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, APRIL 4, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 19

[ Page 17651 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have four introductions to make today. First are

Brewster Kneen, an internationally recognized expert on the food system and

author of books on biotechnology, agriculture and agribusiness; and Richard

Bocking, an agricultural economist, author and documentary film-maker on issues

related to the environment and agriculture. Richard is a licensed professional

agrologist and is active with the B.C. Institute of Agrologists. Also here is

Herbert Moore, vice-president of radio-pharmaceutical development with Alpha-Med

Inc. As a research scientist, Mr. Moore is very concerned about the health and

environmental consequences of genetic engineering in food. Finally, Gracie

MacDonald, who's a board member of the South Island Organic Producers

Association and a Green Party candidate in Saanich South, is here. Will all

members of this House please join me in making them welcome.

[1410]

D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a delegation of

students and their teacher from Malaspina International High School, based in

Nanaimo. As the name suggests, these are students from overseas, mostly from

Asia. I see about a dozen students up there along with their teacher, Mr. Dave

Butler. I would ask if all my colleagues would please give these students and

their teacher a very warm welcome.

C. Clark: I am delighted to introduce Harry Bloy to the House today, a

man whose long history in the community is going to serve him well in becoming

the next MLA for Burquitlam.

J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to introduce today some people from my

part of Vancouver Island. These are representatives of the South Vancouver

Island District Women's Institutes -- and partners. With us today are Jessie

Anderson, Ruth Fenner, Margaret Baird, Marcia Stobbart and Leonard Fenner. They

are all in the gallery today. Also with them is Barbara Wallace, who's a former

member of this House and the first woman and New Democrat to be elected in the

riding that I now hold: Cowichan-Ladysmith. So I would like everyone to make

them all very welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm doubly delighted to introduce to the House today

Mr. Sinclair Philip. Members will know Mr. Philip as the proprietor of the

internationally acclaimed Sooke Harbour House, voted second-best inn in the

world by readers of Gourmet magazine in May of 2000. Mr. Philip is here

because of his commitment to eating food that does not contain GMOs. Please

welcome him.

S. Orcherton: There are some visitors in the gallery today who are

consumers who want to know what's in the food that they buy for their families,

and they're all from Victoria. Joining us in the gallery are Diana Brooks, Betty

Muller, Diane Dobbin, Elania Konoby, Allison Green and Marnie Bradfield. Monica

Hall-Kowalewski is also here today with her two daughters, two-year-old Chiara

and ten-month-old Antonia. Monica volunteers for Gene Action in Victoria. As

well, joining us in the gallery is Imelda Pearson. She is a director of the

Council of Canadians and a representative of the Council of Women. All of these

women are from Victoria, and I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

G. Mann Brewin: I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of

someone that many of us on this side, and the other side as well, may have heard

from, from time to time. She's a constituent of mine. She'll well over 80; she's

involved in the community. And when Bernice Packford phones, you respond and you

pay attention. Would the House please welcome Bernice Packford.

Hon. C. Evans: Like my colleague, I was going to comment on Bernice.

When the prayer said that we should check our consciences before we open our

mouths, I thought maybe he was talking about Bernice's presence here today.

Bernice could act as any of our consciences, and I would tell everybody to mind

what you say while she's visiting; she might call you later.

Also visiting us from an organization called LifeCycles, a youth-driven

organization promoting food security are Linda Geggie, Todd Graham, Kate Paul,

Zev Roman, Melanie Hay and Linda's mother, Valerie. Would the House please make

them welcome.

J. Sawicki: I too would like to introduce someone who I've actually

worked with on agriculture and food and land use issues for many years. Kathleen

Gibson is here today representing FarmFolk/CityFolk and the Capital Region Food

Roundtable. FarmFolk/CityFolk is a provincewide organization dedicated to

encouraging the production and consumption of local, homegrown quality food. The

Capital Region Food Roundtable is one of more than a dozen food security

coalitions around British Columbia whose membership numbers in the thousands.

They too work on community food issues. Would the House please make her welcome.

[1415]

Hon. J. Kwan: I have four visitors in the gallery today. They're

representatives from the Community Economic Development Corp., better known as

CEDCO, which does a variety of work in our community, and of course community

development is its aim. The director, Vanessa Hammond, is here with Geoff Ray,

Chris Mather and Maureen McDougall. Would the House please welcome these

visitors.

R. Thorpe: Visiting the House today are two constituents of mine,

Norma and Pat Clarke from Naramata. Also visiting the House today is a couple I

met earlier this year while on vacation, Pat Hapgood and Jack Elliott from

Victoria. Would everyone please make them welcome to the House.

B. Goodacre: In the House today visiting for question period is Redner

Jones, a dear friend that I've met in the last couple of years in Victoria. He's

also interested in saving Beacon Hill Park from commercial development.

On behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I also have to introduce to the

House Mara Jernigan, a chef and organic farmer who works with FarmFolk/CityFolk

to organize the annual Feast of Fields on Vancouver Island. Mara is a founding

member of the Island Chefs Collaborative and is active in agritourism on the

Island, helping to develop and promote

[ Page 17652 ]

top-quality local resorts and restaurants. Also here is Melanie Banas, who

works with Mara at Engeler Farm on southern Vancouver Island.

Brian Hughes and Lamont and Heather Stretch are organic farmers at Kildara

Farms who grow GE-free food on the Saanich Peninsula. They also run an organic

vegetable delivery service in greater Vancouver. I'm also pleased to introduce

Lee Fuge, a manager at Capers grocery store in Victoria. Capers is committed to

selling food products free from genetic engineering. Also here are David Friend,

an organic grower and trainer from Victoria who wants to know what's in the food

he eats, and Tina Fraser, representing the South Island Organic Producers

Association. SIOPA includes hundreds of local organic growers on the Gulf

Islands and southern Vancouver Island. I ask the House to please make these

people welcome.

J. Dalton: I rise to acknowledge the contribution of Simon Jackson,

who I believe the Premier either has acknowledged or is about to. Simon is a

graduate of West Vancouver Secondary. Two years ago he was the premier of the

North Shore youth parliament, and in his spare time Simon found his picture on

the cover of Time magazine. So if my colleagues and I could please

acknowledge the contribution that Mr. Jackson has made to British Columbia.

Ministerial Statement

LAND USE PLANS IN B.C.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I rise to make a statement on a significant

achievement for the province of British Columbia, and that achievement is due to

people like Simon Jackson and others. There were many in the room earlier today,

when we made that announcement, who worked for years to bring this about.

In the last decade, thousands of British Columbians have participated in land

use planning processes around the province. In hundreds of communities, great

and small, ordinary people have gathered to achieve what many considered to be

impossible: consensus on land use plans for the province.

[1420]

Perhaps members of this House know better than anyone the difficulties of

working together with those who seem ideologically or temperamentally opposed to

our own views. It is all too easy to resort to name-calling or reflexive

dismissal of those with different views, however honestly held those views may

be. But British Columbians have proved that shared interests can be stronger

than differences. They worked together, reached consensus and made plans for how

to use and sustain the rich resources of the land that we all share.

Also during the last decade, our government undertook to redress our most

onerous moral and social debt, ending more than a century of injustice, by

beginning to make modern treaties with first nations. I'm pleased to report

significant milestones in both of these endeavours -- milestones which will help

us ensure economic opportunities for communities and first nations, continued

international markets for our products and continued progress on settlements

with first nations throughout British Columbia.

First, we've reached consensus on the central coast land use plan. Today I

was pleased to stand with first nations chiefs, representatives of industry and

working people, environmental and community leaders and many others who

participated in that process. While there is still plenty of work to do, we have

made some significant achievements including reaching agreement on a preliminary

land use map for the area, which sets out areas for protection, sustainable

resource management and tourism as well as areas that require more study. In

particular, we've agreed to protect the area now known as the Great Bear rain

forest, home to the world's only white spirit bears.

Forest companies have agreed to further implementation of ecosystem-based

logging in the area. We've agreed on the need for shared transition strategies,

with government, industry and the environmental community all contributing to

the economic stability of the region. We're preparing an enabling agreement for

signature with the 17 first nations in the central coast planning process. This

agreement will set out a process for their continued participation as well as a

mechanism for further discussion of resource management issues of importance to

them.

Second, today we signed a landmark protocol on interim measures and land use

planning between the province and six first nations of the central and north

coast. This agreement defines a new role for first nations in three land use

planning areas. It speaks to our government's goal of working with first nations

at every opportunity to continue our hard-won progress in treaty-making while

ensuring economic opportunities and environmental sustainability.

These agreements move us forward in resolving the land use issues in this

region. But they're not the end of the difficult choices we must make, difficult

choices for the central coast and many other regions of this province. A decade

ago we faced significant challenges: a war in the woods, a growing international

boycott of our forest products, but most importantly, increasing concerns about

the sustainability of our forests and therefore the sustainability of our forest

economy.

My government has been clear in the choices we've made to deal with these

challenges. We chose to listen to communities who wanted to resolve land use

disputes closer to home. We chose to double parks and protected lands in this

province, even when some would argue that no more parks were needed. We said no

to industrial activities in those parks, when some said the two could coexist.

We chose to secure our international markets by improving our forest practices

and keeping our harvest at sustainable levels.

These two initiatives that we announced today will enhance and improve our

international markets by telling the world, countering the view that our

environmental standards, as some might say, may not be the best in the world.

Today's initiatives send the message: our environmental initiatives, including

our Forest Practices Code, are the strongest in the world, and we want to

continue to improve those.

[1425]

For the first time, as part of this consensus, the environmentalists, the

industry, the workers and the aboriginal leaders will be travelling abroad,

meeting with our customers

[ Page 17653 ]

and our markets, making sure that this message goes out to the rest of the

world: we are the best in the world in environmental sustainability.

The Ministry of Forests will continue to work with the IWA and with the truck

loggers to make sure that the losses are mitigated and the workers are assisted

through a transition period if there are any job losses, as there are going to

be. But it is important for us to recognize that we bring about these

initiatives -- that we work with the communities, the industries, the workers,

the first nations and the environmental groups -- to ensure that the environment

we have in British Columbia is sustainable; that the standards we have in

British Columbia are the highest; and that we are enhancing those standards,

enhancing our forestry practices and enhancing the initiatives we take to ensure

that our international markets remain in place and remain strong for us.

Now, those are difficult choices. We've made those difficult choices, and I'm

proud of those choices, and I stand by them. I would ask my colleagues on both

sides of the House to take this moment to applaud the talent, drive and good

faith of their fellow citizens in bringing us this far and to join me in

supporting the vision and the process that led us to today's announcement.

The Speaker: To respond to the Premier's statement, the hon. member

for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased to rise today to respond to the Premier's

statement on the central coast land use plan, on behalf of the official

opposition.

First, we want to join with the Premier in commending those who have

volunteered literally thousands of hours in their efforts to resolve this

complex conservation and development issue at the central coast LRMP table. The

official opposition recognizes that there have been and, I guess, to some extent

continue to be conflicting visions for the future of this very important part of

our province.

We also recognize that it's critically important for all stakeholders not

only to be engaged in the discussions but, more importantly, to be party to the

decisions that will affect their future. We've heard from communities and we've

heard from forest workers that they are extremely concerned about the future of

the central coast. We know from our discussions with the IWA that they are

gravely concerned about the impact of today's announcement on at least 500

members of their association and their families. We also know that

resource-dependent communities on the coast and on Vancouver Island have a host

of unanswered questions with respect to this announcement.

The official opposition is committed to the principle that a full social and

economic analysis be undertaken prior to these types of land use decisions being

made. We must always remember that resource workers and resource-dependent

communities are an integral part of the environment. Further, the cost to the

Crown both in direct mitigation costs and consequently in stumpage and

associated revenues is unknown at this time. We're pleased that the process has

included first nations, and we look forward to the resolution of their hopes for

the central coast. Our vision is an inclusive vision that includes first

nations, forest workers, fishermen, miners, tourism operators and all other

British Columbians who choose to work and live in this very beautiful part of

the province.

As all the participants in the process have stated, clearly much, much work

remains to be done. We look forward to helping meet that challenge.

[1430]

Introduction of Bills

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD

LABELLING ACT

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

a bill intituled Genetically Engineered Food Labelling Act.

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

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm very pleased today to introduce Bill 18, the

Genetically Engineered Food Labelling Act. This bill is being introduced as an

exposure bill at this time. The purpose of the bill is to promote public

discussion and input on the best way to frame a legislative response to a wish

of consumers to know whether the food they and their families are eating is

genetically engineered. The increasing prevalence of genetically engineered

foods is of growing interest to consumers in British Columbia and throughout the

world. The European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have all taken steps

to introduce mandatory labelling mechanisms within their jurisdictions. I'm

pleased to say that this government is the first in Canada to introduce

mandatory labelling legislation.

The current labelling system for foods sold in Canada does not require food

producers, processors or retailers to identify the presence or absence of

genetically engineered materials in their product, the only exception being food

that contains known allergens or food that has a substantially different

composition than its non-GE counterpart. The federal government approaches the

issue of GE foods on a health and safety basis, and requires new GE products

destined for human consumption to receive federal approval before being offered

for sale. The federal government is not contemplating mandatory labelling at

this time.

The bill I'm introducing today enables government, at an appropriate time in

the future, to establish a labelling system for foods in which GE material is

present. It does not itself set up such a system at this time. In recognition of

the complex issues that a successful labelling system must involve, the bill

establishes an expert advisory panel to make recommendations to government about

such things as when food should be labelled as GE and what those food labels

should say. The bill does not prevent voluntary labelling of food as non-GE so

long as the definition of GE meets that used in the bill.

In addition to the bill, my ministry is releasing for public review and

comment a discussion paper which provides further background information on this

important issue. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18 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.

[ Page 17654 ]

Oral Questions

CARRIER LUMBER AND

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL PAYMENT

G. Campbell: We know that the Premier did not read the Carrier Lumber

decision prior to continuing his government's attack on a long-established

family-owned business in British Columbia. Can the Premier tell the House if he

has read the order-in-council that his government issued yesterday in respect to

Carrier Lumber, and can he explain to the House precisely what it entails?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: That order doesn't relate to the matter before the

court at this time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: It doesn't relate to the matter before the court at

this time. We issued the order. I don't know what else the opposition wants to

know about that.

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

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, the head of

this government, the head of the executive council who passed an

order-in-council yesterday. Let me tell you what the government did yesterday --

at least in my mind what it did.

It signed an OIC which said they would pay back Carrier Lumber for rents and

penalties which Carrier should never have paid to begin with. The act that

created the authority for the government to act in this manner says that such

remissions can be made when "great public inconvenience, great injustice or

great hardship to a person has occurred . . . . "

Will the Premier now admit that all three of those injustices took place with

regard to Carrier Lumber? And will he tell us why he did not volunteer at the

time he decided to abandon the appeal -- months ago -- that at a minimum,

taxpayers in British Columbia would be on the hook for tens of thousands of

dollars due to the great injustice that took place under his watch?

[1435]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, when the decision to appeal was made,

it was made based on comprehensive briefings and my understanding of the case. I

have learned nothing from what the opposition has said or anybody has said that

I didn't know the day the appeal was launched; it was appropriately launched.

When the decision to abandon the appeal was made, it was made by the current

Attorney General based on the appropriate advice. And the opposition has been

given the offer by the ministry to provide them with briefings appropriately on

this issue. With respect to this particular matter, my understanding is that

this complies with the directions of the court in some respects, and I believe

that's why the order went.

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

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: This is a very serious case. This Premier and this

government had been at the centre of this case from the outset. Yesterday this

Premier's government decided to pass an OIC -- OIC No. 424 -- which said that it

was in the public interest to avoid a great injustice. Surely the Premier

understood there was a great injustice that had been done when he decided to

launch his appeal. Surely he understood that a great injustice had been done

when he decided that he had no case.

My question to the Premier is: precisely what was meant when his executive

council signed OIC No. 424 yesterday, saying it was time to pay back Carrier

Lumber for dollars which had been taken by this government for rents and

penalties, which were unjustly taken? Can the Premier explain fully exactly what

was going on and why, in fact, that great injustice wasn't disclosed months ago

by the Premier, when he knew about it?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The Leader of the Opposition is deliberately

straying into territory he knows is completely inappropriate. This matter is

still before the courts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I said "this matter." The Carrier matter

is before the courts. The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to use this as

a back door to get at a matter that's before the courts. He knows that's

completely improper. It's not proper conduct for the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Plant: Yesterday the cabinet issued an order-in-council that

remitted $144,000 plus interest to Carrier Lumber. Actually, I didn't notice

that that order-in-council formed a part of the Premier's "good news

announcement a day" strategy; nonetheless, the order-in-council came to our

attention. I thought the Attorney General said it had nothing to do with the

lawsuit -- or maybe it does have something to do with the lawsuit. What the

order-in-council says is that there was a great injustice done to Carrier

Lumber, and because a great injustice was done to Carrier Lumber, the government

is returning $144,000 to Carrier Lumber that it should never have taken in the

first place. My question to the Attorney General is: what was the great

injustice that was done to Carrier Lumber?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think that both the opposition leader and the

opposition justice critic know exactly what they're doing here. They are

attempting to get before this House the issue of Carrier Lumber, which they know

full well is before the courts of this province right now. They know that is

wrong, and they should cease doing it.

[1440]

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

question.

G. Plant: My question is for the Premier, the head of the government.

On what basis did his government issue this order-in-council yesterday?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This order was based upon appropriate legal advice

and was made. I have no difficulty in defend-

[ Page 17655 ]

ing the order. I've said why it was made. I believe that every time the

opposition gets a chance to stand up and ask a question, they sink to the

gutter. I have said that there is absolutely nothing to hide with respect to my

conduct in the Carrier case. And I'm prepared to publicly commit to a public

inquiry if I form the next government, which I intend to do.

G. Plant: We're asking a pretty simple question, but it seems to be

awfully hard to get an answer. Yesterday the cabinet of the government of

British Columbia said that it was in the public interest to avoid a great

injustice to remit to Carrier Lumber $144,000 in respect of rent and penalties

that appear to have been incurred as a result of not just one legal proceeding,

but three or four or five of them. It's not my order-in-council; it's the

government's order-in-council. What was the great injustice that this government

did to Carrier Lumber?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: This OIC was issued pursuant to the mediation that

was agreed to between Carrier and government. There are terms of confidentiality

agreed to by both sides. Again, hon. Speaker, this is not the appropriate forum

for a discussion of that matter at this time.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

RESOURCE-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES

G. Abbott: New topic: a question for the Minister of Employment and

Investment. Back in 1992 the NDP imposed a half-percent tax on natural resources

in order to create a natural resource community fund. Now, the purpose of this

was to assist communities that are suffering severe losses of forestry and

mining jobs. Well, what have the results been so far? The government has

siphoned off nearly $80 million into general revenues, while providing less than

$2 million for communities. Again, in this year's budget they've made no plans

to distribute these funds except to pay for the government's fudge-it budget.

Will the Minister of Employment and Investment admit to this House today that

the NDP has not kept its promise and that this fund has done nothing to help

resource-dependent communities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a little much. We had an announcement today

about a historic land use plan for the central coast, and we also announced

mitigation measures to help workers who are dealing with displacement. That's

what we did.

This opposition opposes every effort of this government to mitigate the

changing circumstances in resource communities. We step into Golden and save

Evans Forest Products, and they say: "Don't do that." We say we're

going to step in and preserve the communities of the northwest; we're going to

make sure that Skeena works. And what do they say? They oppose it every single

time. And now they stand up and say: "You're not doing enough." I say:

get your stories straight, hon. members.

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

G. Abbott: If the government's proposing to use this fund in this

case, certainly it will be a first for them to try to actually use the fund

appropriately. Again, hon. Speaker, $2 million to resource communities, $80

million to general revenue -- that's the balance sheet so far from this

government.

[1445]

Since this government came to power, thousands of forest and mine workers

have lost their jobs, and resource-dependent communities have been devastated.

Will the Minister of Employment and Investment -- and that's the guy over there,

I think -- tell us why his government has so little interest in the plight of

resource-dependent communities that it hasn't even bothered to use a fund that

was explicitly designed for that purpose?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this member and his allegations just

pass credulity. Look at this hon. member. You stand up and oppose Forest Renewal

B.C., which has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in training and

retraining for workers. You want to know what this government has done to help

forest-dependent communities and resource communities? Go to Golden and ask

them. Go to Gold River and ask them. Go to Tumbler Ridge and ask them. Every

time we've had difficulties, we step up to the plate and help -- contrary to

everything that opposition says.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order. Members, come to order.

R. Neufeld: Well, when the government created this fund, the member

for Vancouver-Kingsway said: "The $25 million is a real fund. It's not a

bookkeeping entry." Well, in hindsight this fund has turned out to be

another announcement the NDP had no intention of doing. Will the real Minister

of Employment and Investment tell us what effort he has made to stop the

government from draining more money from this fund, instead of using it to help

the resource industry funds that have been so desperately decimated by this

government?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A few more examples for the members opposite. We have

introduced Fisheries Renewal B.C., as well, on the coast to help the communities

up and down here. The member well knows how we've stepped in to assist a

community in the north, Tumbler Ridge. That community was faced with devastation

following the early closure announced by one of the major coal companies. We

have invested funds to help the municipality, to help the workers, and now that

community has a new life and a new head start. In every community that we've

been able to, we have stepped in and assisted. That's a record we're proud of.

They don't seem to even acknowledge that communities out there exist, or at

least they don't even know that snow flies in some parts of this province.

R. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of members from

that side of the House that had really good things to say about this fund when

it was introduced, and one was the member for Cariboo South. I'm going to quote:

[ Page 17656 ]

" . . . the government's commitment to meeting the needs of

resource-dependent communities, especially in single-industry towns, is

exemplified by the establishment of the . . . natural resource

community fund."

Well, this government's commitment to resource-dependent communities is

lousy. Get this -- this is to the Minister of Employment and Investment who's

sitting down there; I hope he will stand up and answer this question. For every

$40 collected, only one dollar has been returned to those communities. Will the

Minister of Employment and Investment apologize to those resource communities

for taking money out of their pockets when they so desperately need it? Please,

Mr. Minister -- fourth question -- stand up and answer to the people of the

province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: This member stands and accuses government of ignoring

resource communities. At the same time, he knows that his riding in the

northeast has benefited from an unprecedented action of this government called

the Fair Share agreements -- $12 million a year of infrastructure in his riding.

The record of this government in assisting resource communities is

unparalleled in the history of the province: Forest Renewal B.C., Fisheries

Renewal B.C., the Columbia Basin Trust, the Power for Jobs accord. And every one

of them, they oppose.

[1450]

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Robertson: I rise to table the report of the Oil and Gas

Commission for the year 1999-2000.

Hon. C. Evans: In the new spirit of openness and transparency, and in

keeping with the Deloitte report, it is my pleasure to table here the very first

business case for a Ministry of Health capital project, the Nelson health

campus. And just in case . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Hey, you guys, you don't want to heckle a good project.

Just stop heckling. Some of it actually, if they'd just . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: I wonder how this looks in Nelson, hon. Speaker.

They're heckling the new project in Nelson, B.C. In the spirit of fairness, we

have some business cases for members from the other side's constituencies. This

would be the Omineca multilevel-care facility in Vanderhoof -- and in the Fraser

Valley, the Fraser Valley and eastern Fraser Valley cancer centre business

cases.

You can clap now.

Petitions

R. Neufeld: Enclosed is a 12-page petition signed by 169 people who

use roads 110 and 111 all the time, and they're very concerned about getting

these roads paved this year. The highway is on a high school route and is

heavily travelled by industry.

An Hon. Member: Would that be a resource community?

The Speaker: Member, order.

R. Neufeld: Do you have a problem with me presenting a petition?

It's used by industry and farmers hauling grain to Dawson Creek.

J. Pullinger: My friends that I introduced earlier brought with them a

petition today, the South Vancouver Island District Women's Institute. There are

over 9,000 signatures -- 9,200 to be exact -- to say two things. No. 1 is that

genetically engineered food should be labelled so that consumers know about it.

No. 2 is -- and this is primarily to the federal government, I believe -- that

the precautionary principle ought to be invoked, that there should be no further

genetically engineered foods licensed in Canada for consumption until we know

whether or not they're safe. The work simply hasn't been done. This petition was

also presented to the House of Commons a year ago, where the Liberals and the

Alliance voted it down.

Hon. H. Giesbrecht: I wish to table a petition signed by 189 people,

66 from the Skeena riding, calling on the government not to proceed with the

court challenge of the federal government's definition of marriage.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill M202.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading continued)

[1455]

Hon. E. Gillespie: I rise to conclude my remarks on the private

member's bill regarding complementary medicine.

Hon. Speaker, complementary medicine includes therapies such as environmental

medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy, botanicals, orthomolecular medicine, vitamins

and minerals, and chelation therapy. This legislation speaks to medical

practitioners who incorporate complementary medicine into their practice,

combining the best of conventional western medicine and the best of alternative

medicines.

I left off speaking about the preventive nature of much of complementary

medicine compared to the disease-based treatment of modern western medicine.

People are drawn to complementary medicine for many reasons, including limited

or adverse effects of conventional treatments, a less invasive treatment method,

its focus on the whole person -- and perhaps because people want a more personal

approach to their health care, which conventional medicine is increasingly

[ Page 17657 ]

less able to offer. Other factors that draw people toward complementary

medicine are increased public knowledge, patient autonomy and multiculturalism,

with different views of medicine -- perhaps one reason why complementary

medicine is so popular in British Columbia.

One other significant factor is that people seek out complementary therapies

after running into dead ends with conventional medicines. Perhaps their doctor

tells them they're healthy, but they're not feeling okay. This refers back to

what I was speaking of earlier, when the debate left off -- that while we do a

very good job in modern medicine in treating acute disease, we have not done as

good a job in chronic disease. Complementary medicine provides some people with

some real hope with respect to their chronic conditions.

In 1990 about 20 percent of Canadians used the services of at least one

complementary medical practitioner within a six-month period. Studies completed

in 1997 showed that 42 percent of Canadians seek alternative medical therapies.

In British Columbia 56 percent seek these therapies.

British Columbia was the first jurisdiction in North America to give official

recognition to the practice of traditional Chinese medicine by recognizing it

under the Health Professions Act and allowing the title "Doctor" for

its practitioners.

Hon. Speaker, complementary medicine covers a wide range. It provides hope,

in particular, for individuals who suffer from chronic conditions.

I want to conclude my remarks by thanking one individual in particular, a

constituent of mine, Mrs. Betty King, who has written me and telephoned me at

least once every year since I have been elected, in order to promote her

interest and the cause of the people that she represents in terms of chelation

therapy and complementary medicines in British Columbia. I celebrate the work

that Mrs. King does, and I commend her work to all of us here as we consider

this legislation.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to rise in support of the Medical

Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001. I think that this bill is long overdue, and I

congratulate the member for Victoria-Hillside for bringing it forward.

Complementary medicine looks to prevention rather than waiting for the

disease to happen. Complementary medicine seeks to address the cause rather than

suppress symptoms.

When a person chooses to use alternative methods, they are making a choice to

take greater control over the healing process and are making a decision to take

greater responsibility for themselves. With rising health costs and hospital and

nursing shortages, we as responsible government members must support an

initiative to provide alternative services to our citizens and to allow medical

practitioners to more accurately respond to the needs of their patients.

Studies have shown that in British Columbia, 56 percent of our population

seek alternative methods rather than to go and see a medical practitioner. While

these are recorded statistics, we know that the actual numbers are closer to 85

percent.

[1500]

Traditional Chinese medicine has been around for 4,000 years. The study of

herbs and their healing powers has been with us and used for over thousands of

years.

There was a time when women were burned alive as witches because they used

herbs to heal people. Now we see the pharmaceuticals on a witch-hunt, trying to

take control of our herbs and vitamins and put our health food stores out of

business. They have found it to be a lucrative market, because many people have

discovered they would rather put the natural product in their bodies than use

chemicals.

I believe we would have many more doctors practising complementary medicine

if they did not fear retribution from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of

B.C. As early as 1996, the B.C. Medical Association found that 62 percent of

doctors in this province supported alternative therapies as useful and

beneficial adjuncts to conventional practices.

Think of the benefit of a comprehensive and integrated health care system,

with both medical doctors and alternative care providers working together to

create an optimum system.

We are seeing more and more of our young people taking on the diseases of the

elderly. Our diets are high in sugars, fats and processed foods. Toxic air,

toxic water and a toxic food supply are killing all of us and do not allow our

children a healthy lifestyle. Put all of that together with the amount of

prescription drugs that our society is relying on to survive, and we have very

serious problems created for our health care systems.

A University of Toronto study, reported in the Journal of the American

Medical Association , April 15, 1998, estimated that 2.216 million hospital

patients experienced serious adverse drug reaction, and 106,000 of those

patients died. These deaths were due to properly prescribed and administered

prescription drugs. This is one of the leading causes of death in North America.

The Journal of Medical Ethics states that only about 15 percent of

medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence. In other

words, 85 percent of medical interventions are not supported by any scientific

evidence. Some of the things that are so-called proven and safe by the medical

profession are the Dalkon Shield, thalidomide and silicone breast implants.

These were all endorsed to be safe.

This amendment will create an environment more conducive to beneficial

results in medicine and will enhance patient care through greater choice in

health care. This amendment will also ensure that doctors who offer these

options will be protected. It also prohibits the College of Physicians and

Surgeons from adopting its own bylaws to supersede those created by this

amendment. Doctors will still be under the regulations of the college. However,

if the college is going to investigate a doctor using alternative therapies, the

Association of Complementary Physicians of B.C. must be included as well. What

this will ensure is that doctors who understand complementary therapies are

among those participating in the judgment, offering a more fair investigation.

There are many excellent alternative caregivers in British Columbia, and they

should be recognized as such.

For years I suffered from debilitating migraine headaches that affected me

four days of the week. I found that the medical profession had no answer for me

-- only pills that suppressed the symptoms and never addressed the cause. Twelve

years ago I turned to alternative caregivers for help. They showed me a way to

heal myself, and they gave me back my life. I am very grateful to them.

I have tried many alternative methods of healing myself and highly recommend

them to people who are in need of help. You only have to be willing to take

responsibility for yourself and have the intention to heal. It is amazing what

can be accomplished.

[ Page 17658 ]

[1505]

Nova Scotia, Alberta and Ontario have passed legislation that protects

patient access to complementary therapies and effectively ends abuses to

regulatory bodies. B.C. doctors and citizens deserve this same protection.

This amendment reflects the principles of the Helsinki agreement, which

Canada signed. This agreement states that in the treatment of the sick person,

the physician must be free to use a new diagnostic and therapeutic measure if in

his or her judgment it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or

alleviating suffering.

I strongly support this legislation. I'm very disappointed that the Liberal

Party is not supporting this bill. I know that the Liberal Party is in

opposition, but to oppose something that the greater majority of this population

uses and supports is a waste of this Legislature's time, and a travesty of the

democratic and representational government that we profess to have. I know that

there are members of the Liberal Party who are in full support of complementary

medicine. I'm surprised that they were not given the opportunity for a free vote

on such an important piece of legislation that gives people freedom of choice to

heal themselves.

J. Sawicki: I want to concur and congratulate the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale on her remarks. I think that her personal story is a story

that is shared by thousands of British Columbians. I have my story, as well, in

terms of being able to be relieved of pain when all of the pills in the world

didn't work.

And that's exactly why I think so many British Columbians are supporting this

initiative. I want to commend the member for Victoria-Hillside for bringing this

forward.

As someone who has also felt passionately enough about an issue to bring

forward a private member's bill, I know how much energy and work and tenacity it

takes to bring it this far. The fact that the member has been successful in

having this debate take place really does attest to the huge support across this

province for what is called complementary medicine.

I think we do need to acknowledge that there are concerns from the

established traditional medical constituency, if you want to call it that, out

there. Let's not get confused as to what this bill is and what it is not.

Firstly, it does not give physicians that are using so-called

non-conventional treatments any special rights. It doesn't change the Medical

Practitioners Act. What it does is allow physicians to make the best judgment in

the treatment of their patients, to make the judgment to use new diagnostic and

therapeutic measures in order to relieve pain and heal their patients.

I believe that's a physician's job, and I don't think they should be

concerned about this legislation that we are debating here in front of us. As

the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside is quoted as saying in a recent press

release, this legislation is not intended to legitimize quackery. We are talking

about a body of knowledge that is, in many cases, thousands and thousands of

years older than what we are now calling conventional medicine. Conventional

medicine, in terms of the surgeries, the drugs and the chemicals that we use and

are prescribed when we go to a doctor, may be ten, 20, 50 or 100 years old. Some

of what is now called alternative or complementary medicine is the result of the

wisdom of thousands of years. I think all of us automatically think of things

like acupuncture.

The other thing that makes this legislation very timely is that we need to

recognize that over recent decades, the whole concept of health has changed. I

remember, when I was a councillor with the city of Burnaby, Healthy Communities

was an initiative that many of us were dealing with at the municipal level. I

think that was really one of the first times that broad-ranged groups of people

got together and said: "Just a second here. Health is more than treatment

of disease. Health is also wellness. Health is also prevention. Health is also a

clean environment. Health is also a good community. And all of these things make

a healthy community."

[1510]

Similarly, we have seen a radical change in the delivery of health in the

past decade. Witness all of the work that our government has done, with the

great support of people and communities throughout this province, to move

treatment out of acute care hospitals into communities, to move away from

invasive surgeries and into much more benign treatments that actually achieve

the goal of wellness. All of these things are happening. There's a much more

holistic approach to virtually everything we are doing.

I know that members in the House are used to hearing me stand up and talk

about managing the whole ecosystem in terms of the environment. Those of us on

this side of the House who have done a tremendous amount of work on education

often talk about teaching the whole child. What we are talking about here is

healing the whole person. The argument about whether it is science or whether it

is a placebo is nonsense to me. If in fact the goal is to ensure wellness, then

surely, if it works, success needs to speak for itself.

There is huge evidence, a huge number of personal stories. There is

tremendous support for using alternative or complementary medicines and

techniques. Clearly we're not suggesting here, in bringing this bill forward,

that you're going to use vitamins and minerals to heal a broken arm. That's not

what we're talking about. But I think it is extremely important that physicians

are free to use all of their knowledge, all of their wisdom and all of their

approaches to indeed heal their patients without fear of recrimination or

harassment from a body of people who think differently. That's what we're

talking about here: choice for physicians to do their best for their patients

and choice for patients to take care of their own bodies and maintain a good

quality of life.

So I want to say that I certainly applaud the member for Victoria-Hillside in

bringing this forward. I certainly will say that from the perspective of my

constituents, this is an issue that I've heard about, as an MLA, through the

whole ten years that I've been in this House. And I know that they, in Burnaby-Willingdon,

along with many hundreds of thousands of people throughout this province, will

welcome this House passing this legislation. I urge everyone to support it.

Hon. G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Janssen: Joining us in the gallery today are 50 to 60 grade 11

students. They're here from Alberni District Sec

[ Page 17659 ]

ondary School. They're here to study government, legislative procedure and

history. They're joined by their teacher, Mr. Hawkins. I'd ask the House to make

them welcome.

P. Calendino: I'm pleased today to rise to speak in favour of Bill

M202, Medical Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001.

As we've heard from all the people who have recently spoken to this today and

the other day, it seems that we all have some kind of anecdotal story that makes

us warm up to the issue of complementary or alternative medicine and that makes

us support the ability of medical practitioners to implement that in their

practice.

This bill is a non-partisan bill. It's a very socially progressive bill. And

it's one that in my view, as we heard in the evidence of the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale -- the statistical evidence that she gave -- is debated in

this House for the common good. As legislators we are here to do that: to debate

issues that are for the common good. And it is a shame that members of the

opposition have taken the position that they will not debate it and they will

not support it. But I'll come back to that.

[1515]

I think that this bill is long overdue; its time has come. It's a bill that

obviously is not groundbreaking. We've seen that a similar bill has been

introduced in other jurisdictions in Canada and in the U.S. In fact, this kind

of legislation exists in Alberta and in Nova Scotia. Last fall it was even

approved in Ontario, and the support for it was unanimous. It was supported by

all parties. Even in the United States, where private medicine is paramount,

this kind of complementary medicine has been supported and approved in a number

of state legislatures.

And why is it happening? It's happening because legislators have realized

that we are now finally in the twenty-first century. We're in the third

millennium. We're in the information age, in which people are educated enough

and informed enough to be able to determine what is good for their bodies, what

the best treatments are and what is best for themselves and for their families.

We live in a time in which people want the freedom and the opportunity to make

the health care choices that suit them and that work for them.

I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Victoria-Hillside for

having persisted and for having employed his tenacity in presenting this bill to

the House last spring and again in this session. I'm very happy that we are

doing it, and I'm happy that finally it is up for debate.

I'm disappointed that the Liberal opposition would not embrace this bill. The

member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who used to be a member of the Liberal opposition,

said she knows that a majority of those members favour complementary medicine. I

was surprised that the Health critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, stood

up yesterday and supported the spirit of the bill but at the end decided he

could not support the contents of the bill. In his view, it was too

confrontational in the issue of resolving the problems that exist between the

conventional doctors, or the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the

practitioners who want to use complementary medicine.

the member for Vancouver-Quilchena must be coming from another planet. I didn't,

and I don't, see any confrontation in this bill. I'm not sure that wanting to

allow medical practitioners to use alternative methods of care is a threat to

conventional medicine. As a matter of fact, more than 60 percent of medical

practitioners are already using some form of complementary medicine in their

practice. So I really don't see the issue here of the College of Physicians and

Surgeons objecting to it. The only thing I can say is that they are there simply

to protect their interests, to protect their authority over having the final

word on what medical practitioners should or should not do in their practice.

I really think that this issue of confrontation is nothing but a red herring.

And I think it's one that the Liberal opposition has taken up because they are

afraid that perhaps the BCMA will not support them, will not give good financial

support in the coming election. So I challenge them. I challenge those members

who do feel that complementary medicine can be employed to stand up and speak in

favour of this bill. I challenge them to break the code of silence that their

leader has imposed on them. Maintaining the code of silence on any of the issues

that we're debating in this House is not doing justice to democracy. And it is

not doing justice to their constituents and to the people of British Columbia,

who want to see what positions people have on issues that are important to their

lives.

[1520]

Bill M202 is not going to determine the outcome of the next election, so

those members can feel free to stand up. Even if they put their foot in their

mouth -- and sooner or later we all do that when we stand up and speak in this

House -- they should not be afraid of retribution from their leader. They should

not be afraid of retribution from the Medical Association in terms of supporting

them in their election campaign.

This bill is not a major thing; it's a very minor amendment. It will simply

give medical practitioners the freedom to introduce complementary medicine in

their practice without the fear of being investigated by the College of

Physicians and Surgeons, and without the fear of having to lose their licence.

It's really minor in terms of law, but it is major in terms of the psychological

effect that it has on the citizens who want to pursue alternative forms of

health care for themselves.

With the bill, once it passes, medical practitioners can make use of their

knowledge and training in ancient, proven traditional forms of medicine without

the threat of being persecuted by the college and without fear of losing their

licences.

For the last five years, ever since I was elected to this House, I've had

numerous phone calls and numerous letters, and lately I've been inundated with

hundreds and hundreds of e-mails on this issue -- many of them coming from my

own constituency of Burnaby North. All of them were urging me to amend the

Medical Practitioners Act in order to allow medical practitioners to use their

best judgment in providing health care for their patients.

Indeed, I had drafted an amendment to the Medical Practitioners Act four

years ago, and I had presented it to more than one Minister of Health. But

unfortunately, other priorities dominated the legislative agenda in the past. So

I'm very pleased that this has finally come to light for debate in this

Legislature. Outside of the reservations of the Medical Association and the

College of Physicians and Surgeons and obviously of the Liberal opposition,

there is huge support for this initiative out there in the public.

[ Page 17660 ]

We heard the member for Surrey-Cloverdale giving some statistics. In British

Columbia, more than 56 percent -- I think the latest figures show over 60

percent -- of the population uses some form of complementary medicine. I've made

use of complementary medicine myself on more than one occasion. More than 15

years ago, when I had gall bladder stones, I resorted to complementary medicine

to try and alleviate the discomfort and the pain. I finally resorted to surgical

intervention, because it became an acute form.

A few years ago, when I had an automobile accident and I had back problems,

the conventional medicine ordered very powerful painkillers, which really did

not do anything for my back pain. It just suppressed the symptoms, but it did

not treat it. So I resorted again to a complementary practitioner, and believe

it or not, within a few months my back pain disappeared. My wife also had very

serious back pain for a long time. She could not walk straight. She went to the

same practitioner that I went to, and she's now almost totally free.

[1525]

I have to say that there are people who say that complementary medicine

should not be used because it has not been clinically tested, and therefore we

cannot trust it -- that it may do damage to the health of people. Well, that's

not totally true. Complementary medicine is based on thousands and thousands of

years of experimenting with people and with what herbal remedies and other types

of remedies have done to people. The advantage of that is that when one uses

complementary remedies, they are eliminating many toxic materials from entering

their bodies and from doing damage to other organs that perhaps should be

protected.

Complementary medicine, as we know, has been used by Chinese society for

thousands of years. Our first nations people used it for hundreds and hundreds

of years. Of course, they didn't have X-rays and MRIs, etc. Complementary

medicine is now being promoted by the World Health Organization as a means of

providing services to developing countries at a low cost and as a means of

lowering the cost of health services everywhere in the world. Even in the United

States, Chinese medicine is being promoted. The U.S. National Institutes of

Health office of alternative medicine is overseeing ten federally funded centres

exploring alternative treatments for cancer. So even in the U.S., the government

is intervening and is promoting complementary medicine.

The thing here is that conventional medicine does not have all the answers

for all the ills that affect some people. I have to give you an anecdotal

example that occurred in my family in the last few weeks. I have a

brother-in-law, not yet 70, who has a serious heart problem. His arteries are

blocked, and to keep going he has to take these very powerful drugs that

conventional medicine orders. My brother-in-law has faith in conventional

medicine, and he does take those drugs in order to thin his blood and let it

flow through his blocked veins.

But six or seven weeks ago his specialist decided to test a new drug on my

brother-in-law, and he gave it to him. Suddenly, about three weeks ago, my

brother-in-law woke up in the middle of the night. He had a stomach upset and he

felt nauseated, so obviously he went to the bathroom to empty his stomach. To

his dismay and shock, all he emptied was blood. Obviously that scared the heck

out of him. Immediately he called the ambulance, and he was rushed to Vancouver

Hospital. There, of course, I must say that although emergency was full, my

brother-in-law was admitted immediately, because it was a question of life or

death. Immediately he was put on an IV and given all sorts of tests.

Well, he was kept there for four or five days. The doctors could not find out

where the bleeding was from. He was sent home. The bleeding continued for days

and days after that, until my sister finally told him to stop taking the new

medication. Well, he stopped the medication, and the bleeding stopped. So when

people here say that complementary medicine has not been clinically tested .

. . . Well, traditional, conventional medicine perhaps has had some kind

of testing in the laboratory, but you know, that medication doesn't always work

as it does in the laboratory. It doesn't have the proper effect that it should

have on individuals who go there and hope to be treated.

So you see, most doctors, when they order powerful pharmaceutical drugs,

don't really know the effects of those drugs. They go on a trial-and-error

basis. The problem with that is that those drugs are very, very damaging to the

system many, many times. They're very invasive.

[1530]

Again, I keep referring to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. She gave

statistics that in the U.S. about 135,000 people a year die because of the type

of drugs conventional medicine has ordered for them. That is scary. This is why

today more and more people are looking to complementary medicine to treat the

illnesses or the problems they have, because complementary medicine addresses

the causes of illnesses, not just the symptoms. It gives patients a greater role

in their healing process.

It is a widely known fact that complementary medicine is practised all over

the world. I mentioned China, but in Europe the prescription from most

practitioners, when you go to them, is usually a herbal remedy combined with

some form of dietary regime. We know very well that even the Queen of England

uses complementary medicine. In fact, her personal physician is a homeopath.

Now, I don't know if we can take that as saying that complementary medicine

should not be considered quackery, but obviously the Queen of England is not the

only one who uses practitioners like that.

In Germany doctors order ozone therapy to treat many, many serious illnesses.

As a matter of fact, in the German medical system not just ozone therapies but

mud baths are part not only of the health system but of the social benefits the

state offers to its people and pays for. The same thing happens in Italy and in

France as well. Things like homeopathy, which I've spoken about, acupuncture,

environmental medicine, botanicals, orthomolecular medicine -- vitamins and

minerals -- and chelation therapy make up what we call complementary medicine.

Now, there is nothing harmful about those things. If some medical

practitioner does not follow proper procedures and does do some damage to a

patient, obviously the College of Physicians and Surgeons, upon some complaint,

can still investigate, even after we approve this bill. This bill does not take

away the power of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to investigate, but it

does prevent them from doing it on an arbitrary basis. And when they do have to

investigate, it does say that on the investigative body there should be at least

representation from the Association of Complementary Physicians.

You know, alternative medicine may not be the salvation of everybody, just as

drug-based therapies are not. But per-

[ Page 17661 ]

haps a combination of conventional medicine and complementary medicine could

be the solution for many, many people. As a matter of fact, Dr. W.H. Kirkaldy-Willis

wrote in a letter to the Victoria Times Colonist just last Saturday. If I

can find it I will read it. He is a retired doctor, I believe. He said this:

"Throughout the world, North America included, year by year more and

more patients are seeking help from therapists in these branches of

medicine."

He was talking about alternative and complementary medicine. He continues:

"Physicians and surgeons are more and more satisfied with the help they

get from their colleagues in other disciplines as they learn that for many

conditions, other therapists can give the patient more effective and more

cost-effective treatment.

"For 20 years in Kenya and 25 years in Saskatoon my work was made much

easier by relying on the help I obtained from osteopath, chiropractor and

physiotherapist.

"I learned to regard these people as valuable colleagues whose help

complemented my work as an orthopedic surgeon. As I look back, I see that I

could not have managed without them. By working together in combination we were

able to formulate regimes of treatment that were more effective than either of

us could have used on our own."

He closes by saying that orthodox and alternative medicine complement one

another and that this is the way for the future. This is from a surgeon who

practised for 40 years or more. He finds that doctors should work together.

[1535]

I mentioned that most of us have anecdotal references as to why we choose

alternative medicine, and I have to give you another one before I close.

Am I running out of time? No. Okay.

I taught French for 21 years before I was elected. For 15 of those 21 years I

was department head, and for seven or eight years of those years I taught with a

lovely lady from Glasgow. I had to pay careful attention when she spoke with a

Scottish accent. This lady was very big on vitamins. She seemed to live only for

the sake of vitamins, even though her energy level didn't seem to go up that

much. But suddenly one year about 12 years ago she discovered what we may call

the scourge of women's diseases: breast cancer. Needless to say, that was a

shock to her. It was devastating news. She didn't lose control, because she had

been used to complementary medicine.

Now, her first reaction to that, obviously, was to go to a specialist in

breast cancer -- conventional medicine -- and she did go there. She was

examined, of course, and she was told what the remedies would be. The remedy,

like most women have to do, was to remove the breast and to be subjected to very

heavy doses of chemotherapy and radiation. They also told her that she had

probably only two years to live.

It wasn't happy news, but this woman was used to other types of medicines, so

she turned to her medical practitioners who practised complementary medicine.

She also decided to change her lifestyle. She quit teaching: first, through a

leave of absence and then, totally quitting. She went to some country in South

America to get away from stress. She subjected herself to a form of

complementary treatment that suited her body. Well, it's now 12 years later.

This colleague of mine is very much alive, is very happy. She has full control

of her body, and she did not have to lose any parts of her body. This was due to

alternative therapeutic treatments.

I think I've spoken enough. I'm pleased, again, to support Bill M202, Medical

Practitioners Amendment Act, 2001, because in my view, it does not detract from

conventional medicine. I think it adds to it that touch of personal involvement

and personal responsibility that's paramount in determining one's health care

needs.

If conventional medicine was so superior to complementary medicine, we should

not have cancer existing today still, AIDS not being cured today, heart disease

rampant and killing the majority of people in our society -- well, of people

with heart sicknesses. Conventional medicine or the standard medicine that we

all go to is not perfect. Until they reach that stage of perfection, I think

there is room for alternative and complementary medicine in our province, in our

country and around the world, where it is already being practised.

Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the chance to speak for so long.

S. Orcherton: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery are two tremendous activists

supporting complementary therapies for the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Joining us is Ms. Judy Kubrak and Ms. Sandy Simpson. They are listening with

intense interest to this debate, and I'd ask the House to please make them

welcome.

[1540]

Hon. J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to speak to this private

member's bill. Like many members who have spoken before me in the House today, I

have also had wonderful experiences with alternative medicine. In fact, on two

occasions in my life I've had access to this service, and it actually improved

my health significantly.

The first instance was actually some years ago when I had torn the ligaments

in my foot. I was on crutches. I was on painkillers. I was on all kinds of

things and also going through different therapies to heal my foot.

Unfortunately, that process was rather unsuccessful. It took many, many months,

and my foot was not healing properly. Finally, on the advice of my mother, who

suggested that I should go and see a Chinese herbalist who provided medication

for these kinds of injuries, I went to see an herbalist in Chinatown in

Vancouver. The herbalist provided me with this concoction of stuff. I have to

tell you that it was actually awful-looking, and it smelled even stronger than

it looked. Nonetheless, this material was given to me. It was taped onto my

foot, and after two weeks of the applied pressure of the medication, my foot

actually healed.

I'm not saying that this is some sort of magical situation. It's just simply

my own personal experience of how my foot did not heal for the longest time, and

after seeing the herbalist, it did. It gave me much relief, and I was soon able

to lose the crutches and to walk again.

Another situation that actually occurred to me was much more serious than the

first incident. I was actually in my early twenties, and I was in a series of

car accidents -- in fact, three car accidents, all within a one-to-two-year

period. I was rendered very sick and unable to do a lot of activities. In fact,

[ Page 17662 ]

most of the time I was lying on the floor with my back on the ground and my

feet up. Even if I went for short walks, I experienced excruciating pain,

headaches and the whole works.

Again, I went through a whole series of medications. I went to see the

doctors in different therapies and took painkillers and anti-inflammatories, to

no avail. My condition just got worse and worse. And because I took so much

medication, it also weakened my immune system significantly. Consequently, I was

exposed to every single flu bug there ever was that entered into my system, and

I was constantly sick with bronchitis and the like.

After a couple of years in this state, when I was just about to give up in

terms of ever actually being healthy again, at the advice of my mother . .

. . She said perhaps I should go and seek alternative medicine.

I thought, well, what have I got to lose? So I went and tried it, and once

again, through that experience, I was given medication -- a variety of different

herbs which were to be prepared under various different instructions. I was on

that medication for a couple of months, and I stopped getting sick. I stopped

getting ill with the flu, I got rid of my bronchitis that seemed never to go

away, seemed to be with me all year around, and slowly but surely I began to

heal.

That was my own personal experience with alternative medicine and how it did

work for me. To that end, I'm very excited about this bill. I know that there

are a lot of practitioners out there who are eager and engaged in providing

health options. In many ways that's how I look at this bill -- as providing a

variety of health options to individuals who are dealing with health challenges

in their lives. I think it is also about expanding preventive health care in

many ways, because a lot of alternative medicine is about that. It isn't just

about the healing process; it is about prevention as well.

Is that to say that all of it will work for everyone? I don't think so, and I

don't think any of the members would claim that that is the case. But it may

work for somebody at some point with particular illnesses, and that's what this

bill is about.

[1545]

I think it is important, as we enter into an arena where health care costs

are expanding, that treatment and options also need to be expanded. And

practitioners who provide those treatments need to be engaged in an environment

where they can be free and unencumbered to provide for these alternative health

care approaches for British Columbians.

From the Chinese community's point of view, about five years ago I had the

great pleasure to meet with a group of alternative medicine practitioners. Some

of them were acupuncturists, and some of them were traditional Chinese medicine

practitioners. Some were a combination of both.

At that time, they were working very hard to have government recognize the

importance of this alternative form of medicine. They were requesting and

working with government to establish a college that would manage and regulate

traditional Chinese medicine along with acupuncture as a unified approach to

alternative medicine. They were having many difficulties in that process, being

unfamiliar with the process and how to work within the government agencies and

the bureaucracy and so on, and they came and sought my advice. I spoke with them

at length in terms of how they could participate, what the rules were and how to

move forward on establishing the college. After much hard work and volunteer

work from the people who participated in this process, they were successful in

creating, with government, the first college of traditional Chinese medicine and

acupuncture. It's the first of its kind in Canada, and the community is very,

very proud of that.

Why did the community want the college? They wanted to make sure that there

are regulations in place and that people look towards them to make sure that the

conduct of practitioners is appropriate. So it's not to say that the people who

engage in and want to engage in the traditional alternative form of medicine

don't want any oversight in their conduct. Of course they do, because it is

about protection of professionalism as well. But at the same time, there's a

balance in which we want to set those standards in place, and there's a balance

in which you don't want to unduly prohibit or prevent people from entering into

the practice -- whether it be perception or in actuality of how people are

reviewing the work they do and the conduct they engage in when they're providing

for this very important expanded health option.

The college is now actually established, and they have their own registrar.

They are registering people who are providing this alternative form of medicine

and people who have met various different standards, so you know, again, that

there are qualified people out in the field who are providing this form of

medicine.

In particular, I want to mention the current president of the Society of

Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncturists, Man Tak Chau, who's worked so

hard in this regard in moving this forward. I know they're going to welcome this

bill, because it does expand the options for people who are doctors right now

that may also provide for and engage in this alternative form of medicine. It

also makes it easier for people to engage in that regard.

Therefore I am very proud of the work we have done as a government in moving

forward to provide health options and preventive health strategies to our

broader community.

This reminds me of other nations that have engaged in alternative medicines

for many, many years. Aside from the Chinese community, I think about the

aboriginal community. In fact, for them it's not really known as an alternative

medicine approach. It's their traditional medicine approach -- a health approach

-- in dealing with illnesses, and so on.

More and more people are exploring those options in terms of what those

options are. More and more I think we need to engage in providing less

difficulty and access to this form of medicine and preventive health care. And

more and more I think we need to embrace all the different approaches in dealing

with our health care system.

I have no doubt that with this approach we will lessen the burden placed on

our Ministry of Health with the huge dollars and budgets that are put forward to

try to deal with our health care services. If we can prevent illness to begin

with, the savings to both the individual and to the broader health care system

are significant, and this is valuable. We must explore all of these different

kinds of options to move forward to creating healthy communities and healthy

individuals.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of my hon. colleague

the member for Victoria-Hillside for his vision, for his forward thinking, for

his approach in bringing

[ Page 17663 ]

this matter before the House and for working towards bridging health care

options and ensuring that this range of options is available to all British

Columbians.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today. I welcome all of the members'

participation in this debate, as we work towards building healthier communities

for all British Columbians.

[1550]

Hon. G. Robertson: I rise today to speak in support of Bill M202,

Medical Practitioners Amendment Act. It's a wonderful bill.

Some people may wonder what complementary medicine is, in fact -- how you

would define it and what the interaction and relationship is between

complementary medicine, with respect to today's medical practitioners and the

types of health care services that are delivered.

Complementary medicine supports the body's ability to heal itself by offering

safe, effective, non-toxic therapies, free from the side effects of prescription

drugs. It looks at the causes of illness rather than suppressing symptoms.

Complementary medicine includes treatments such as environmental medicine,

acupuncture, botanicals, orthomolecular medicine, vitamins, minerals, chelation

therapy and homeopathy.

Many people are familiar with them, and many people throughout British

Columbia and in my constituency utilize these services. In fact, there was a

study done by Statistics Canada in 1996, and there are over three million people

who have sought medical treatment outside the conventional medical establishment

-- and that was back in 1996. These were basically treatments that were free

from the side effects of drugs and therapy.

Many other countries have a broader range of therapies and treatments, and

these therapies that they have are incorporated into modern medicine and modern

medicine technologies. For instance, in Germany they have used ozone therapy for

over 30 years. I have a number of constituents who use and support complementary

medicine: Lesia Davis, Edward Fauchon, Shannon Scott, Sheila Jenner -- to name a

few. I've talked to Sheila over the course of the last few years, and she's used

chelation therapy very, very successfully and supports it.

Patients and physicians support complementary therapies. But I think one of

the problems is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

continues to intimidate and investigate physicians who practise complementary

medicine, even though no patients have complained in respect to physicians using

these therapies for many, many years. And that in itself is concerning.

Doctors practising complementary medicine have had files removed without

patients' consent, and doctors with absolutely no training in complementary

medicine in many instances were appointed to undertake investigations into the

practice of complementary medicine therapies. This is also concerning. The

investigations were one of animosity, hostility and intimidation and were not

open to public review. Numerous physicians have been investigated and harassed

by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for using

chelation therapy. A lot of people with heart and coronary problems have used

this, in their opinion, very successfully in British Columbia.

[1555]

Over the years several community organizations and numerous individuals have

approached politicians in British Columbia to find a solution to this dilemma.

The Citizens Supporting Complementary Medicine from Vancouver Island, the

Chelation Association of British Columbia and the Citizens Supporting

Complementary Medicine have all worked hard to ensure that complementary

medicine is supported in British Columbia.

I really would like to commend the member for Victoria-Hillside on all his

hard work to introduce the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act. He's done a lot

of hard work with community groups throughout British Columbia, and he's really

to be commended for that.

The amendment is consistent with the principles of the Helsinki agreement,

which Canada signed a number of years ago. The agreement reads as follows:

"In the treatment of the sick person, the physician must be free to use a

new diagnostic and therapeutic measure if, in his or her judgment, it offers

hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering." This

amendment will create an environment more conducive to beneficial results in

medicine and will enhance patient care through greater choice in health care,

which I believe is extremely important.

Doctors have risked discipline in the past from the College of Physicians and

Surgeons if they offer an alternative treatment to their patients first. This

amendment will protect the doctors who offer these options. This amendment

prohibits the college from adopting its own bylaws to supersede those created by

this amendment.

There are also numerous instances where legislation has been passed. The

province of Ontario passed similar legislation in December 2000, as have Alberta

and Nova Scotia. They've also passed similar amendments to the medical acts over

the past few years. A recent study found that 78 percent of the doctors are

practising some form of complementary medicine today in Ontario. Twelve U.S.

states have passed similar legislation, and 13 others are in the process of

creating legislation as well.

Health care in British Columbia and Canada today is under tremendous stress,

and there are a lot of reasons for that. Money is part of it. The federal

government is a big part of that. I think we really have to take a look at all

the options. Alternative or complementary medicine is definitely an option and

an opportunity here in British Columbia. Great numbers of British Columbians use

it on an ongoing basis. We also have to look at community health care and

education -- not only for the adult population in British Columbia but also for

our children in school -- and at things like nutrition and exercise and, of

course, modern medicine as well.

I think it's obviously a different approach, and one that's embraced by many.

It provides options and provides balance. Again, I can't say enough about the

member for Victoria-Hillside. I know he's worked on this bill over the course of

many months, and it will be well appreciated by a large constituency in this

province. I certainly support this bill, and on behalf of my constituents and

those who utilize complementary medicine, this bill will make a difference.

F. Randall: I am certainly pleased to rise and support this private

member's bill that was presented by the member for Victoria-Hillside: Bill M202,

the Medical Practitioners Amend

[ Page 17664 ]

ment Act, 2001. I'm also pleased that the government has supported this

private member's bill to come before this House. This is indeed very rare.

[1600]

I have seen cases where individuals have been told they have up to six months

to live -- various periods of time -- and I know a lot of cases personally where

people have tried other methods and have been very successful -- particularly

people I know who have had cancer. It's sort of a dead-end road there. I know

people now who are out playing golf and certainly doing just fine. In fact, I

had lunch in the dining room here last week with a person who was a goner in

1996, and he's just a picture of health today. He certainly explained to me the

number of different options and things that he tried. It may not make you live

forever, but it may extend your period of life that you have available.

Also, I've met quite a few people who practise Chinese medicine. There's an

association that has about 800 people who practise herbalism and acupuncture and

various things. I spoke to them about who their patients are, and they say that

85 percent of the people who go to Chinese medicine practitioners are

Caucasians. I found that very interesting.

I know in my case, about 20 years ago I had a very bad right elbow, and I

couldn't hold a tennis racket at all. Nothing the doctors could do could solve

the problem after a year. I went and tried reflexology -- had my feet worked on.

Some people thought I was crazy. They said: "What do you mean,

reflexology?" I said: "Well, I had two treatments, and I haven't had a

problem with my elbow in 20 years." They almost look at you like you're a

quack if you say that you have a person rub your feet. I still do it on an

ongoing basis, strictly as maintenance. Why wait till you've got a problem? And

I enjoy my feet being worked on anyway.

I just look at all of the things that are happening with regard to health

matters. I just look at the growth in health food stores. Some of them are

supermarkets now, almost. They have everything in the way of health things. My

own doctor, who's a general practitioner, just came back from the United States

about a year or so ago. He had worked about four years in the U.S. and then

moved to Burnaby. He certainly isn't bashful about using acupuncture himself if

he feels it is necessary; I know, because he stuck me with some needles one day.

So a lot of this stuff is going on. For most people, if a doctor feels you've

got some problems and should try some other kind of method, I think it's

certainly worth doing. Usually western medicine is sort of disease-based -- you

have a problem when you're involved with it --

whereas complementary medicine

looks to nutrition, exercise and prevention in the healing process. It supports

the body's ability to heal itself by offering safe, effective, non-toxic

therapies free from the side effects of prescription drugs. And many of the

drugs today have side effects, as we all know. It seeks to address the cause of

the illness rather than to suppress symptoms.

Natural treatments offer patients a greater sense of control over the healing

process. People are drawn to complementary medicine for many reasons, including

adverse effects of conventional treatments, or because of its focus on the whole

person. Studies completed in 1997 show that 42 percent of Canadians seek

alternative medical therapies, and in B.C. 56 percent seek these remedies.

[1605]

The traditional Chinese medicine, we all know, has been around for -- what is

it? -- over 4,000 years. So they must have learned a few things in that period

of time. B.C. was the first jurisdiction in North America to give official

recognition to the practice of TCM by recognizing it under the Health

Professions Act and allowing the title "Doctor" for its practitioners.

Since 1999, when acupuncture received recognition in B.C., 400 acupuncturists

have been licensed in B.C. A recent Canada health monitor survey of 2,500 adults

found that more than 50 percent had used a complementary treatment in the past

six months. Last year over 42 percent of adults in the U.S. used some form of

alternative treatment, according to a survey conducted by Landmark Healthcare

Inc. in California.

I guess the question arises: shouldn't the patients have a choice as to how

they want to deal with their health and determine . . . ? It's their

body. That's the argument.

This amendment prohibits the college from adopting its own bylaws to

supersede those created by this amendment. Doctors will still be under the

regulations of the college; however, if the college is going to investigate a

doctor for using alternative therapies, the Association of Complementary

Physicians of B.C. must be included as well. This will ensure that doctors who

understand complementary therapies are among those participating in the

judgment, offering a more fair investigation.

Complementary medicine is not a new treatment -- unlike conventional

medicine, which has only significantly developed over the past 100 years. If one

wants to discuss using treatments without scientific evidence, why not look at

all the unsafe treatments that conventional medicine has brought to us?

I believe this has been mentioned previously also. Four provinces have now

passed legislation. Ontario passed legislation in December 2000. Alberta, Nova

Scotia and Saskatchewan have all passed amendments to their medical acts within

the past few years.

A study recently conducted found that 78 percent of doctors in Ontario are

already practising some form of complementary medicine, 12 U.S. states have

passed legislation, and 13 others are in the process of creating legislation as

well.

In closing, I just wanted to get up and say a few words on this, because I

know so many people that are doing all kinds of different things. They feel good

about what they're doing, and I think that's certainly very important. But the

first thing we talk about is health. We say to anybody when they retire:

"Have a healthy, happy retirement." On New Year's, we say: "Have

a healthy, happy New Year." Health is foremost in any good wishes that

people give.

I think it's an ever-changing world with regard to new methods, new medicine.

I know the biotech . . . . In fact, I buy a few shares in some of

these biotech companies. They're trying to find a replacement for blood now, and

I hope they find it. Just the other day on CKNW I was listening to a woman who

was suggesting that dandelions were worth looking at as far as another form of

vitamin or whatever. I just couldn't imagine eating dandelions, but who knows?

Maybe next week I will be. So I certainly support the concept and the ideas. As

I mentioned earlier, it's an ever-changing and fast-changing world, and I would

certainly encourage all members to support this historic private member's bill.

As previously mentioned also, I think the member for Victoria-Hillside cer

[ Page 17665 ]

tainly deserves an awful lot of credit, because this bill would not be before

us right now without his initiative. Again, thank you very much.

[1610]

P. Priddy: I too rise to support this bill. I think it's interesting

to think about: why here in British Columbia and why now? I must admit that it

has happened in other provinces before British Columbia, and in hindsight we

might have thought British Columbia would be first. But we know from research

that's been done that in British Columbia, there is a greater openness to

alternative and complementary treatments, to looking at all kinds of

alternatives. I think, also, that in British Columbia there is an openness to

looking at what people call holistic. We can at least call it looking at the

whole person in terms of their health, whether that's their physical health or

their emotional health or their spiritual health -- whatever that might be. But

there is a greater openness to looking at that, if you will, whole person.

So why now? Well, I think it's extremely timely although behind some other

provinces. But in this day and age, I think any of us who read any of the health

journals or simply read the newspapers on any kind of regular basis know that we

have a much more informed public -- about their own health, health care issues,

new developments, new drugs, new technologies -- than we have ever had before.

As someone who has been in the privileged position of being the Minister of

Health, I know how often we've been approached by people who had heard about a

new treatment, a new drug, a new homeopathic treatment or a chemical compound,

and were telling us about it.

So it's a very informed public today about health care issues. It's also a

public that does a great deal of research about health in general, health care

issues, and about what their own health care issues might be. I once had a

family physician say to me that he occasionally felt like an air traffic

controller at an airport -- he meant that quite respectfully -- because his

patients would come in with an armful of research and a thought about where they

should go next. Now, bearing in mind that that did need some discussion, it did

mean that people were doing a lot of research about alternatives, about

complementary treatment, about traditional treatment, whatever that might be --

a lot more research.

And we have a lot more Internet access today, certainly here in British

Columbia and across the country. People are using that. They're using it for

their research, but they're also using it to talk to other people who may be

faced with similar health challenges or have tried particular kinds of

treatments. The caution, always, with Internet access to health care information

is that it doesn't have a quality control on it, so I think we always have to

think sensibly when we take information off the Internet about health issues.

Nevertheless, there is this wide range of information and other people that

people can now access. So that's another part of the "why now?" here

in British Columbia.

I think, too, that it is a time when people want more choices about how to

keep their bodies healthy. Again, whether that's emotional or physical or mental

or spiritual, they want more choices about how they do that, rather than a more

traditional perhaps -- at least, for some people -- narrow range of choices.

Although, there are certainly people who are part of our society -- and, I

think, probably people who have been in the gallery the last couple of days --

who have always pushed the edges of having a wide variety of choices in their

health care. Perhaps even around the province that would be the case, in

different geographic areas. So I think that the push for more choice about our

health care or our bodies or healthy bodies is part of the "why now?"

as well.

We also have -- in terms of the "why now?" -- knowledge that we

didn't have before. I don't think that if you asked people 20 years ago about

the history of aboriginal healing or the history of traditional Chinese

medicine, people would have known very much about it. The words might have

triggered something, but in general, I don't think people would have known very

much about it. We know a lot more now about other kinds of healing than we knew

before. We have aboriginal healers who are acknowledged healers in this province

-- acknowledged healers, actually, under our medical care system -- who bring

their history and knowledge and skill around aboriginal healing to the people

that they work with, as well as what we know about traditional Chinese medicine

and about medicine and treatment from other cultures. So we have more

information.

[1615]

I find myself a bit surprised that I'm standing to support this bill, and I

do thank the member for Victoria-Hillside for all the work that he has done. I

think that if you had asked me 15 years ago if I'd be standing here supporting

this kind of a bill, I would have said no. I wouldn't have. I mean, I was

trained originally as a nurse, so I think that for most of my adult life I

believed that traditional treatment was what people should look at. And other

things didn't have the same kind of credibility for me. I was wrong. So to find

myself here, actually . . . . It's both a surprise and a delight to

be able to support this bill as well.

My own experiences . . . . Many people have talked about their

own experiences. When I was diagnosed in 1996 with breast cancer, I certainly

chose all the traditional forms of treatment that were available: surgery,

radiation, chemotherapy -- all those kinds of things. But I also was able --

probably for the first time for me, because I've had this great blessing of

being very healthy -- to push out the edges and look at other kinds of things.

It was, for me, the first time in my life that I would have accessed things like

therapeutic touch, like acupuncture -- things that I'd never had any experience

with before -- as a result of being placed in that position of having breast

cancer and therefore needing to look at not only traditional treatments but what

the other things were that were going to keep me healthy so that those

traditional treatments could also work.

So the word "complementary" for me is really important. Some people

may consider it an either-or, and people have the right to do that. I certainly

don't consider it an either-or. It didn't occur to me that I would not do

surgery or chemotherapy or radiation. I mean, I knew I would. But suddenly there

were complementary things that would keep my whole body healthy. And by keeping

my whole self healthy, I think I enabled myself to heal in a more effective and

perhaps more efficient way.

I think it's important to acknowledge that all treatments -- traditional,

complementary, alternative, non-traditional, or whatever term people choose to

use -- are open to doing research. I mean, I don't think anybody's saying that

people should not question the validity or efficacy of any kind of treatment,

whether that's traditional treatment or complemen-

[ Page 17666 ]

tary treatment. We should. As patients we should question it. Therefore I

would certainly support research going on not only in the traditional areas that

it does but also in the areas of complementary medicine. And there is certainly

some of that research currently going on.

Most of us have talked, in a way, about a broader range of complementary

medicine, but this bill in particular does speak to the protection of physicians

from being, I think, investigated solely because of their use of a complementary

treatment. The College of Physicians and Surgeons has a really important role to

play, and they should continue to play it. They monitor what happens in the

province, they investigate where it should be investigated, and they investigate

many physicians around traditional treatment as well. But I don't think we

should treat complementary medicine in a different way than traditional medicine

when we look at how a physician who uses it should be viewed.

When I first graduated from nursing in 1965, children born with the effects

of thalidomide were about a year and a half or two years old. I happened to be

working at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, and we saw a number of

children who had very definitely in their bodies the effects of thalidomide --

babies with abnormal or atypical limbs, particularly arms, and other kinds of

anomalies. That taught me a very powerful lesson: just because there's a

traditional treatment or a traditional drug that is prescribed, that doesn't

somehow make it automatically safe. We have a number of adults in this country

who are now in their late thirties, probably, or early thirties, who have had

challenges because of a traditional drug prescription. So I don't think that we

can think that somehow if it's traditional, as we've always looked at it, it's

absolutely perfectly safe, and if it's complementary, then somehow there are far

more questions around it. We should ask questions of all kinds of treatments.

[1620]

One of things that acknowledging this and passing this kind of legislation

does, and acknowledging the legitimacy of complementary medicine, is that it

actually makes it safer. Maybe other speakers have used this example, but with

the acknowledgment of the effectiveness of acupuncture, we have established a

college of acupuncture. As a result of that, there's more monitoring and more

accountability. So just by that acknowledgment, we begin to bring a higher

degree of safety and monitoring to those other areas into which people are

obviously moving. People are going to seek those treatments anyway, so if we

have colleges that are monitoring and making sure that people have the proper

training and are accountable, then we will all benefit from that.

As I say, I think the key to the use of complementary medicine -- and to

patients who go to physicians who either they're asking for complementary

medicine from or who are already providing that -- is that they are an informed

patient. We want people to have as much information, ask as many questions as

they want to and as they should be entitled to -- which we are seeing much more

of.

I think that this particular bill . . . . It's not groundbreaking

in the country; other provinces have taken this step before we have. But I think

it's an important step to take. It is respectful of where we find ourselves in

health care in this day and age, which is: informed patients asking questions,

asking for more choice and knowing that their physicians who may offer that

choice to them will not be at risk. So I'm pleased to stand and support this,

hon. Speaker.

D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I have just walked into the chamber, and I'm

delighted that my timing is good. Indeed, I was apprehensive about the fact that

in this bill as with so many others, I wouldn't have an opportunity to say

anything. A number of them, I have wanted to talk about. The difficulty is, of

course -- and what an irony -- from members opposite who are not participating

in the debate, and then those of us who do speak are accused of filibustering.

You can understand, then, my apprehensions.

I'm not going to be long on this bill, but I do want to go on record. I

listened to my colleague the member for Surrey-Newton, who as a former Minister

of Health and with training as a nurse began -- I think quite courageously --

saying that some ten or 15 years ago she would not have felt comfortable

supporting the measure.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

I must confess that I can offer a similar kind of perception and experience,

coming as I do from that academic realm where evidence-based conclusions are the

only game in town, and so forth and so on. But I, as she, have come to the

conclusion that this measure is indeed worth supporting. That doesn't mean for a

moment that one accepts all the propositions embedded in it. You don't accept

all the notions and all of the claims that are made for complementary medicine.

But by the same token, you don't go the other direction and say, because the

medical establishment tells us that this is not based on good science or hard

science or evidence, that therefore it is to be peremptorily dismissed. That's

where I find myself, because I can recall very vividly some ten or 15 years ago

encountering a group of people in the area where I live on Vancouver Island who

had been fighting the fight for chelation therapy for years and years, and they

presented all kinds of what we would call anecdotal evidence to support their

conclusions. In the world of contemporary science and medicine, anecdotal

evidence doesn't count for anything.

But there, I think, ironically enough, is the tragedy, because anecdotal

evidence is indeed evidence-based. It's just that it doesn't measure up to the

arbitrarily imposed, so-called scientific standard. I think of that. And I

recognize, in dealing with all of those people who were advocating for chelation

therapy, that some very articulate, bright, successful and competent individuals

were all able to present, frankly, very compelling evidence and arguments as to

why it worked for them.

[1625]

Here's the rub: the grand irony, remember, of the scientific revolution is

that when Galileo tried to introduce the whole concept of scientific method and

evidence as being the only basis for argument, what did he base it on? He based

it on a simple observation. When the church said to him, "This is the

existing rule of how we perceive the universe, that indeed the Earth is the

centre of the universe, and the sun rotates around it," and all of that

stuff, Galileo's answer to that was to simply say, "Look up there. Look

through this telescope and see what is actually happening" -- in other

words, the evidence of your own eyes. What you could see was in fact happening.

I wish my Italian friend from Burnaby was still here so I could test out

Galileo's expression, " Epur si muove " -- and yet it moves.

Galileo's whole point was: "Look at the evidence; it's there." And

that's what all of the people who are standing

[ Page 17667 ]

behind this girl introduced by my friend from Victoria are saying:

"Look. Don't persecute these people for finding something that works."

We may not be able to demonstrate conclusively, scientifically and in an

evidentiary way that it works, but it does. That, I think, is one of the reasons

why I feel pretty good about supporting this. It is simply doing what we have

good reason to do.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone on for some while, and therefore

I can't make the longer speech I wanted to. But the other reason I feel good

about this is because this particular measure, thanks to the efforts of the

member for Victoria-Hillside, does something that this Legislature has not done

in all the years that I have been here. It responds to a particular demand by

citizens rather than by those of us who represent the citizens deciding what

shall be brought forward. This is a citizens' movement. Those citizens have

banded together and found somebody to support their cause in the person of my

colleague, and they have successfully managed to get the bill this far.

We are debating here the principle of the bill, I note, and on that basis I

have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the bill. I want to say, though, in

fairness, that I have taken some time, and I have read the position paper of the

College of Physicians and Surgeons, and I think they have some legitimate

questions. My hope is that in the course of committee stage of this debate, we

will be able to address those questions. My reading of the bill leads me to the

conclusion that this is not nearly as restrictive as the college would suggest

it is. Rather, it is about choices to be made. I don't think the bill is

coercive; I think it is rather enabling in nature. For those few reasons, I am

pleased to stand here and offer my support for the bill.

Finally, I want to note the other statement I have read: the document

produced by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This is their position on

the ethical principles that physicians ought to follow. I note in reading that

document that it seems to me that every single one of those principles, those

ethical principles that physicians talk about, is indeed accommodated in the

legislation here before us, save one. And that is simply the one that says as

follows: "The ethical physician must not associate with or refer patients

to alternative practitioners who recommend unproven over proven therapies."

And that, I think, is the nub of the issue.

My point would be just this. I don't think that qualifies, quite frankly, as

an ethical principle. The assumption there is surely writ large that only one

kind of treatment counts, only one kind of evidence counts. To suggest that

that's an ethical principle, I would suggest, is stretching it a bit. I don't

have training in medicine, but I do have some training in ethics, and I think

I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that. With that, I am very pleased to offer

my support for second reading on this particular bill.

[1630]

Hon. C. Evans: I rise of course to speak on private member's bill

M202. But I'm also quite pleased to be rising to speak essentially in support of

greater access to complementary therapies, which is at the heart of the private

member's bill.

We all know -- and lots of members have said -- that over the last few years

there has been an increase in interest in lots of complementary therapies in

health care services not only here in B.C. but across Canada and, I would argue,

many countries. This cultural shift is powered, I think, to a great degree by an

increasingly aware and educated and informed public who wish to have a greater

role in their own treatment and therapy that they receive from their doctors.

That is the wish, as well, of the government and I think would be the wish of

any aware government in the modern age.

It is ridiculous to define health care as an external process, and it is

necessary to engage the citizens themselves in their own well-being. To the

extent that this bill assists us to drive in that direction, it strikes me as

simply going where governments and provinces across Canada desire their citizens

to go. It really doesn't matter if governments desire their citizens to go there

or not. Happily, there's a confluence in this occasion, but that's where

citizens are going anyway.

It is not like a totally new thing. Lots of complementary therapies have been

in use for literally thousands of years. In fact, there is at least one irony in

this entire debate, in that what we are calling complementary today predates

what we in British Columbia ordinarily call traditional. In fact, the reverse is

true in terms of history around the world.

When this debate began, the opposition health care critic got up and said

that he wished to hear the Health minister speak on this bill. He said that he

found it to be a divisive bill. His comments suggested that the hon. member was

sort of well-meaning or had a good heart or could be forgiven for trying to do

something good, but that the introduction of legislation in the attempt to do

something good was a divisive tactic, and therefore the opposition would oppose

this initiative.

Hon. Speaker, I'm dismayed by that position. For starters, I've worked over

here for a long time -- nigh on ten years. I've often listened to people on the

other side talk about the need to democratize the process in this place, about

the need to be able to hear from the back bench, and for participation in

committees and in this building by members of all parties and independents. Here

we come to a moment when an hon. member who does not hold a portfolio brings

forward an initiative, and the response is to heckle and call it divisive. It

seems to me to be precisely the democratization of this building and this room,

and of governance, that hon. members have asked for.

I'm somewhat dismayed, as well, because in the hon. critic's words there was

a suggestion that the use of this building, and the power of law or regulation,

was a divisive tactic and would get in the way of progressive change. When we

used this building to empower midwives in health care, was that divisive? Should

we have just kept our mouths shut and done it somewhere quietly? Would it be

less divisive to just make changes out there and not bring them in here into the

light of day? On the contrary, when you behave in that fashion . . . .

[1635]

I come from a constituency where there is a cultural tradition of home

births. When you don't bring change in here and bring regulatory change into

governance, you get change in secret -- and it's dangerous. I am somewhat

chagrined and saddened. The region of my constituency has, I think, the highest

infant mortality rate in the province, or one of the highest. That is because of

the fact that in terms of health care, we chose activities out there that, for

fear of being divisive, we didn't bring in here and make those changes in the

light of day, like with midwives.

[ Page 17668 ]

I think the member should be celebrated for bringing debate into the light of

day, which is happening on the street. If the critic thinks that having this

debate in public will keep it from happening every day on the street, I think

the critic is mistaken about the definition of divisive or the role of

governance. Did the critic think it was divisive when we came in here and a

previous minister moved a motion to make Chinese medicine legitimate and create

a college in British Columbia? Was that divisive? Or was it the right thing to

do and an idea whose time had come?

We are trying with health care in B.C. to move from a crisis intervention

model -- that's the historical model and the one that we all acknowledge Canada

will not be able to afford forever -- to a wellness model. We are trying to

engage the citizen -- the patient, if you will -- in their own care and

attempting, with so many of the initiatives of the health action plan and recent

changes, to say to citizens: "We'll send you a guide in the mail. Read the

guide and take a role in your own care." Is that divisive? Are these kinds

of changes -- moving away from the historical model -- divisive, or are they the

right thing to do?

One of the things, besides complementary care, that Ministers of Health have

traditionally been unwilling to talk about is the process of dying in British

Columbia. Ministers of Health are only supposed to be engaged in saving lives.

And so, historically, probably to keep from being drawn into a discussion that

scared us, we failed to make changes in palliative care that made many people's

last moments on this earth way more demeaning. And it is only in recent times

that we brought in the changes that allowed a citizen some choices around where

they die and some dignity in that process.

The fact that we're only now, in 2001, beginning to discuss that in this room .

. . . While that may be embarrassing, I don't find the fact that we are

making these changes now to be divisive. On the contrary, I think it is about

time.

I'll give you another example of what the critic might find divisive. It is

also about time, in the great drug debates, for a minister of health and people

to start talking about harm reduction, instead of the criminalization model that

is always obtained in this room. And when some hon. member has guts enough to

stand up and say that maybe it's a health care issue instead of a cops and

courts issue, will that be divisive, or will it be the right thing to do?

I would like to acknowledge, in all of this, that I cannot accept the

responsibility or the credit for having the good sense to bring this bill before

the Legislature, and neither can previous Ministers of Health or the Ministry of

Health. What is happening here is very clearly a moment of populism, a moment

where the dozen or so people in this room are being driven by the people outside

this room -- by the people writing letters, by the people crashing the

government's computer system with their e-mails, by the people writing

editorials -- by the fact that the people outside the room have moved to

understand what is necessary before we did.

[1640]

As Minister of Health, it is perhaps with a little bit of chagrin that I

didn't observe that phenomenon. But somebody did. There's a lot of people that

stood up here and gave credit to the member for Victoria-Hillside for having the

wisdom to bring a private member's bill before this House. He may have had the

wisdom to observe something that was happening, but what was happening is

happening among the broad population, and not just in British Columbia. As other

speakers have said, other provinces observed the populist movement going on out

there before we did. If the member for Victoria-Hillside deserves credit, it is

for observing where the people wanted to go.

There's an old saying. There's a crowd on the street, and there's a

politician standing and talking with his friend, and the crowd is going by. And

the politician says to his friend, "Oh, I've got to go now. There goes the

crowd, and I have to lead them," and runs to catch up with the crowd, which

is already moving down the street. This moment in this Legislature, which the

critic for the opposition calls divisive, is a moment where the citizens have

already gone. What's happening here is that we are catching up. And the member

for Victoria-Hillside is leading us in catching up with the citizens outside --

hardly divisive. I would actually call that leadership and something that

separates the brave from the timid.

Now, I want to suggest that my role in all this, besides to come here and

attempt to explain my support of the bill . . . . I also have

another role. As Minister of Health, it is my job to see that nothing that goes

on here puts anybody's health at risk or destabilizes the health care system

with which we manage society.

I have, in the last while, discussed this bill on many occasions with the

hon. member, with the hon. member's supporters, and also with ministry staff and

legal advisers and with a representative of the College of Physicians and

Surgeons. It was my concern that, while a populist initiative driven by the

people may be the right thing to do, nothing that we do here create language in

law that will destabilize the excellence of what I consider to be the best

health care system in the world. For while we have traumas and stresses, and we

must always change, keep in mind that what we're working with is the best health

care system in the world. I would like to suggest that the initial wording that

the hon. member brought to me -- that was some time ago -- is now history, as he

has worked to improve the language.

It is my belief that this process may improve the language some more, so that

all of us -- and I want the critic for the other side . . . . I know

he may be watching from somewhere. You wanted to know what I think. I think,

hon. member -- I hope you're watching this in your office -- that by the time we

are finished here, the language may be something that you can support. Far from

divisive, it will allow the people to go where they desire and protect the

institutions of the health care system that I know you believe in. So I hope

that by the time we get to third reading, hon. critic, you will come into this

room, actually participate, stand up in your place and vote with the hon. member

who, for the first time in two decades, has had the guts to advance a private

member's bill onto the agenda, in the hope that in the end you'll support him

and there will be unanimous consent.

Imagine that: a private member's bill that goes through the process and

evolves and is changed and has other people's wisdom brought to it finally

brings everybody . . . . Far from divisive, as the critic says, what

if you folks . . . ? What if the critic, wherever he is, were here

listening and heard it and decided: "The people are going there, so we'll

go there too"? Then it wouldn't be a private member's bill or the result of

populism on the street; it would be the wisdom of unanimous consent in this

room. Now you've heard, critic, wherever you are, what I think. I really hope

that you'll come in the room and express that you have now changed your mind and

support the legislation.

[ Page 17669 ]

[1645]

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I'm going to

remind members that it's not appropriate to refer to the presence or absence of

members in the House. The member for Victoria-Hillside closes debate.

S. Orcherton: Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to make some closing

remarks in respect of private member's bill M202, Medical Practitioners

Amendment Act. First, I wanted to tha