't want a debate about this issue today. I was at a public meeting last

night -- a large public meeting. I was approached by a number of people about

this issue, and they were, to a person, women. They were, to a person, appalled

that we were going to raise this issue today in the Legislature. It wasn't the

men; it was the women. They understand how divisive these issues are.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I'll tell you, I'm angry with the Premier and, more than angry with him, I'm

disappointed in him. Here is a person who came into office suggesting that he

was going to lower the temperature in this House and in this province with

respect to political divisiveness. But that's not what we've seen in this House

at all. It's quite the contrary. Motion 1 was an issue around aboriginal rights.

It only lasted past the first speaker on the opposition side, and when it was

evident that all members were going to support the motion, the member from

Saanich changed it dramatically to make sure that he could drive in a wedge,

that there could be a division.

[1535]

That's what this motion's designed to do. It's designed to drive a wedge

between the members of this House, and it's designed to drive wedges between

British Columbians. It's unacceptable. I find it disgusting that in fact a

government would be so desperate to find an issue . . . . And I've

been there, folks; I know how tough it is to find an issue. I know that when

you're in the fifth year of your mandate . . . . I don't know what

it's like to be in the teens in the polls, because we were at worst always in

the 20 percent range, but we were looking for something -- anything.

It's so evident in what's going on in this House this week that you're going

through that same exercise. It's a tragedy that aboriginal people and women and

their reproductive choices are targets and are nothing more than simply objects

to drive that agenda forward. It makes me angry to be a member of this House.

I'm not seeking re-election. I don't care, quite candidly, which way you're able

to work with dividing British Columbians, except for the fact that it is

destructive to this province. It doesn't matter to me for my own personal gain.

Hon. Speaker, I know how divisive this issue can be, and if any of you have

been around long enough to remember the 1980s, you know that it was divisive

then. You know that when it was raised in the House of Commons, it was divisive.

And if you've taken the time to talk to mainstream women in British Columbia,

you'll know that they are generally happy with the status quo. Not everybody's

happy. Some people believe that there should be no access to abortion, and

others believe, I suppose, that you could go further. But that's not the

majority of women, and that's not the majority of British Columbians.

The fact that we've raised this issue today in an attempt to divide people is

unfortunate; it's tragic. Even the pundits for the government suggest you're

only going to win seven or eight seats. I say to the Premier: keep going at the

rate you're going, and you'll beat the record set by the Conservatives in 1993.

[Laughter.] I'm not kidding. You're on a downhill slide, and this kind of

gamesmanship isn't doing a darn thing for you.

I would close by urging the Premier, the Attorney General and the Deputy

Premier to get back on the high road. And

[ Page 17546 ]

I urge the Minister of Health: get back on the high road. Campaign for what

you're about. Get away from this politics of division, because it's not working

and it's not in the interests of British Columbians and the women of British

Columbia that I know and represent.

Hon. C. Evans: I rise as the member for Nelson-Creston and also as the

Minister of Health and also as a parent. I point out the last role -- probably

the most important role -- because my position on these issues is not

determined, as the previous speaker would have you believe, by the Premier or my

caucus or my party or any political desire whatsoever. It was actually figured

out at my kitchen table in a discussion with the people that are more important

to me than anybody else here.

My hon. friend who spoke before me suggested that maybe this was an untoward

discussion. He pleaded with me not to raise the issue. The people of B.C. that

he's talked to have said: "Don't talk about it. It's okay. Leave it

alone." I can understand that sentiment; lots of us have it all the time.

But you know, there was a time when we didn't talk about this issue at all, and

the Minister of Women's Equality was explaining to us the outcome of that and

the smell of that.

[1540]

There was a time when people used to hide people with disabilities in the

attic. It wasn't nice to talk about, so we just ignored it. Somebody had to walk

into the room here and be brave enough to talk about something that somebody

didn't want to talk about, in order for life to begin to change. The hon. member

suggested that it was untoward of the government earlier in the week or last

week to bring forward a motion enshrining, essentially, the fact that we meant

what we said, that we were telling the truth, when we entered into the treaty

process. "Don't talk about it; it's divisive." Isn't that just exactly

what everybody out there thinks about us here: that we're here doing something

for us, and we're not willing to talk about the things that are kind of scary,

as the hon. member said, for our careers or us personally?

I heard the hon. member say that this debate sickened him, or maybe

"disgusted" was his word. I have a lot of respect for the hon. member,

because as he said, he takes his positions regardless of whether they're popular

or not. But to suggest that having a debate is disgusting is to suggest that we

go back to a time of silence, where the status quo is whatever people in power

want it to be and this building isn't used to bring forward progressive change

to make people's lives better. You could say almost anything you want to me in

here, but to suggest that silence is a really good idea is unfathomable. It's

contrary to the very reason why they built this place. It's contrary to

everything that I understand about why the hon. member and the rest of the folks

here would want to come and work in this place, which at the very minimum is to

tell the truth.

I would encourage the hon. member not to read the spin about what's going on

here but to actually listen to the words. I've listened to the words of three or

four speakers now. They were pretty quiet. I didn't hear anybody holler or use

language that was inflammatory or try to defame another person. What I heard was

language aimed at explaining necessary change. After all, we just had the

millennium, and we're not standing still.

As the Minister of Health, hon. Speaker, I'll get to my prepared comments in

a second. But the words of the hon. member -- that we don't talk about it --

made me think . . . . Well, we've had a health care program for some

decades here. We called the whole Legislature to come back in December to

introduce a health action plan. We already have a health care system, but I

thought it would be a really good idea to try to change the health care system

to accommodate the times, to show change, to show that we weren't going to stand

still with the status quo.

It's analogous here. What we are doing, I think -- in language that the hon.

member can hear, that's not all that hostile -- is simply applying change. It's

in order that we would change and evolve with the times. Over the past decade

the British Columbia government has taken strong and effective action to help

protect the right of B.C. women to make their own choices on reproduction. But

there's more that needs to be done, and that's what we're doing here today.

[1545]

This government's plan to protect and enhance choice for women builds on the

track record in British Columbia and delivers the changes that medical and other

experts are recommending. The government's plan builds on the important actions

taken over the last decade to protect the rights of B.C. women to make their own

choice on abortion. This government has been the first B.C. government to

provide operating funds for B.C.'s two freestanding clinics -- the Elizabeth

Bagshaw Women's Clinic and Everywoman's Health Centre. We designated 33

hospitals, by regulation, to provide abortion services throughout the province.

We included abortion in the Health ministry's core services policy. I guess we

couldn't have done that without actually talking about it, eh?

We ensured that regional health boards couldn't be taken over by some kind of

special interest group, as had been done in the 1980s. We couldn't have done

that without actually talking about it. We supported the provincial pregnancy

options referral service through Children's and Women's Health Centre, which

provides confidential information and counselling and referrals to women

wherever they live.

We created the Access to Abortion Services Act, which provides a zone of

protection from harassment to abortion providers and also to women seeking

service. We provided funding to increase security for facilities and for doctors

who provide abortion services, and we committed $250,000 to increase the safety

of abortion service providers.

We funded the Vancouver portion of Canada's first mifepristone trial, the

drug formerly known as RU486. This drug is used effectively for medical

abortions prior to nine weeks throughout Europe, and it has the potential for

decreasing the use of surgical abortions. We eliminated barriers to accessing

emergency contraceptive pills through a regulation to give women access to ECPs

through pharmacists. And although all this progress has been made, it is time to

respond to change and to the needs of the future -- changing science, changing

society.

The motion that we have before us today proposes to increase the number of

service providers through additional training and higher fees, provide greater

protection to those service providers who are concerned about harassment and

harm and provide additional counselling and outreach and other services to

assist regions providing amniocentesis services for the first time.

There has been a decrease of more than 20 percent in the number of physicians

providing abortions between 1993 and

[ Page 17547 ]

1998. Resolving that problem would alone be reason to come in here and break the

silence and talk about exactly what needs to be done.

This motion proposes to seek the BCMA's agreement to reverse the fee cuts

that were made in 1997, to increase education and training of medical students

and doctors, and to increase security for abortion service providers. B.C. and

Canada are not keeping pace, either, with medical alternatives to abortion, and

this motion proposes to increase access to emergency contraceptive pills and

increase access to medical abortions through support for clinical trials on

alternatives already in use in Europe and in the United States.

Although the number of teenage pregnancies is dropping -- which I would think

would be something we'd want to talk about out loud, not in silence -- they are

largely preventable. This motion proposes to increase education in schools and

community services to provide that prevention and to provide more information on

choice to young women.

Abortion service providers and clients continue to be threatened and to be

harassed, resulting in a climate of fear. It's not something you'd want to be

silent about, is it, hon. Speaker? This motion proposes to increase security

measures available to service providers to support their confidentiality and to

urge changes to the Criminal Code to better protect abortion service providers

and their clients.

We'll go into some specifics, hon. members. Specifically, the motion will

provide increased financial support to school-based and community-based services

which help to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in British Columbia,

including but not limited to sex education, birth control and counselling.

Surely that's something you'd want to say out loud. Teenage pregnancy is a major

concern. Although the rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortion are decreasing

in B.C., which is a good thing, over 50 percent of teen pregnancies end in

abortions, which is not. Teenagers also have a high repeat-abortion rate, and

teen pregnancies are largely preventable, and that's our job.

Family life education is part of the school curricula, and the goal of this

education is to develop students' understanding of the role of family and the

capacity for responsible decision-making in their personal relationships.

[1550]

A review of existing programs will be undertaken, and the government will

work with school districts to extend existing sex education and counselling

opportunities. As well -- lots of people are really proud of this -- the

government will work with the Planned Parenthood Association of B.C. to expand

non-school, community-based education -- for example, for parents, to help them

discuss sex with their kids; workplace sexual and reproductive health

discussions; and services to special population groups, including more work with

first nations communities. This will build on Planned Parenthood's existing

education services. Planned Parenthood has a provincial infrastructure to

provide counselling and birth control services through its 41 clinics across the

province.

In addition, the motion will provide enhanced access to emergency

contraceptives across British Columbia. Barriers to accessing emergency

contraception pills in a timely fashion are problematic for many women,

primarily due to the limited hours of operation of birth control clinics and the

reluctance of some women to go into an emergency room or to a physician to

obtain them.

Cabinet approved regulations on October 26, 2000, as the Premier referenced,

which allowed pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraceptive pills effective

December 1. Statutory authority is now required to give retroactive validation

to these regulations.

This is a good example of the silence-or-talk issue. Would you rather have

regulations made in cabinet in secret somewhere or come into this room and have

a discussion -- the hon. member calls a debate -- and take public action?

About 1,000 pharmacists in British Columbia have received the specialized

training to dispense ECPs now without a physician's prescription. The College of

Pharmacists has made it clear that professional ethics require that pharmacists

who have a moral objection to the ECP refer women to another pharmacist. The

College of Pharmacists and the B.C. Pharmacy Association launched an awareness

program this year on women's options when faced with the possibility of an

unplanned pregnancy. In the first 12 weeks of this program, pharmacists

dispensed 1,207 ECP prescriptions. I guess that wouldn't have happened if we had

stuck to the silence idea.

This bill will provide increased financial support to the UBC medical school

to expand physician training in support of providing abortions counselling and

related services. Unfortunately, the number of physicians providing abortions in

British Columbia is decreasing. There was a 23 percent decrease in the number of

practitioners between 1993 and 1998. Although abortion is a relatively simple

medical procedure, there is limited training in counselling related to abortions

in our postgraduate medical education residency program. The medical curriculum

at UBC was changed in September of 1998 to dedicate more time to abortion

issues, and a new course, "Doctor, Patient and Society," was created.

Additional funding will now provide for additional training as follows:

course development at the UBC medical school to include medical abortion and all

surgical abortion procedures, counselling, referral and ethics; locum education

funding for rural and remote physicians; scholarships for medical students who

will specialize in the area of women's health. B.C. Women's Hospital will work

with existing providers throughout the province to ensure that their skills are

maintained up to date -- and development of a companion manual to support

existing providers in conjunction with the above initiative.

Are these inflammatory words, hon. Speaker? Do you feel like this is a

dangerous debate?

This bill will provide for increased financial support, as well, for

additional nurse clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to increase their ability

to offer counselling, outreach and other services and to assist regions who are

providing amniocentesis services for the first time. The availability of the

amniocentesis test was expanded in the health action plan from two urban centres

to five regions. This means that women no longer need to travel either to

Vancouver or to Victoria for amniocentesis but will be able to receive the

service closer to where they live.

The five regions are yet to be determined. When they are identified, service

providers will require additional support. This funding will provide for 1.4 FTE

nurse clinicians at B.C. Women's Hospital to work with patients who come in

through medical genetics or fetal diagnosis and community testing procedures and

to provide outreach to the five regions

[ Page 17548 ]

providing amniocentesis services. This funding will support facilities, as

well, to provide counselling and support for women facing medical genetics or

fetal diagnosis concerns and will support women to make better-informed

decisions.

[1555]

This bill will require, under provincial law, that obligations for hospitals

to be operated and managed to ensure access to abortion services can only be

lifted by the Legislative Assembly. This is the issue that the Premier was

talking about. Access to abortion services in B.C. is problematic in many areas

of the province outside the lower mainland. Abortion was included in the core

services policy in 1994, and funding for abortion services is included as a

funding package that is given to each health authority. A total of 33 hospitals

are designated now to provide abortion services.

Hospitals do not have to be on the list of 33 designated specific hospitals

in the Hospital Insurance Act regulation in order to provide abortions. In fact,

abortion services are provided now in 37 hospitals and two freestanding clinics,

both in Vancouver and in Richmond, and in some doctors' offices, in the case of

medical as opposed to surgical abortion.

What we are proposing is to expand the list of 33 hospitals to include

Kelowna General Hospital, which began to provide services again, happily, in

2000. The proposed amendment will move the existing regulation into statute,

breaking the silence of making changes by regulation and bringing them into this

room so that everybody can see what's happening in the light of day.

This motion is also about improving the availability of safer, less invasive

medical abortions, including further financial support to investigate the

efficacy and safety of mifepristone, formerly known as RU486, through the

national clinical trial currently being led out of Vancouver.

If we just stuck with the status quo and engaged in silence, how would we

change? What would we do, when science provides safer ways to provide the same

service? Would we just stick with what we do because it's not okay to have a

conversation in public?

New funding will be provided for a second clinical trial of mifepristone.

Another trial will provide more opportunities for providers to become more

skilled in using the drug, which will increase its efficacy.

This motion is also calling on the BCMA to agree to an increase in fees paid

to doctors who provide abortion services, which are currently, quite

surprisingly, lower than they were in 1982. Imagine that: the Minister of

Health, with all the issues I have negotiating with doctors, pointing out that

one service has a lower value than it had in 1982. The Medical Services Plan

fees for first and second trimester abortions were lowered by 20 percent and 30

percent respectively as of April 1, 1997, following a review of physician

payment schedules. Ministry of Health staff met with the BCMA to request that

they reconsider their own funding decrease, but the members did not support

reinstatement of the fee to previous levels.

As well, the

section of general practice, GPs as well as specialists,

performing abortions complained to the BCMA about the decrease in their earning

power based on the reduction of payment of abortion services. As of April 1,

1997, the fees for some procedures increased and for other procedures decreased.

For example, the fee for a vasectomy decreased by 6 percent from $104 to $98.

It's kind of contradictory, isn't it, if we're trying to provide birth control.

The current fee for abortions under 14 weeks of $100.69 is lower than the fee

was in 1982, strangely enough, which was $103. In 2001 the 1982 fee, if you

added inflation, would amount to $175. In Alberta the fee for abortion services

is $111, and in Saskatchewan, for the first trimester, it's $131. So how, if we

maintain the status quo, do we expect to compete to have service providers come

to British Columbia? The decrease in fees in 1997 does not support increased

access to abortion services.

This motion is also helping to ensure the ongoing safety and security of

doctors and other health care providers through additional financial support for

security assessments and for education and training and security devices for

homes and offices.

In 2001 the Ministry of Attorney General had a $250,000 contract -- not on an

ongoing basis -- with the B.C. Women's Hospital to fund the provincewide

abortion services provider protection program. This program provided security

assessments for abortion service providers, information and education for health

care providers and workshops for the police and for Crown counsel. This new base

funding will allow for additional security assessments and support for security

devices for abortion service providers.

The breakdown of services is as follows. There will be grants to support

purchase of protective devices for the homes and offices of service providers.

There will be continued education and information about ways to enhance personal

safety for health care providers, their staff and clinic workers and continued

education for the police and Crown counsel and increased security and support to

existing providers to maintain levels of service and work on recruitment of

providers.

Hon. Speaker, is that a divisive suggestion -- that when people do work in

British Columbia, they should be safe? Is that something we shouldn't talk

about?

[1600]

We are providing additional support for law enforcement agencies to

coordinate and gather intelligence to identify groups and individuals who are

prepared to resort to criminal activity in support of their beliefs with respect

to abortion issues. The RCMP have requested funding for exactly this purpose --

for a designated unit to collect intelligence regarding extremist and criminal

activity associated with the abortion issue and to reduce risk to service

providers through proactive interaction.

The E Division national security investigation

section does not have the

resources to undertake this. It is basically only monitoring the present

situation. The new designated unit, on the other hand, would undertake

coordination management and dissemination of information, develop proactive risk

assessment strategies and support other agencies involved in criminal

investigations.

We are here, in this bill, ensuring through provincial law that public bodies

must not release abortion information -- except abortion statistics at the

global, regional and provincial level -- or personal information unless provided

to the person about whom the information pertains.

This is a really good example, hon. Speaker. What we're doing here is making

sure that providers themselves are not

[ Page 17549 ]

put at risk by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act so

that information about providers is not given to people who might threaten their

lives. If we just remain silent and don't change our legislation with a changing

society, then we won't be able to respond to the fact that there was no Freedom

of Information Act back when the service was originally delivered in Canada.

Concern has been identified about what is called the mosaic effect, which is

the freedom-of-information commissioner noting that even though statistical

information may appear innocuous all by itself, sometimes it's linked together

with other information. It can result in the possibility of harm to law

enforcement or to the health and safety of individuals or to the public. Whether

the commissioner upholds a decision to withhold data under

section 19 will

depend on the circumstances of the case, but amending the Freedom of Information

and Protection of Privacy Act will provide certainty about withholding

abortion-related information, supporting security for service providers and

their clients.

Finally, we are urging the federal government to strengthen the Criminal Code

on this matter, including designating abortion service providers as a protected

group under current hate provisions and making it more difficult for criminals

to make attempts to harass or harm abortion service providers. This will be

another tool with which to charge those perpetrating crimes.

In closing, my kids were born at the time of the civil rights battles in the

United States, and when they were little girls, we had a record with songs from

the civil rights movement that they used to listen to. Their favourite one had a

song about: "It isn't nice, it isn't nice. We told you once, we told you

twice." The song is a parody, sung by the civil rights workers about what

they had to do sometimes in order to create freedom. It wasn't exactly

interpreted by the dominant society as nice, polite behaviour. Sometimes the

dominant society said: "Oh, you really shouldn't do that, you know. You

really shouldn't try to sit at that lunch counter. You're right out in public

raising issues that we really don't like to discuss."

My kids loved it, because when you're six years old you can understand

something that some grown MLAs can't quite understand, which is that sometimes

making democracy work, making people's lives safe and the evolution of society

require talking right out in public, right out on television -- calmly and

gently, but in public -- about the needs of society. Thank you for giving me

this opportunity.

L. Boone: I rise to support this motion, and I do so with a great deal

of pride. I do so as a woman; I do so as a mother who has raised three females,

two of them biologically my own and a foster daughter, as well, whom I love very

dearly.

As a woman, I want to know that I have the right to do and to determine what

takes place with my body. I fully believe that is my right, and I want to know

that my girls, my daughters, have the same right: the right to choose whatever

it is they want to do with their bodies and their lives.

[1605]

I look back to when I was in high school ten years or so ago -- a little bit

of a lie there. But I remember when women had no choice, when girls who got

pregnant at the age of 15 or 16 had to get married. They were forced into

marriage at that time, and those marriages were frequently unhappy ones. Those

girls were left to leave school and raise a family long before they were ever

able to do so. It was children raising children at that time. Those young girls

had a choice. They could put their child up for adoption. Or they could go away

and get an abortion that was illegal, and you heard the Minister of Women's

Equality talking about some of the outcomes of those. I want to know that those

opportunities are not necessarily being foisted on women today, and that young

girls have a choice to make and do so with the full opportunities available to

them.

I've known people who have done all of those things. I've known people who

have gotten married early, who have run off, given their children up for

adoption. I've known women who have had illegal abortions. These have all been

very, very traumatic experiences. These are not easy things for women, no matter

what choice they make.

Therefore I rise in support of this motion, because part of the choice that

women have to have is to find a way of preventing unwanted pregnancies. That is,

I think, for all of us the ultimate we would like to see and we must see. This

motion encompasses expansion of education -- making sure that people know what's

out there so that they have available to them opportunities for birth control,

so that they understand what it means to say no, and that they have that right

too. All of these things are the choices that a woman must have, and we must see

those things available to them absolutely unfettered so that when they make

those choices, they do so with the full knowledge that society is not going to

come down on them and say that they are a bad person for taking whatever choice

it is. There are no bad choices here.

I think it's really important that we make sure that we have increased

services available to women. I've often heard members opposite and members who

promote different choices and different views than I'm saying here, say that a

woman ought not to have the right to choose, but that they ought to be forced

into keeping those children. And they say that there are lots of people out

there who would take those children into their homes. Yet we also see those same

people saying that we must cut back on our services, that we can't be promoting

more day care, that we can't have more pay equity, that we can't increase the

minimum wage so that people can keep those children in their homes and give them

a good home life.

All of these things are encompassed in this resolution. That's why I'm really

quite amazed that the members opposite aren't taking the opportunity to speak on

this. These are things that I think most people in this House, most people

today, should support. They should support the education of young girls and

young men so that they know what their actions are going to do. They should

support the education that tells them what their options are for birth control.

They should support the opportunity to make more services available for young

women and young men, as well, because now we're finding that young men are

actually, in many cases, taking an interest in these children. All of these

things have to be there, and that is in this resolution.

In the event of an unwanted pregnancy, obviously somebody has to have the

right to have an abortion, and they have to have the right to have an abortion

in a situation where it is not a traumatic one for them. I've had the

opportunity to attend an abortion facility with a friend who was actually having

an abortion. It was a facility in Vancouver, and I was absolutely amazed at the

comfort level that was there and the support that was given to that person when

she went through

[ Page 17550 ]

this process. It was not just a matter of having them shipped off into a

room, but it was the support that was there, the psychological support -- all of

these things. That was tremendous, and I know that it was tremendous for this

person that had this.

[1610]

I've known several people who've had to give up children for adoption. That

was very traumatic for them, as was the abortion as well. I've known people who

have kept their children and have had difficulties raising them because they

couldn't financially support them.

I think it's extremely important that we support this, not keeping the status

quo, not just saying that what we've got is okay and therefore we're not going

to improve things but saying that we've done some tremendous things and that

it's important that we improve them, that we reach out to women, that we make

more services available for them and that we make them in a way that is

non-judgmental so that a woman, regardless of what she chooses -- whether it's

to keep that child, have an abortion or put that child up for adoption -- does

so with the full knowledge that society is going to support whatever choice she

makes. That is extremely important.

I stand here today, as I say, as a woman. I stand here as a mother who has

raised three girls, and I do so knowing that I want to have available to them

all of these opportunities, should they happen to find themselves in a situation

of an unwanted pregnancy.

It is extremely important that the opposition speak up right now. It's

extremely important that they let the women of British Columbia know where they

stand on these issues. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition was just

out in the hall talking to the media, and he said that he supports some parts of

the resolution but not others. I think we want to know -- as a woman I want to

know -- what parts of those resolutions he supports, what parts he doesn't

support and what he would be doing if, unfortunately, he ever has the

opportunity to form government in this province. What is it that the opposition

would do in these situations? You cannot just sit there and say: "Well, we

don't support this resolution." This is a resolution that encompasses a

whole gamut of services, supports for women across this province. I think it is

up to the Leader of the Opposition to make it known to all British Columbians

what he supports and what he doesn't. I think he owes all of us an explanation

on that.

This is a motion that I am really proud to stand here and support. I would

urge all members on the other side to look to their conscience, to wrestle with

their conscience. I don't understand how they could stand in this House and vote

against a resolution that encompasses so many positive things for women in this

province.

[1615]

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm pleased to stand in the House and support the

motion in front of us. I believe it's a very important motion. It's centred

around a women's right to choose. I'll start the debate by expressing deep

disappointment in both of the speakers we've had from the opposition. First, the

spokesperson from the official opposition chose not to debate the issue but

instead to engage in character assassination. He had very little to say about

the substantive issue but instead chose to attack a person's character for

having the temerity, I assume, to bring this issue into the House and debate it.

The member for Peace River South was also a deep disappointment to me,

because like the Minister of Health, I have a great deal of respect for this

member. For him to suggest that this debate or this issue is on the low road is

actually deeply offensive.

This debate is about strengthening and deepening not my right to choose --

that's something that is in the past -- but my daughter's and my granddaughter's

right to choose. Believe me, from the discussions I've had with my daughter and

her friends, this is a right that they expect the government to provide for

them. They also expect us to be on the cutting edge of this service, because it

affects their lives.

Contrary to the member for Peace River South, I believe that it is the right

of all of us to know where people stand on this issue, especially if those

people are going to stand for office. I understand that the Leader of the

Opposition has said that there are some parts of the resolution he did not

support and some that he did support. That's fair enough. I think the Leader of

the Opposition should be very clear with the people of this province on what

parts he does support and what he opposes. I actually think the people of B.C.

deserve that, and I believe I deserve it, and my daughter and her friends

deserve it also. You cannot run for Premier and not tell the people what you

stand for. You cannot have a hidden agenda. You cannot have a secret about what

part of this you like or what part of it you don't. You need to be crystal-clear

about where you stand, especially on an issue that is so important as this one

is.

This concept of choice has been couched in many expressions over time. One

commonly used one -- in fact, I think most salient and probably some people

consider strident -- is the notion that a woman has a right to control her body.

Actually, it's quite a profound notion and one I imagine that women's voices

from the past cried out for: the right to control their bodies.

Many women in the past died during childbirth. In the past this was accepted

as a woman's fate. It was something that was beyond their control. It was

something to do with being a woman or being female. Unfortunately, often those

deaths were very cruel and painful. As those of us who have actually gone

through pregnancy and have had a child know, even having a child successfully is

very painful -- or can be.

So all of us, especially the women in this House, must thank our good fortune

for being born during these times, when we've had scientific understanding, when

we've had modern medicine. These times must give comfort to those voices from

the past, because now they know their granddaughters or their

great-granddaughters can control their bodies. They know that it is within their

choice, that we can now choose when we will bring a new life into the world and

when not to become parents. This is a fundamental right that must be

strengthened and must never, never be taken away.

[1620]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The strength of it and the right never to be taken away is all about

political will. It's not about chance; it's about political will. Maintaining

the status quo is not good enough. It does not talk about how this service can

be enhanced. It does not talk about how this service and this right can be

improved as new drugs are invented or as new procedures are brought

[ Page 17551 ]

forward. That position does not say that if we learn new things from other

jurisdictions, we can bring them into this jurisdiction and therefore enhance a

woman's right to choose.

Over the last ten years we have done numerous things around this issue. We

have funded two freestanding clinics. We have put abortion service into core

services from the Ministry of Health, and we've ensured that regional health

boards could not be taken over by special interest groups who were against

having this service provided to women.

The member for Peace River South was quite right. There were times when this

issue was very divisive and did cause a lot of angst. But I suggest that those

times are over, that the right to choose is now deeply embedded in the values of

our community and the rights women believe they have and should have forever.

We improved the protection and safety for women and health providers around

this issue. We are the inventors and the creators of the bubble zone, something

that was there to protect women from being harassed and also those providers

from being harassed. We've provided funding to increase security for facilities

and doctors that provide abortion services and have committed $250,000 to

increase the safety of abortion service providers.

We have funded the Vancouver proportion of Canada's first mifepristone trial.

Hon. Speaker, there is nothing, I don't think, that is more important than these

new drugs that take the abortion service from the surgical area to the medical

area, allowing women much freer access and less expense to the medical system

for all of us. That drug has been used effectively for medical abortions

throughout Europe and has the potential for decreasing the use of surgical

abortions here in British Columbia. And just recently we improved the access to

the emergency contraceptive pill by passing a regulation to allow women access

to the emergency contraceptive pill through pharmacists without prescription.

We have made numerous advances in this service area. And actually, that's

what government is all about. You have a core value that you support, and then,

as more information and more services come up around this issue, you provide

that service for the people, because that's the essence of what you're there

for. You're there to serve the people around their values and their key issues.

There are numerous points in this motion. I will leave further elaboration of

them to other members who will speak after me. I'd just like to come back to a

couple of main points that I think I have made but that I'd like to reiterate.

In my opinion, it is critical that the women of British Columbia know where we

as their representatives stand on this issue. I think it's critical that we be

clear, unequivocal and straight up with the people.

This motion makes our position clear. It makes it clear that we will continue

to enhance and protect this service towards women. As a government, I think

that's the least we can do, and I'm very proud to support this motion.

[1625]

J. Pullinger: I'm very proud to stand in my place and support this

motion and all that flows from it. This issue is about a very fundamental right

for 51 or 52 percent of the population in this province. It is not an issue that

one can dismiss and say that we shouldn't talk about, as some members over there

have. It's not an issue that you can just ignore, as the opposition is doing.

This is a fundamental right for women. It is the starting place for women's

equality.

I'm about to retire, as everybody knows. But I want to go back to my earliest

days as an elected member of this assembly, when I sat on that side of the

House. During that time we had a government with essentially the same values --

free-enterprisers, they called themselves -- as the people now on the opposition

benches. And the result of their negligence of this issue, the result of their

refusal to talk about this issue or act on this issue as we are seeing today

from the opposition benches, led to a situation in the mid-Island that I was

just appalled could happen in the 1990s.

What happened was that three or four people who supported the Socreds then,

who are active Liberals now, took over the hospital board in Nanaimo. That's the

only place for almost all of Vancouver Island outside of Victoria where a woman

could get a safe, legal abortion. The Cowichan Hospital had, and probably still

has, an unwritten policy saying they won't provide abortion services. The

hospital up-Island in Comox is a Catholic hospital. At least they have a written

policy and say they won't provide abortions.

So we had a little group of men who adhered to the same beliefs as the

members opposite, who took over the hospital board, and they decided for all of

the women of Vancouver Island -- this is three men -- that there would be no

abortions -- none. It didn't matter what the circumstances were. It didn't

matter that they knew nothing whatsoever about an individual woman or her life

or about an abusive relationship she might be in or the fact that she might have

been raped or perhaps even that having a child would damage her irreparably.

None of that mattered. They just shut it down because that's what they believe.

And that was the biggest single fight I have ever been involved in, in 12 years

in politics.

When I look south of the border, when I see what's happening in some other

jurisdictions, and when I know what the beliefs of the members opposite are and

I hear the member for Matsqui saying they're going to bring back hospital

boards, I get very, very worried indeed.

Let's remember that until 1988, if a woman had an abortion without three

doctors -- probably male doctors, because that's what there was . . . .

Unless three men gave a woman the right to have an abortion -- and only if it

threatened her life, not based on her decision but on medical terms, if it was

going to kill her -- if a woman had an abortion outside of those circumstances,

until 1988 she was a criminal. She was a criminal -- 1988. And that's where we

are going back to in the United States if the current President of the United

States has his way. This is not an issue that's over.

We came into government with a commitment to the women of this province to

stop the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement and to restore women's fundamental

right to choose, and we have done that. We have done that by providing operating

funds for the Elizabeth Bagshaw Women's Clinic and the Everywoman's Health

Centre. I note a number of members opposite -- just across this House heckling

-- have expressed their disgust that we would do that.

We've designated 33 hospitals, by regulation, to say that they've got to

provide abortions. We've included abortions in the Health ministry's core

services. We made sure that regional health boards can't be taken over by the

kind of people who did that in Nanaimo. And incidentally, in the 30 days that

[ Page 17552 ]

policy was in place, which the anti-choice men put in place in Nanaimo, there

were two women who came perilously close to killing themselves. It's not a

laughing matter. It's not one to be taken lightly.

[1630]

So we said that's not okay in this time in our history and in this province.

That is simply unacceptable. So through a whole range of mechanisms, including

restoring the funding that was taken away by the free enterprisers of the day

and the things that I have put forward, as well as creating bubble zones, which

was objected to by many members opposite . . . . By increasing

funding to provide security for physicians and facilities that provide these

services, by legitimizing the morning-after pill -- the whole range of things,

including prevention -- we've seen a significant drop in teenage pregnancy, and

that is very important.

But despite our best efforts, we have discovered that there is a 20 percent

drop in the number of physicians who will provide these services, despite all of

the efforts of this side of the House to try to ensure that women have that

fundamental right of reproductive choice. It is their right, and we have tried

with every means at our disposal to enshrine that right.

However, the anti-choice movement, which we know that some of the members

opposite -- not all of them, but a number of the members opposite . . . .

According to the letter from the member from Whistler, it's 13 members. He's

quoting John Hof in a meeting between John Hof, who we know is a crusader

against reproductive choice . . . . According to them, it's 13

members, but I don't know. In any case, there has been significant rejection and

pushback from the other side of the House, which exist today, against our

attempts to provide that fundamental right for women.

What happened was that those who are against women's right to choose have

moved out of this assembly, where the members opposite don't want to talk about

it, into something even less acceptable than what I've seen before. That is that

we have seen harassment of women, harassment of clinic staff, harassment of

doctors to the point that we had to put in legislation to protect them. And

we've even seen, twice now, somebody who was a provider of legal abortion

services shot. So surprise, surprise. There is now a 20 percent reduction in the

number of physicians who are providing these legal services for women -- a 20

percent reduction. That is very significant.

We heard Dr. Mary Conley, who's an incredibly courageous physician. She stood

up just recently and said that she's getting people from all parts of British

Columbia. Well, that speaks to the fact that you can't get those services. This

is still not a freely available service for women. There are all sorts of

agendas at work out there that are preventing women from having legitimate, safe

abortion services.

What we're doing here today is taking steps to restore the status quo, to

restore women's right to choose where that right is eroding. The members

opposite say that they will not stand in the way, that they will continue

abortion services should they be elected government. But I have to tell you that

I'm having a lot of trouble believing that, and let me just say why. We have a

letter written in 1998, I think, by the member from Whistler, talking about

meetings the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition caucus had had arranged

by their member from Langley, I believe. Let me get the riding correct, because

I know there's one member from Langley that didn't agree with this.

The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, I understand, arranged that meeting

for the Liberal caucus between some of the most rabid anti-choice interests in

British Columbia and the Liberal caucus. Then they didn't tell the truth about

that meeting. They tried to hide it. We've seen a significant number of those

members run for the doors or stay away or even vote against issues. I'm not sure

if they actually voted against abortion issues but certainly against those

issues they would call moral issues.

[1635]

So we've seen that opposition in this House. We know that a number of members

on the other side hold religious views, and I respect that. I'm not criticizing

them for that. But they personally hold religious views that say that abortion

is wrong. I don't have any problem with that. As I say, I respect that

absolutely. It is their right to choose that position. But they would also like

to stop women from having that same choice in their lives.

We heard the member for Matsqui on a radio show -- I think it was CKNW, but

I'm not sure -- suggest that the B.C. Liberals would bring back hospital boards,

those little private enclaves that were so effective in shutting down abortion

services for women. And today we hear the member for Vancouver-Quilchena say

that it's not a political issue, and they won't debate it. We have the Leader of

the Opposition, who at least had the courage to say that he opposed some of the

things we're doing today to stabilize the status quo and protect women's right

to choose . . . . But he doesn't have the courage -- yet, anyway --

to say what that is. Which parts of this motion does he disagree with?

We also see a lineup of the Socred candidates who stood in this chamber and

supported Bill Vander Zalm when he went on a rampage against the

decriminalization of women's right to choose and of abortion services. And they

supported him. For example, Graham Bruce is running in Cowichan-Ladysmith. And

he said in the Vancouver Sun on Friday, February 12, 1988, that he agreed

with everything his government was doing, which was to cut all funding for

abortions. He's quoted as saying: "I am not happy with the Supreme Court

decision." That was the decision to decriminalize abortion.

Now he and three others who sat here and denied women their right to choose

and who supported Bill Vander Zalm are running again with B.C. Liberals, along

with a whole host of former Socred candidates such as Gillian Trumper, Susan

Brice and a whole range of others. How in the world can women have confidence

that they would have the right to choose if these people were here today? Oh,

and Stan Hagen is also running. He announced in the throne speech that they'll

provide funding for day care -- which they don't even support on the opposite

side of the House -- and increased adoption opportunities to address the

ever-increasing number of abortions. That's their way of doing it. And Claude

Richmond is running for the Liberals again. He says: "It's clear to me that

the directive is that abortions cannot be funded. And that's why I need a real

order from you. They can't fund them under GAIN Act."

So what we have is a whole range of people who were Social Credit, who are

now Liberals. They back the Liberals;

[ Page 17553 ]

they're running for the Liberals. And they shut down women's right to choose.

Now we have the Liberals saying that it's not an issue. They don't want to talk

about it. They don't want to debate it in the House. And the Leader of the

Opposition is probably going to say: "Well, I don't want to say which parts

of this motion that I'm against." Well, my God, women have every right to

be concerned. If the predominantly male media and the members opposite think

this is not an issue, well, guess again. It is an issue.

If the Liberals mean what they said and if this isn't simply another

opportunity to try to duck the issue, hide their agenda, walk down both sides of

the fence and flip-flop all over the place so that people don't know with

clarity what it is they're going to do, which is precisely what they've been

trying to do with phony allegation after phony allegation and every means you

could possibly dream of in this House . . . . I've never seen

anything quite like it. But if in fact they mean what they say, which is that