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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 21

[ Page 17695 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

The Speaker: Are there any introductions by members?

Hon. G. Janssen: Well, it's not so much an introduction as

congratulations to a friend of the House -- and, of course, our Clerk of

Committees -- Craig James, on his betrothal and future marriage to Christine

O'Driscoll. I ask the House to congratulate Craig and his future bride.

[1410]

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, let me say to Craig

and Christine that on April 15 at 3 o'clock, we won't be at Port Douglas,

Queensland, Australia, but our thoughts will be with you. So as you two

individuals join hands, hearts and your lives, we from this side of the House

wish you all the very best in your future lives together.

Hon. I. Waddell: With us in the gallery today are a number of public

health officers, and I'd like the House to welcome them: Dr. Perry Kendall, the

provincial health officer; Dr. Shaun Peck, the deputy provincial health officer;

Dr. Andrew Larder of Cranbrook, the medical health officer of the East Kootenay

health region; and Dr. Lorna Medd of Prince George, the medical health officer

of the Northern Interior health region.

We have good public health and water control in British Columbia, and after

today, we're going to have excellent water control and legislation in British

Columbia. I'd like to welcome these health officers, who will play an integral

part in it.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce today a very fine soul who has

come to see the workings of this place. I would ask the House to make very

welcome Mr. Larry Armstrong.

J. Cashore: On behalf of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and myself, I

would like to welcome Karla Decker to the gallery today. Karla started working

in this building as a sessional Hansard transcriber in 1987 and in November of

1988 began working in research for the NDP caucus. She worked in that capacity

until January 1992, when she worked for a series of MLAs including yourself, Mr.

Speaker, as MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. She also worked for Darlene

Marzari, Colin Gabelmann, Anita Hagen and the members for Prince George North,

Mission-Kent, Yale-Lillooet, Columbia River-Revelstoke, Kamloops,

Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Burnaby-Edmonds and Coquitlam-Maillardville. The

latter are two of the best MLAs she's ever worked with. This is a remarkable

record of service, and I hope that everybody will acknowledge Karla in the

appropriate way, especially given that this is the first time she has been

introduced in 12 years.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today someone here

from my riding, who is a founding member for the Cranbrook Archives, Museum and

Landmark Foundation. She's also a journalist, she's a writer, and she's been a

newspaper editor. She actually was an elected member for ten years and was the

Minister of Energy and Mines. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the

House -- give her a very hearty, warm welcome -- Anne Edwards.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to extend our welcome from this side of the

House to Anne Edwards, who served in this House for some period of time and left

in 1996. I want to welcome her from this side of the House, and we look forward

to welcoming many former New Democrats to this House in the future.

D. Symons: There's a gentleman in the gallery who day in and day out,

year in and year out, we see in the gallery. I sometimes worry about somebody,

other than we who have to be here, who's in the House that often. Campbell

Atkinson has been here so often as a teacher that I think we really should give

him a perfect attendance award. So please welcome Campbell Atkinson.

Hon. G. Janssen: Today it is my pleasure to introduce a couple that

will have been married for 61 years on June 4: Alana and Tom Cannell. During

World War II, Tom was in the Merchant Service, which participated in the

evacuation of the troops from the beaches of Dunkirk. He is one of the few

surviving Dunkirk vets. Alana and Tom were married in Southampton shortly after

his return, and they lived for many years on the Isle of Man where, of course,

one of the more famous motorcycles races -- the Isle of Man -- takes place every

year.

In the early fifties, they brought their four children to Canada. They have

now lived in Victoria for 20 years. Accompanying them is their son-in-law, Alex

Peden, whose family were Vancouver Island pioneers and instrumental in

Victoria's formative years. Alex was curator at the Royal B.C. Museum for 25

years. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1415]

Introduction of Bills

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Electronic Transactions Act.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: The Electronic Transactions Act will enshrine in

legislation British Columbia's move into the global electronic economy. The

principal purpose of the Electronic Transactions Act is to remove any

uncertainty about the legality and enforceability of electronic transactions

conducted in the province. The bill will give electronic signatures and

electronic documents the same weight in law as signatures and documents created

on paper. It will apply to both the public and the private sectors, but it will

not override any existing act that specifies whether electronic means of

communication can or cannot be used.

By building a legal framework for electronic transactions, the bill will

enable British Columbians in all parts of the province to participate fully in

the world of e-commerce. Now electronic transactions, together with traditional

methods of service delivery, will provide B.C. consumers with both choice and

protection.

[ Page 17696 ]

This legislation is based on the Uniform Electronic Commerce Act, a

legislative model that was endorsed by British Columbia and eight other

provinces at the Uniform Law Conference in Canada in September of 1999. The

Uniform Electronic Commerce Act is the basis of similar legislation enacted in

other jurisdictions throughout Canada. To date, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

the Yukon and Nova Scotia have passed legislation based on this model.

B.C. is already the most connected province in Canada. With the introduction

of B.C. Connects earlier this year, we completed the first phase of our

commitment to put government services and programs on line and to make that

access easy and convenient. It's now time to recognize in legislation the

legality of contracts, agreements and activities undertaken in British

Columbia's medium of choice, the electronic medium, in all its various

intangible but nonetheless bona fide forms.

This bill was originally introduced on July 5, 2000, as an exposure bill. We

invited comments from the public, and a number were suggested by the member for

Richmond-Steveston. To date, we have received no negative comments about this

bill, and it has received support from various stakeholders, including the Law

Society of B.C., Minister Ramsey's Business Task Force and B.C.'s information

and privacy commissioner.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT

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

a bill intituled Drinking Water Protection Act.

Hon. I. Waddell: I move that Bill 20 be introduced and read a first

time now.

Motion approved.

[1420]

Hon. I. Waddell: This bill provides a statutory framework for

protecting the quality of drinking water in British Columbia. As I've said, my

three priorities as Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks are clean water,

clean air and the best park system in the world. And we're going to fight to

keep it that way.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Against those guys -- right.

The purpose of this legislation is to enhance the protection of public health

and the environment. It strengthens the regulation of water supply systems, it

provides mechanisms for protecting water sources, and it establishes the

public's right to know about water quality. We have committed partners here: the

Ministry of Health, the UBCM, regional health officials, environmentalists and

the industry. British Columbia has been a leader in Canada in protecting the

environment, public health and drinking water. We made a commitment to work with

communities and give them greater influence in source protection and other

matters. And the Premier made that commitment last year to the UBCM.

We have consulted across the province, and people told us they want one

authority, one office, to deal with water. Environment and Health will have

joint custody of one office centrally. There will be 18 regional drinking water

officers, one for each health region. This single local authority will be

empowered locally to make preventative and remedial orders where a health hazard

is related to drinking water.

The legislation includes prohibitions and stiff penalties against

contaminating drinking water or tampering with the water system. It requires

water suppliers to do assessments. It requires the reporting of potential

threats to drinking water. It enables setting water quality standards, and it

enables the development of community-based drinking water protection plans.

It amends a number of other acts. Amendments to the Water Act will protect

all groundwater resources, not only groundwater used for drinking water

purposes. And that's the first groundwater legislation in B.C. It amends the

Health Act, which will modernize inspection and enforcement powers to strengthen

protection against health hazards. On behalf of the province, I would like to

thank all British Columbians who participated in recent provincewide

consultations on our drinking water protection plan, and it's now going to be in

legislation.

Finally, I believe this legislation and the regulations that will accompany

it will make it impossible for a Walkerton-type tragedy to happen in British

Columbia.

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

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

Oral Questions

CARRIER LUMBER CASE

G. Plant: Two months ago, when the government dropped its appeal in

the Carrier Lumber case, the government spoke of the urgency of settlement.

Yesterday the Attorney General was quoted as saying this: "We are in the

mediation process right now. From everything I've been told, it's working."

But the lawyer for Carrier Lumber is saying something completely different. He

is saying: "We are not in mediation at the present time." So my

question for the Attorney General is this: will he tell us why he says the

government is engaged in mediation when it appears that the government is not?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: The mediator has been appointed; both parties have

met with the mediator. I note that the parties were in court yesterday and

received encouragement from Justice Parrett to engage in that process as well.

So the ground is laid for mediation, and there have been initial discussions on

exactly how that should work. As I indicated yesterday elsewhere, both parties

have also agreed that the terms of mediation should be kept confidential.

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

question.

[ Page 17697 ]

G. Plant: I have no interest in penetrating the veil of

confidentiality. My interest is in making sure that the government is in fact

moving forward on this file with some degree of seriousness, rather than hiding

it under a rug somewhere so that some next government, whoever that may be, will

inherit the problem. I want to give the Attorney General an opportunity to say

this.

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Plant: The lawyers for Carrier Lumber are saying, in effect, that

the government is stalling. What assurance can the Attorney General give to the

people of British Columbia to make sure that the people of B.C. will know what

their exposure is in the Carrier Lumber file before we go to the polls?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: We take this matter very seriously. We're committed

to the mediation process. That's why both parties already agreed to the

appointment of the mediator. That's why both parties have already met with the

mediator.

That's the evidence of our commitment to that process, and we'd like to see

it resolved as soon as possible. Counsel for Carrier, in playing the role that

he should as counsel, has indicated a rather large sum of money. That's part of

the process, hon. Speaker, and we look forward to resolution as soon as

possible.

FOUR CORNERS BANK AND COMPLIANCE

WITH LENDING REQUIREMENTS

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a copy of the amended investment and

lending policy for the Four Corners bank, which was filed with the Financial

Institutions Commission on January 25, 2000. Can the minister responsible for

the Four Corners bank tell us whether or not the Four Corners bank has

maintained compliance with that filing since it was filed?

Hon. J. Kwan: The Four Corners Community Savings bank is working hard

to address the issues that have been identified, and they have corrected the

areas where corrections are required.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a supplemental

question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the question to the minister again: has

the Four Corners bank maintained compliance with the filing it put before the

Financial Institutions Commission on its lending policy?

Hon. J. Kwan: As I mentioned, with respect to some of the requirements

and changes of FICOM on the lending policies, Four Corners Community Savings is

working hard to address the issues that have been identified, and many of the

issues that have been identified have been addressed.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader has a further

supplemental.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister responsible for FICOM tell us

whether or not the Four Corners bank has maintained compliance with its

investment and lending policy that's filed with FICOM over the last number of

years? Can he, as the regulator, assure the investors, the depositors and those

that have mortgages and loans with the Four Corners bank that they are in

compliance with FICOM's regulations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member refers to a document I have not reviewed. I

will review that. To my knowledge, Four Corners bank is regularly reviewed by

FICOM, obviously. It meets with them, as does every bank in the province, and it

complies with the directions of FICOM to make sure that it is a sound financial

institution.

C. Clark: When will the Minister of Finance table that report in this

House?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The workings of FICOM with banks, chartered and

non-chartered, as you know, are highly confidential. I will review what can be

tabled and released under freedom of information and protection of privacy.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a

supplemental question.

C. Clark: This is a publicly owned Crown corporation, and the public

has a right to know where it stands with respect to compliance under this act.

My question for the minister is this. The public should not be required to go

under freedom of information to try to extract information from the government

that justifiably belongs in the public realm. Will the minister table that

report in the House so that all of the public can see it before the coming

election?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me repeat myself. I'm not sure the member heard

me. I did not say that the member opposite or the public would have to file an

application under freedom of information. What I did say was that all these

matters between FICOM and banks, Four Corners or others -- or others -- are

highly sensitive. I will table what can be released under freedom of information

and protection of privacy. There are obviously confidential business matters

that cannot be, hon. member.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.

The hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a further supplemental

question.

C. Clark: This is a publicly owned corporation, and the minister

cannot hide behind a veil of secrecy on this. The reason there is concern about

this is because among other things, the 2000-01 business plan talks about the

previous year's business plan and says that at that time Four Corners was $8.8

million behind

schedule in its deposits, which would threaten the viability of

the bank. So I ask the minister again: will he do the right thing, lift the veil

of secrecy and table this report for the public to see?

Hon. J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the FICOM report is .

. . . We're under law by FICOM that the confidentiality provision be

respected. Having said that, I actually

[ Page 17698 ]

want to thank the members opposite for raising the issue of Four Corners.

Every time they attack Four Corners Community Savings, it serves to actually

increase the business of Four Corners Community Savings. I want to thank the

members, actually, for their marketing campaign of Four Corners.

The reality is this: Four Corners Community Savings provides for some 6,000

clients in terms of banking services in our community. These services are not

being provided by any other banking agencies, because they refuse to do so. This

agency, Four Corners Community Savings, provides a service for 6,000 people in

our community who would not otherwise get banking services that you and I take

for granted. Government does have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens

have banking services in British Columbia.

PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

E. Walsh: My question is for the Minister of Health. In today's

edition of the B.C. Liberal daily newsletter, the most common version . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Could you take your seat for a moment,

please. Members, I cannot hear the speaker. I would ask members to come to

order.

E. Walsh: In today's edition of the B.C. Liberals' daily newsletter --

I think we most commonly hear the term Vancouver Sun being used as their

daily newsletter -- the brother of the Leader of the Opposition says and implies

that the nurses in British Columbia would do better under an American-style,

for-profit health care system. I would like to ask the Minister of Health

whether or not he agrees with this assumption.

Hon. C. Evans: I don't actually care whose brother he is. The

ideological cant that the hon. member is talking about is anathema in Canada. It

doesn't matter if it's Mr. Campbell in the newspaper or the Fraser Institute.

Essentially what they are saying is that Canadian health care workers would make

more money if we privatized the system and served the rich and the poor in

different systems. The truth is that he might be right. A few workers might make

more money if we worked on the American system. But in Canada we decided to have

universal health care, and we decided to back up the workers with collective

bargaining. And as long as we govern, they'll both work.

POWER FOR JOBS INITIATIVE

S. Hawkins: A simple question for the Minister of Employment and

Investment. On your ministry's web page, the Power for Jobs program is being

touted as a way to encourage new investment. Yet we all know that we're going to

have to import power this year and next year just to meet British Columbia's

needs. I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Investment will stand up today

and explain to us how his Power for Jobs program is going to give away cheap

power, when he knows darn well that we don't even have enough to satisfy our own

domestic demand.

[1435]

Hon. T. Stevenson: We all know that we have a great advantage here in

British Columbia, because of our power prices, over Alberta. This province is

far better off. Hon. Speaker, this economy, partly due to the power prices here,

is booming. We all know it's booming. It's booming. We created 44,000 jobs in

the year 2000. Unemployment is down to a 20-year low. Retail sales are up 6.2

percent. Bankruptcies are down 20 percent in the year 2000. Partly due to our

Power for Jobs, the B.C. economy is growing. We're creating jobs, and we're

attracting investment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

S. Hawkins: A simple question didn't even get a simple answer, so I'll

try again.

This minister's Power for Jobs website was dated almost two full years ago. I

want to ask him again: how on earth does your ministry continue to promote a

Power for Jobs program when you know darn well, and the government knows full

well, that we're going to have to import power -- bring in outside power -- to

meet the current customer demands?

Hon. T. Stevenson: That's absolute nonsense. We know very well that

companies -- high-tech companies -- now are coming here to British Columbia from

California. They're leaving Alberta to come here, because of the cost of power.

The question I would have is: are you going to sell off that company and make

it private, and therefore the prices go higher again?

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Reports from Committees

E. Walsh: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the

honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests,

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth

parliament on the matter of Forest Renewal B.C. business plans for the years

1997-98 and '98-99.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

E. Walsh: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the

moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

E. Walsh: I move that the report be adopted.

This report reviews the FRBC business plans for '97-98 and '98-99 and

recommends that FRBC continue to adhere to the provisions of the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, with particular effort to be focused on

year-end reporting and the development of performance measures for the

corporation.

Motion approved.

[1440]

[ Page 17699 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Hammell: I have the honour to present two reports. One is the

1999-2000 annual report of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, and

the other is the twenty-fourth annual report pursuant to the Public Service

Benefit Plan Act, year ending March 31, 2000.

Petitions

H. Lali: I would like to present a petition, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Proceed.

H. Lali: I present a petition with 120 signatures from residents of

the Thompson-Nicola region who are opposed to the banning of grizzly bear

hunting in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued committee on Bill 10.

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 10; E. Walsh in the chair.

section 1 as amended (continued).

D. Lovick: I had the interesting experience of sitting in the chamber

for about an hour and 15 minutes this morning, witnessing the so-called debate

on this particular measure in committee stage. It generated a couple of

questions. I had wanted to speak on second reading and didn't have the

opportunity, but I noticed that the discussions this morning certainly seemed to

resemble a second reading debate. I'm not asking for any special latitude, but

in my question to the Attorney, I think I probably have to give it a bit of a

preamble. I'm about to do that.

[1445]

Interjection.

D. Lovick: I'm starting with the very beginning -- the same question I

would have asked the critic, who asks me what

section I am on. I listened to him

for the better part of 40 minutes, and as I say, I could never guess whether

there was any

section being referred to at that point. I'll ask him to simply

extend me the same courtesy, if he would.

It seems to be that one of the crucial pieces of this bill is enunciated in

the statement of purposes, which, as we all know, is indeed

section 2 of the

bill. The point I want to focus on is something the Attorney touched on briefly

and that I'm going to ask him to elaborate on ultimately -- that is, the second

clause under the first part of the purposes section. It says that the purposes

of this act are to, first, encourage public participation. So be it. But second

-- and here's the

part I want to refer to -- is to dissuade persons from

bringing or maintaining proceedings and claims for an improper purpose. In my

considered opinion, and I don't claim any great expertise in this area, that's

perhaps the most important part of this particular measure. What we're talking

about is effectively discouraging those individuals who, frankly, have more

money, more influence and more power from using the courts and the judicial

system to their advantage to intimidate smaller, less powerful people. I want to

give an example of how that happens.

About 20 years ago in my community of Nanaimo . . . . This is an

anecdote, but it's absolutely true and documentable to say that what happened in

my neighbourhood at the time -- 20 years ago -- was that a very well known

fast-food chain decided to set up a fast-food outlet in my rather quiet little

neighbourhood. And they were going to go before city council for a rezoning

application in order to do so. The predicament was that nobody, of course, in

the community knew anything about it. What happened . . . .

Interjections.

D. Lovick: Madam Chair, I've had a little experience in this chamber,

and generally speaking, there is a certain level of courtesy. So I would ask

members opposite if they would be kind enough, if they can't contribute to the

debate meaningfully, to at least shut up while others try -- if they would do

that.

Now, having said that and having dealt with that, let me continue this tale I

was telling. What happened in my community and in my neighbourhood . . . .

Interjections.

D. Lovick: And I wish the member for Russell and DuMoulin and the

corporate sector would listen to this, because maybe he would understand why

some of us are concerned about this measure, why we think it's necessary.

The Chair: I will ask all the members to come to order in the House.

We do have a speaker on the floor, and should other members wish to speak, they

will be recognized when they stand.

D. Lovick: As I was saying, what happened in my community was that the

fast-food outlet from a very large restaurant chain wanted to locate in my quiet

little neighbourhood. So be it; that's their right. It's also their right, of

course, to make a petition to city council for a rezoning application. So far so

good.

My neighbours -- most of whom were elderly people, frankly -- got wind of

this and were very concerned. What they did was, in a very quiet and dare I say

amateurish way, proceed to go around knocking on doors and saying: "We're

worried about this fast-food outlet, because it's going to be open somewhere

between 16 and 24 hours a day. There's also a road application to make it a

loop, which means all that traffic is going to go through our neighbourhood. We

don't want that here." They started to take their little petition around,

and they went from door to door. They were doing what any citizens group would

do to protect its own interests.

[1450]

The problem is that about three days later, magically there is a knock on the

door of all these little people, and they are delivered a writ of summons. They

are told that they have engaged in "malicious falsehoods." That charge

was absolutely phony and absolutely, unequivocally without founda-

[ Page 17700 ]

tion. But guess what happened. All of those people, those citizens -- those

victims, if you like -- were scared spitless. They were frightened; they were

intimidated totally. And they said: "Oh, we can't fight back because I'll

have to go to court. It's going to cost me money. I'm afraid." And who the

devil could blame them?

Now, I'm happy to report that we won that one. We one that one because .

. . .

Interjections.

D. Lovick: No, no. Here's the point: only because there happened to be

a few people who by good luck were reasonably well educated and sophisticated

and weren't scared of the legal machinery being abused by the developer, they

went to city council, and they spoke. I remember vividly what happened, because

I was of course one of the speakers. And what happened as we stood up and said

in a public forum, a public forum that was televised: "What these guys are

doing is dishonest, it's phony, it's baseless, and we are going to fight

back"? Guess what happened: the developer disappeared. It had nothing to do

with going to court; they disappeared.

We were lucky. The citizens there were lucky, because there were a few people

that weren't intimidated. But generally speaking, I suggest, when the larger

interest with deep pockets uses its muscle and uses the courts and the language

of the courts -- which is not the language known to the people -- the result is

intimidation. The result is that the people run.

I'm suggesting that insofar as this legislation does anything, if it can

dissuade the people who were responsible for that horrible abuse of the law from

ever doing that again to any other group in the province, then, damn it, this

legislation is worthwhile on just that basis.

The Chair: I'll remind the member about using parliamentary language.

D. Lovick: Madam Chair, I think I know my Beauchesne fairly well, and

I suggest I'm not in too much trouble. But I accept your caution.

Interjections.

D. Lovick: It's always interesting, isn't it? When they can't stand

the message, they'll find some other piece of the message to attack you for. But

that's fair enough.

I listened with real interest to my friend across the way, the critic for the

Attorney General. I was fascinated by the comments. What struck me essentially

was this: the status quo is perfectly acceptable because at the end of the day,

the law is there to protect us, and we're all, of course, protected. You don't

have to worry, because the law is the law is the law.

Now, I want to ask this: is there anybody in this House, anybody in this

chamber, who believes for one moment that the amount of money you have is

irrelevant in our legal system? Does anybody believe that? The truth, of course,

is that . . . . And everybody knows it; we encounter it every day in

our constituencies, if we're honest enough to admit it. We encounter every day

people who say: "I would like to fight back, but I can't afford to."

The legal system obviously favours those who have the money to spend. It's just

a simple truth. There's nothing complicated about that.

What offends me . . . .

Interjections.

D. Lovick: I notice I'm striking a responsive chord. Isn't that

fascinating?

What offends me is these guys across the way standing up as the guardians of

the law, when in fact what they're standing up to be is the guardians of

privilege and wealth and power. How interesting, Madam Chair, that the same day

the corporate donations to that party are announced, we have their speaker, the

embodiment of the corporate interests, stand up and defend that interest against

the interests of ordinary other people. What wonderful stuff.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, take your seat for a moment. I will ask all members

in this House to please come to order. I know this is really exciting, but I

would ask all members to be in order. Member, continue.

[1455]

D. Lovick: I confess: they provoke me. I am perhaps being more

passionate than I should be. I am willing to acknowledge it.

Madam Chair, the story is this. This bill is about protecting the interests

of the powerless, of trying to level the playing field somewhat, so that those

with influence and power and wealth can't have their way all the time. It's an

effort to simply level that playing field. And insofar as it can dissuade those

powerful interests from using the system to their advantage and against the

interests of others, it is defensible, and I want to support it.

My question to the minister is just this: Mr. Minister, is it the case that

what I'm saying -- that the intention of this legislation isn't to dissuade

persons from behaving in this particular way -- is really fairly called the

ultimate purpose of the measure?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think that we've had a good discussion. The

member's question is about the intent of this bill, and I think we've had a very

good discussion about what the intent of this bill is. I think the intent is

clear. We've also had a good discussion and debate in this House about what the

opposition sees as some of the difficulties with this bill. I think we on this

day agree to disagree, and we have a different point of view on what we both

believe is a point of principle. So with that, hon. Chair, maybe we'll go

through some of the sections and vote.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 17701 ]

Bill 10, Protection of Public Participation Act, reported complete with

amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. G. Bowbrick: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[1500]

Bill 10, Protection of Public Participation Act, read a third time and passed

on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Kasper

Goodacre

NAYS -- 30

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Penner

Weisgerber

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Coleman

Stephens

J. Reid

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

Barisoff

J. Wilson

Roddick

Masi

[1505]

Hon. G. Janssen: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 19.

VIDEO GAMES ACT

(second reading)

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I am very pleased to move this bill be read a second

time.

This government is committed to protecting children and youth from the

harmful effects of violence or depictions of violence. Currently violent video

game products are available to children in this province without any restriction

whatsoever. This bill will provide parents with a tool for understanding the

appropriate age for users of video games. Parents will then be able to make

informed choices about the games that their children play and will be supported

by a regulatory and licensing regime that compels distributors and retailers to

sell and rent products only to children of appropriate ages.

This bill authorizes the classification of video games and the licensing and

regulation of video game distributors and retailers. Future entertainment

technologies can be covered under this legislation as well. And finally, this

bill authorizes the creation of an advisory council to assist with evaluating

the effectiveness of the legislation. Under this legislation, all video games

will be classified and subject to regulations that will restrict the access of

children to products that are inappropriate for their age.

Distributors and retailers have been consulted about their role in protecting

children from the harmful effects of video game violence. They will be required

to segregate adult products from other products, so that they are not visible to

or immediately accessible to children. They will also be required to keep mature

products separate from other products and to ensure that unaccompanied children

only purchase, rent or use products that are appropriate for their age.

British Columbia will retain authority to examine any video game for

prohibitive material. If prohibitive material is found in any game, the director

of the film classification office may deny or revoke access to the B.C. market

until the distributors have had their prohibited material removed from the game.

The director may also recall products that are found to contain prohibited

material. The B.C. film classification office will inspect video game

distributors and retailers and take action against those who do not comply with

the new regulations. The bill authorizes the director of film classification to

impose fines for non-compliance and to cease prohibited materials.

[G. Mann Brewin in the chair.]

My initial remarks are very dry, and they're fairly technical in outlining

what this bill does. But I think we all have to be cognizant of what is out

there. The first video game I was exposed to was Pong. Well, video games have

come a long way since then. Anybody who's seen the graphic depictions of

violence and sex and sexual content in games today would be very concerned if

they felt young children were getting access to this.

The games that we see today are intended to be realistic. That's fine for

adults. This is not about censorship. This is about ensuring that parents have

the tools they need to make sure that they can be the best parents possible.

They can monitor what their children are watching and seeing and playing with

and, at the end of the day, ensure that their kids are not being overly exposed

to violence or material with sexual content which is inappropriate for their

age.

When I was a kid, which was in the early seventies, the most violent material

that I was exposed to in terms of entertainment was probably "Road

Runner" cartoons. There are those who argue that there's a great deal of

violence in those cartoons, but Wile E. Coyote doesn't look anything like a

human being. I knew that the Acme Company was not somewhere that I could send

away to readily and get anvils and things to commit acts of violence against

others. These were cartoons.

[1510]

What we're talking about today is very, very different. We're talking about

products which allow for a point-of-view shooter, which means that the people

who play the game get to shoot at the most realistic depictions of human beings

that the industry has been able to come up with so far.

If we ask police how they feel about this, they're horrified. There's a

Superintendent Graham over in the North

[ Page 17702 ]

Vancouver RCMP who is completely behind this effort. He has related to me and

others how sickening it is to him to hear the sound of shell casings falling.

They're very realistic. That turns the stomach of any officer who's ever

actually been in a situation where guns have been fired. But this is what our

kids have access to now, on an unrestricted basis. Any kid in this province can

go and buy that from a store or rent it. Not only are the sounds realistic, but

often the point of the game is to maim and torture other human beings. It's to

blow people's heads off; it's to blow their limbs off. It's to make sure there's

as much blood as possible spilled.

Hon. Speaker, I think all of us in this House accept and understand that our

society has undergone a tremendous desensitization to violence in recent

decades. That is a difficult thing to stop. This bill will not stop that, but it

is one more thing that can be done to ensure that we don't go more rapidly down

that road.

The industry has been consulted on this, but there are some industry

concerns. I want to address that for a moment.

I should stop for a moment and give a great deal of credit to my predecessor

in this ministry, the current member for Saanich South, who began spearheading

this effort last summer. We may hear from him in this debate at some point.

There was the question of what to do about these types of products. We could

have come up with a system that was entirely made in British Columbia and didn't

take into account the reality that these producers and distributors of games are

doing it throughout the world and certainly throughout North America. We have to

take that into account.

That's why what happened was that my predecessor went to Washington, D.C.,

for example, to talk with industry representatives, to talk with U.S. Senators

who are concerned about this issue, to talk with the Federal Trade Commission in

the U.S. There is universal concern about this issue. The question is: what is

to be done about it?

Well, there is a current industry rating system called the ESRB. Our

consultations indicated that it's a very good rating system. About 80 percent of

all the games that are sold or rented in North America are rated by that system

right now. It's an industry-run system, and so naturally there are those who are

inherently suspicious of that. But we've done a great deal of due diligence on

this and are confident that it's a very good rating system. The concern that was

raised in our consultations was that it's really for information only at this

point. There were many parents, for example, who said that this rating system

should be given the force of law. That's what we're doing with this bill.

We've tried to be sensitive to industry concerns. What we're doing with this

bill is creating an enabling statute. We can adopt any system we want by

regulation, but what we will be doing is adopting the ESRB system. That will

result in as little inconvenience to the industry as possible. It's important to

be sensitive to that.

There are only two changes that we're making to the ESRB system. The ESRB has

a number of categories. They have a children's category, I believe. There's a

general category or everyone category. There is a teen category, a mature

category and an adult category. Two of those categories we're changing by one

year. So for the products that the industry says are suitable for mature

audiences, which they say are 17-year-olds and up, we're saying it should be 18.

For teens, the industry says 13 and up; we're saying 14 and up. Now, there are

some who say: "Why make any changes at all?" That's a reasonable

question.

[1515]

As a result of our consultations, we've been responsive to parents in this

province who felt that a year older made sense. And it's also consistent with

the approach that we've taken across the country when it comes to film ratings

and classification. We typically use 14 and 18 in this country. So arguably,

what we're doing in this system is making minor changes to it in order to be in

accordance with what I would say are Canadian community standards.

There are also always concerns about the cost to the industry, and those are

fair concerns to raise. Right now it costs about $58 a year for a retailer to

have a licence to sell or rent videos, if they are of a general rating or the

lower ratings. The licence amount will go up depending on how much closer it

gets to adult content. So someone who is engaged in the sale or rental of adult

products can pay about $560 a year for their licence. It is our intention that

that licence amount should not increase by any more than 20 percent. I think

it's also important to note that I've made sure that in my ministry's budget for

this fiscal year, there is an increase of $360,000 -- I may be corrected on

that, but it's at least $360,000 -- to add to the number of inspectors that

would be utilized or needed under this regime.

There are those who say: "Well, gee, that's not very many

inspectors." I should say that there are three inspectors right now. We're

going to increase that to seven. Some say: "Well, that's not very many

inspectors for all of British Columbia." Well, that's true; that isn't a

lot of inspectors. But retailers will understand, as they already do when they

sell or rent videos, that they are subject to inspection at any time, and

non-compliance can lead to fines and ultimately even loss or forfeiture of a

licence.

I have to say that I think our current system works well for videos and that

retailers are very responsible in this province. They follow those rules

perfectly well. But it's also a complaint-driven system. So under these new

rules when it comes to video games, if I as a parent walk into a local store and

see that an adult product is where my five-year-old can see it, you can bet that

I'll make a complaint to the film classification office. And they'll have

inspectors out there pretty quickly, I would imagine.

So the cost to the industry, I submit, is minimal. We've tried to be

sensitive to the fact that the industry already had a rating system in place.

We're giving it the force of law now, and I think this is an important step

forward. We are the first jurisdiction in North America to do this. Some might

say then: "Well, we're creating rules where no one else has, and won't that

put us out of step with everyone else?" The fact is that it's apparent that

we're rapidly becoming a leader in this area. Manitoba and Ontario have both

expressed an interest in proceeding along our lines. I'm hopeful that what may

end up happening is that we'll see other provinces right across the country

adopt a similar system, and we'll have consistency from province to province.

I'm very proud of this piece of legislation. As a parent of two young

children -- who thankfully aren't bankrupting me yet by playing these games;

they're aged two and five right now -- I want to have the comfort of knowing, in

addition to me doing my best as a parent, as I know so many other

[ Page 17703 ]

parents do, and monitoring what our children do, that when they're a little

bit older and they can go out to a store, the laws of this province will back me

up as a parent and ensure that they can't get access, at least that way, to

materials that I don't want them seeing and I try to prevent them from having

access to otherwise.

I have to emphasize in conclusion that this is not a cure-all. I referenced

earlier my concern, and I think the concern of many, about the increasing

desensitization towards violence in our society. This isn't going to cure that.

This is one more tool in trying to push back that tide. There are other ways

potentially, with changes in technology, for our children to get access to these

materials. For example, right now, as I understand it, the technology is not

such that these games can be downloaded over the Internet. Samples of them can

be, but not the entire game. That presents another problem at a different level,

because there's no doubt, with technology changing as rapidly as it is, that

technology will be such that these games will be accessible in that form.

[1520]

That's why we're working with the federal government now to develop a

Canadian response to the problem of access to inappropriate materials over the

Internet. This isn't going to solve that, but it's going to ensure that parents

know that if their kids are going out to a store and they're trying to rent or

buy something, they can have confidence that their kids aren't going to get

access to that, at least not without the law being violated.

So at the end of the day, I think this is about good parenting. It's about us

trying to be the best parents possible, and it's about us having the right as

parents to count upon government to assist us in the course that we've chosen

for our kids and making sure that we can raise our kids in as appropriate a way

as possible. That's all I have to say at this point on second reading debate,

and I await the comments of others.

G. Plant: Some of what I'm going to say will go over some of the

ground that the Attorney General has covered, but it's probably worth going over

it again. There are at least a couple, I think, of important facts that

constitute the context, if you will, for this legislative initiative. The first

is technological change in the production of what we call video games. If the

Attorney General's first experience with video games was Pong, I'm afraid mine

was probably Pac-Man. But we sure have come a long way since then. It is

sometimes difficult now to distinguish between an image on a TV screen, which is

the product of a computer video game, and the real thing as depicted by a camera

on a TV screen. The basketball games that you can buy or rent in the video store

look awfully like the basketball games you watch on television. If we're not

there yet, the people in the software entertainment industry are working awfully

hard to get us there sooner rather than later.

I agree with the Attorney General when he talks about this increasing ability

of the people who make these games to create depictions that are

indistinguishable from reality, to animate in a way that is light-years ahead of

what all of us who are adults remember from cartoon images as kids and to do

that in the context of games which are interactive and involve a high level of

attention and response on the part of the kids who play them. It's not a passive

activity, sitting and watching a video game; it's a very interactive activity.

So all of that, I think, is something that's changed over the last couple of

decades in the world that we live in and is an important fact for legislators.

The second thing that I think is important to remember is that we live in a

jurisdiction where the motion picture industry's products are classified, by

law. So we have a legislative tradition in this province of a set of

classifications, and principles and processes that go along with them, that

ensure that we are, as citizens, as members of the public, informed about what

it is we're likely to be exposed to when we make a decision to go to a

particular movie.

Once you recognize that video game technology has matured to the point where

there is little difference between what appears on movie screens and what

appears on TV screens as a result of video games, it seems to me you've gone a

long way down the path towards acknowledging the legitimacy of the idea of

legislating a classification system for video games. I think those two general

points are an important part of the larger context of this legislation.

[1525]

I want to, in the context of my own developing awareness of this phenomenon,

express my appreciation to my colleague the member for Delta South and her

constituent, Cran Campbell, who I am sure is someone who has caught the

attention of the Attorney General and his predecessor over the last few months.

I know there are others who have worked hard with the Attorney, and the member

for Saanich South when he was the Attorney, to try to wrestle with the

challenges presented by the context that I talked about and the other relevant

aspects of the issue, to come up with a legislative scheme that balances the

competing interests that the Attorney General talks about.

The devil is always in the details, and this act is as much as anything a

framework for regulations that will in due course be enacted. In part because

there is a significant amount of opportunity for continued discussion about the

details in the context of the development of the regulations, I think that we

can worry a bit less about some of those details now and focus more on the basic

proposition of the framework that's being created by the statute. But I do want

to make a couple of substantive comments about the approach that the government

intends to take here.

The Attorney General talked about the ESRB system, and I think there is

considerable force to the argument that he advances and which I suspect we may

hear from others on the government side. There is considerable force to the

argument that, since that system is in place somewhere and seems to be working

relatively well, we should use it here in British Columbia. The challenge, of

course, is that the government has chosen to modify it slightly. And the

question I suppose that we could pursue, perhaps in committee stage debate or

elsewhere, is whether by choosing to tweak the ESRB system, even to the limited

extent that the government is choosing to do that, we're losing some of the

advantages of that ESRB system. But I don't think that that debate is foreclosed

one way or the other by the statute in the form that is presented to us. So

that's an issue that I think could be the subject of continuing discussion.

The second point to be made, though, in that context is this question of

whether we ought to have a made-in-B.C.

[ Page 17704 ]

solution. That is, rather than go outside British Columbia to adopt a rating

system developed, generally speaking, by industry in the United States for an

American market, why don't we develop our own system here in British Columbia?

I don't think it would be right to conclude debate on this bill without

giving some credit to the force of the argument in support of a purely made-in-B.C.

solution, because it seems to me that the law, both common law and statutory,

has always recognized the idea of community standards when thinking about issues

around censorship, free speech, obscenity and pornography. And, I venture to

suggest, the same considerations are relevant in the context of excessive

violence, whether that's violence in a movie or violence in a computer video

game or violence in any other form of entertainment.

Whether it's in the United Kingdom, or the United States or Canada -- in the

various provinces of Canada and sometimes from city to city and town to town and

community to community -- we have, as legislators, acknowledged that the

standards of one community are not necessarily the standards of another. And

from that platform, it's not a very big leap to the argument that we in British

Columbia may have our own standards around what is acceptable content and at

what age levels, when it comes to sexual content or depictions of violence in

video games.

[1530]

There is, I think, a reason, in that context, to argue for a made-in-B.C.

solution. That would be a solution that would be constructed from the ground up

perhaps -- by whatever means you choose -- to set our own ground rules about how

we think video game violence and other mature or adult video game content should

be dealt with.

We do have that approach when it comes to movies. We have a made-in-B.C.

approach to the classification of motion pictures. In fact, last time I remember

looking into this, the made-in-B.C. approach was working well enough that at

least one other province in Canada was using it as the basis for their

classification system -- which I suppose I put forward as evidence that we have

actually done a pretty good job over the last 25 or 30 years in defining for

ourselves as a community a set of standards around what is and is not acceptable

content in motion pictures and related forms of artistic expression. From that

historical background, as well as for the reasons of principle that I talk

about, I think there is actually some force to the argument that if we are to

legislate here in British Columbia, we should do so using a made-in-B.C.

solution.

I also want to acknowledge the force of the other side of that argument,

which I think was made well in the course of the Attorney General's comments,

when he spoke about the challenge of trying to minimize the burden on the

manufacturers and the distributors. If we're going to move to a new era of

legislating a classification system, let's be sure that we strike a fair balance

between the legitimate need to ensure that the public is protected, or given the

information they need to know to protect themselves, from violent and otherwise

objectionable video games, but at the same time let's not cripple the industry

that manufactures those games and the sector of our economy that distributes

them.

The vast majority of these games are, of course, not really why we're here at

all. The vast majority of these games do not offend any community standards and

are perfectly acceptable for kids and adults of almost any age.

There is, I guess, a bit of a tension -- at least, I see it as a potential

tension -- between, on the one hand, people that argue that we should construct

our own set of rules here in British Columbia and then require the industry to

live up to them if they want to sell their product here, versus an approach that

says no, if there's a set of standards that already exists somewhere else that

is being used by the majority of industry and appears to be working, then why

not simply accept and adopt that set of standards.

I don't think that there is an overwhelmingly right answer to striking that

balance. In that context, let me say one or two things -- maybe it's just one --

about the ESRB. The ESRB, as I understand it, works on the basis of a sort of

community panel approach. There are questions that people raise from time to

time about whether ESRB applies standards consistently enough to be reliable.

I'll accept for a moment the legitimacy of those questions and say that they're

probably relevant to the dialogue or the dynamic that exists between the two

competing objectives that I talked about. It may be that the way to resolve that

is for the government or people within British Columbia to begin to take an

active role inside the ESRB system, to help the ESRB system work so that it

works not just for the American states or the other jurisdictions where it

operates but so that it works well for British Columbia.

I think that that would not be a hugely difficult challenge for the

government of British Columbia, and we may hear if the Attorney General himself

has already done work in that regard to make sure that if we are going to adopt

the ESRB approach, it be made to work for us. I think that would be some

progress.

[1535]

One of the things I am less clear about at this point than I probably should

be is the way in which this scheme will operate in the context of video game

arcades. That may be an issue that we can pursue in committee stage debate, or

perhaps the Attorney would have an opportunity to say more about that. We're not

just concerned about the games that are played in the privacy of our homes.

There is also the issue around what happens in public arcades, where it seems to

me that the games played are even more intense and interactive and obviously

exciting for kids than is often the case sitting at home.

I suppose the last point I want to make is this. It comes back to that

question of whether we need to legislate at all. ESRB, as I understand it, is

generally a voluntary thing; the industry accepts the classification system and

applies it voluntarily. I haven't done the research that would allow me either

to validate, confirm or deny the Attorney General's assertion that British

Columbia will become the first jurisdiction to legislate a classification

system. But I think that in this particular instance, legislation is probably

the right way to go.

While I'm somebody that generally wishes there were less rather than more

legislation, I am concerned in the case of video games that the ESRB system does

not cover the world. I'm not sure that it applies to all manufacturers in all

countries. It may apply to most, but it may not apply to all of the games that

come into British Columbia from the east as well as from the south. From the

east -- in this case, I mean from Asia.

That is, I think, a thing that we need to be mindful of. It certainly is an

important aspect of my community. So in order to make sure we have a system that

is applied to all of the

[ Page 17705 ]

product that comes into British Columbia and is as close to uniform in its

application as possible, I think that a legislated classification system is

probably a necessary step. The time to deal with some of the issues that are

details, I think, will come either in the course of committee stage debate or

during the process for the development of the regulations. But this initiative

is an initiative that in principle, at this stage of debate, the opposition will

support.

I want to conclude my remarks by picking up on a theme that the Attorney

General referred to in his remarks. I don't think that we can legislate good

parenting. I don't think that it's the duty of this House to turn itself into

the manifestation of the nanny state. But it is a legitimate function of

legislators to ensure that the consumers of products are properly informed about

the products that they are thinking of purchasing or renting. When we are

looking at video games that are produced, and we think about this problem of

violence in society and our seeming inability to find a range of magical

solutions, this bill does represent, I think, a modest but legitimate,

constructive attempt to address one part of this large and complex problem. For

that reason, we'll be supporting it.

[1540]

A. Petter: I'm just delighted to be able to stand up in the House

today and speak in favour of this legislation and to do so on a bipartisan basis

with the previous speaker and the Attorney General, who preceded me.

This is a very significant initiative. We are the first jurisdiction in North

America to confront the issue of video game violence with a legislative response

of this kind. I think this step is one that we can be proud of, because it's a

step that has been taken carefully with much thought and deliberation and it's a

step that speaks, I think, to the community and its needs in a number of

different ways.

First of all, we talk a lot about crime, and we talk a lot about violence in

society. Very often, when we're confronted with the issues of crime and

violence, we talk about them in terms of responding to crime or violence that

already exists. We don't get a chance to talk about the underlying causes of

crime and violence often enough. It's certainly been my belief, and I know it's

the belief of others in this House, that if we're really going to deal in a

systematic and systemic way with crime and with violence in our society and with

the growing incidence of youth violence in particular, it isn't enough to deal

with crime itself. We have to deal with the causes of crime.

I think this initiative is one part of the tapestry that we need to put in

place to deal with the causes of crime. That part deals with the culture of

violence, a culture of violence that is increasingly being represented to young

people through what the experts say in terms I never have quite been entirely

comfortable with: convergent media. It's this notion that media is becoming much

more powerful; it's converging. It's being targeted, and it's being assimilated

by young people in a way that it never was. Certainly when I was growing up, I

was playing Donkey Kong. The member opposite was playing Pong and those earlier

games that the previous speaker referred to.

Secondly, I think this initiative speaks to another important value, and both

previous speakers spoke to this. That is really the question of who gets to

choose in our society about the kinds of things that young people, children, are

exposed to. I talk to a growing number of parents -- I certainly had the

opportunity to do so on this issue when I was Attorney General, and I'll fess up

and say that as a parent myself, I feel this -- who get a sense of a growing

loss of control in terms of the kinds of materials that young people are exposed

to.

The number of different kinds of media that are being targeted at young

people, many of which are beyond the knowledge of parents, gives parents a

growing sense that they in fact are losing control in terms of their parenting.

While it may be true that the state cannot make people into good parents --

indeed, I think it is true -- it is also true that the state and government can

help to provide the conditions under which good parents can engage in good

parenting. It's also true -- and I think it is increasingly true -- that even

good parents, in the face of this onslaught of media, are finding it

increasingly difficult to practise good parenting skills in a way that's

effective, because they haven't had access to information that they need to

ensure that they make those good parenting choices.

What this initiative is really about is saying that when it comes to making

choices about what young people are going to be exposed to in our society, those

choices should not be made by default by those who are in an economic position

to derive benefit from marketing products to young people. Those decisions

should be made by the consumers, the young people themselves and, where there

are young people who are under-age, by parents on behalf of those young people.

[1545]

I believe this initiative, by embracing both a licensing plan and a labelling

plan, gives parents some hope of regaining some measure of the control that I

think many parents feel that they are losing. So I think that from that point of

view, it's important.

I do want to disagree with just one thing that the previous member said. It's

not a major point. I think he was making a slightly different point, in fact. He

said that from the point of regulation, one cannot really distinguish between

movies on the one hand and video games on the other. In fact, there is a point

of distinction. And the point of distinction is that video games are more

interactive, more likely to condition behaviour, more likely to influence

behaviour -- as all the recent studies have shown -- even than movies. So in

fact, to the extent there is a difference, it speaks powerfully in favour of a

current regulatory scheme being extended to this particular form of interactive

entertainment.

Those are just a few prefatory comments, hon. Speaker. I sort of came to this

issue as a legislator, in my previous incarnation as Attorney General, as a

result of the efforts of people like Cran Campbell and other citizens, who drew

to my attention their concern about the violence in video games that had gone

beyond even what I was aware of as a parent.

A complaint that had been laid by, I believe, Mr. Campbell -- I think I'm

right on that -- in fact resulted in the film classification office designating

a particular video game, Soldier of Fortune, as adult material. Under the

existing regulatory scheme, there is this extraordinary power that the

classification office has. When material is adult, even if it isn't a movie,

they can designate it, notwithstanding that it isn't part of an all-embracing

plan for video games. In this case, the classification office felt so strongly

that this game portrayed brutal depictions of violence that were disturbing and

potentially damaging to young people that they used this extraordinary power to

say that this was adult material.

[ Page 17706 ]

I think that drove home the point as well. It wasn't just citizens who were

understandably concerned but the regulators themselves. The same people who have

been looking for years and years at the kind of material that's being shown in

movie theatres and rating it found this material as, or more, disturbing.

As a result of that, we decided to take action. And last summer I announced

that the province would be moving towards a classification plan that would

indeed look at video games. We undertook a major series of consultations with

the public, with the industry and with others. I say "we." In fact, I

want to give credit to the Ministry of Attorney General and to the deputy

minister in that ministry, in particular, who took on this consultation in a

very concerted and, in my view, a very effective way, engaging with

stakeholders, assembling literature and starting to put together the material

that has in fact resulted in this legislation today.

The other thing that happened that I think drove home the point was last

summer -- I believe it was last July -- when a number of different U.S.-based

agencies issued reports on their findings about the impact of video game

violence on young people. There's been an ongoing controversy, of course, as to

whether video game violence in fact does influence behaviour, whether the

culture of violence that it creates translates into some form of behavioral

change. There has been controversy about that. There are some apologists for

video game violence who argue that it doesn't or that it's an outlet. We're

familiar with these arguments.

Last July the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological

Association, the American Medical Association and the American Academy for Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry all came out together with a common set of findings

based on different studies that they had sponsored. The essence of those studies

and of that pool of research was that they were now prepared to say that the

findings pointed unequivocally to a relationship between exposure to media

violence generally -- video violence being an important subset of that -- and

behavioral changes in children. They said that kids who watched increased

violence are more likely to be aggressive in their behaviour.

[1550]

Kids are certainly more likely to be desensitized to violence, which means

they'll be more tolerant of aggression in others and perhaps less aware of

aggression in themselves. They said that kids who view violence are more likely

to become afraid of becoming a victim of violence, so it creates a climate of

fear in which kids become more isolated from each other, in which kids withdraw,

in which socialization that should take place in a healthy upbringing can be

stunted by the fear of violence created by the culture of violence. And they

said that in some cases -- and they conceded this was not a situation in every

single situation of a young person, but in certain cases with certain young

people depending on the behavioral and sociological background of a young person

-- their findings show that media violence could actually result in young people

acting out that violence in real life -- imitative behaviour.

Those are four pretty reputable institutions that came together because their

findings all lined up on this issue. That, I think, really again reinforced the

point and the complaints and concerns of members of the public that the rating

agency and the government came to -- that this was an issue that merited action.

I had the opportunity to take this issue to the federal justice ministers'

meeting in September of last year and meet with other justice ministers. I think

it was an important issue. The member opposite, the critic for the Attorney

General at the time, said that maybe I should be dealing with more important

issues. But I think this was a pretty important issue, because it did deal with

the causes of crime. And the other issues he talked about, we dealt with as

well; I want him to know that.

Serendipitously, I guess, the very day that this issue came up there was a

report released from the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. That report looked

at the marketing practices of video game and media companies in the United

States. And I'll come back to that. In part, because of that report . . . .

Interjection.

A. Petter: The member says he applauded my initiative. If he did, we

both have a complaint against the Vancouver Sun -- if he did. In any

event, I'm sure he did applaud it as well -- with one hand perhaps, but

applauded it nonetheless. No, no. I appreciate the member's support. He

has been supportive of this initiative throughout its development.

I think the priority of this initiative was the right one to bring to that

table. I'm very pleased that all the other justice ministers in the country and

the federal justice minister agreed, and we set up a national task force as a

result. The Attorney General referred to the federal government's action and

that national task force, which will now be looking into Internet and other

issues beyond provincial jurisdiction. I may be a little out of date, but the

last I heard was that B.C. was being asked to play a leadership role in that

task force, which I think is again very much to the credit of the officials in

the Ministry of Attorney General.

But the report that came down from the Federal Trade Commission, which made

my job a lot easier in persuading my colleagues across the country that this was

an issue that merited national attention, was really quite shocking. What it

showed was that the very companies that were labelling video games according to

the ESRB standard were ignoring that standard in their marketing practices. The

very companies that were putting out video games that they themselves labelled

as unsuitable for children because of the ESRB rating were marketing those games

in magazines targeted at children, were marketing those games in television

times targeted at children, were marketing them systematically at children.

Let me just read a little bit from the executive

summary of the report of the

Federal Trade Commission, which really makes the point and, again, really makes

the case for this legislation. I'll read two excerpts from the executive

summary

that deals with this: "Although the motion picture, music recording and

electronic game industries have taken steps to identify content that may not be

appropriate for children, companies in those industries routinely target

children under 17 as the audience for movies, music and games that their own

rating or labelling systems say are inappropriate for children or warrant

parental caution due to their violent content."

Sure, the companies had set up an ESRB rating system, which is a very good

rating system -- I'll come to that in a second. But then they were

systematically ignoring that rating

[ Page 17707 ]

system in their marketing practices through their marketing arms by targeting

at young children the very games that their rating system was saying were not

suitable for young children.

[1555]

A little farther down the paragraph, the executive

summary of the report then

goes on to say this: "The practice of pervasive and aggressive marketing of

violent videos, music and electronic games to children undermines the

credibility of the industry's ratings and labels. Such marketing also frustrates

parents' attempts to make informed decisions about their children's exposure to

violent content."

A very important report. What it showed was that having a rating is one

thing, but the industry itself didn't believe that the ratings were any

constraint whatsoever in terms of who was going to consume their products,

because they were putting their money into marketing games and other media

products at kids that their rating system said weren't suitable. So much for the

rating system.

Was the fault with the rating system? I don't believe it was. But to find

that out, one of the last opportunities I had in the wonderful portfolio I

enjoyed as Attorney General was to go down to New York and Washington and talk

to the regulators and talk to the Federal Trade Commission and indeed talk to

David Crane, who is senior counsel to the Senate committee -- the

Lieberman-McCain committee -- that's been looking into media violence in the

States.

I spent a day with the ESRB. The member opposite may be interested in this,

because he's referred to the ESRB rating system. The ESRB system is in fact

operated at arm's length from the industry. It has a reference group of very

respected and independent-minded individuals, from educators to other members of

the public. Its ratings, I became convinced after spending a day or day and a

half with the ESRB, were credible and legitimate ratings. They're based on

objective indicators. They're not subjective; they don't try to be subjective.

There's always a subjective element in this, but they try to be objective. They

try to really target what's going on in the game that they think makes it

unsuitable for certain age categories. They will reference particular

manifestations of violence that they find disturbing, so a parent, if the parent

chooses to, can look at the package and actually determine what's in it.

I became convinced, and the stakeholder process that we held in B.C . .

. . Again, this is a matter that I think should be of interest to the

member from Richmond, who spoke earlier. The citizens who were in the

stakeholder process felt, as well, that the ESRB process was a reputable

process. They felt that the problem was that parents weren't aware of it and

that retailers were making games available without regard to the rating system,

without any parental involvement, because there is no regulatory system. And, of

course, the games industry was targeting its activities very much at kids,

without regard to its own rating system, as the study that I referred to earlier

so clearly demonstrates.

I had an opportunity then to go and talk to a number of groups in Washington,

D.C. As I say, I managed to meet with the Federal Trade Commission that had done

the study, which confirmed in very dramatic ways their findings and that this

was a serious problem. Also, as I say, I had a chance to meet with senior

counsel from the McCain-Lieberman committee, which has been looking into this

problem. It was really quite an exciting trip, I must say, because in the U.S.

they do not have the opportunity or they don't have the freedom, perhaps, to

engage in the kind of legislation we have here, because of first amendment

concerns. So they were very much focusing on the marketing end of this problem.

We were dealing on the consumer end. And they were as interested in what B.C.

was doing as the emerging leader in North America on consumer protection from

violent videos as I was interested in what they were doing in terms of tracking

the marketing practices and trying to put moral suasion on the industry.

The member opposite talked about the fact that some of these -- well, the

ESRB in particular -- are U.S.-based. But I don't think there is anything to

suggest that the problem is much different in Canada. These companies are

transnational, and in fact there's been a fair bit of Canadian research I could

refer to that shows that, as big as the video game industry is in the United

States, that industry in relation to our country's size is just as big here and

that kids are just as exposed here as they are in the U.S.

Also, the studies in Canada are instructive. There's a study that was done by

the Laval University Centre d'�tude, released in 1999, indicating that violence

on Canadian television is growing at an alarming rate. Violent acts on

television increased 50 percent between 1995 and 1998. That increase occurred in

spite of the fact that the Canadian Association of Broadcasters made a pledge in

1996 to take action on the issue.

[1600]

Actually, one of my favourite studies on the issue involved kids. I mean,

let's ask kids what they think about this. I know that some kids don't like this

scheme. I had to deal with my own son on that issue. But interestingly, a study

of 650 B.C. youth conducted by the media analysis laboratory, October 1998, at

Simon Fraser University found the following: 95 percent of teens surveyed had

access to a home computer or a video game machine, and 90 percent owned at least

some video games. And I'm willing to bet that in the last two years the number

has gone up. Eighty-five percent of teens said that video games can have a

harmful effect on kids. Only 15 percent thought they could have no harmful

effect, and only 5 percent of the sample said that video games are not

addictive.

Well, ask the kids. They think that video games are addictive, and they think

that they have disturbing effects. Their findings correspond with the scientific

findings of the American Medical Association, and others correspond with the

other evidence that has come to light.

So we have now in front of us -- as a result of that and the efforts that

have been made by the current Attorney General to move forward with a

legislative scheme that is, as he described it, one that is responsive to these

concerns of giving parents and kids some real information and real choice on the

one hand but being efficient on the other -- a piece of legislation that I think

we can all be extremely proud of.

Why is it important to have this form of regulation as opposed to simply

allowing the ESRB standard to be there as a voluntary standard? One reason is

that a huge number of transactions of video games take place without any

parental supervision at all. I don't think we can blame parents for this;

parents can't be accompanying their kids every time they go into a video store.

Many parents are not familiar with video games, and they haven't perhaps become

familiar with some of the rating systems.

What this legislation will do is not censor anyone. Parents will be free to

rent, on behalf of their kids, any games they

[ Page 17708 ]

want. But it will create a presumption against games being rented to kids

that are rated by the industry as unsuitable for kids. Those who market or rent

these games will be required to not rent them to kids unless the parent says so.

So it creates a presumption in favour of the parent not wanting their child

exposed to material that the industry itself, if we adopt the ESRB standard,

says are not suitable for kids.

But at the end of the day, if the parent says, "No, I think that my kid

can handle that" or "I'm going to sit down and work that through"

or "I just don't agree," the parent is free to make that choice on

behalf of that child. I think that is why this legislation is about choice and

restoring choice to parents. It's about creating a more balanced playing field

on which decisions about violence aren't made by default, in Hollywood or in New

York, by marketing agencies. They're made intentionally by parents here, based

on their judgments about what their kids should be exposed to. That's what

communities are about and parenting is about. That's why this legislation is

about enforcing community standards and giving parents the opportunity to regain

some control that they have lost.

The ESRB standard -- the member opposite asked whether or not that standard

was reflective of community concerns. As I say, the standard is objectively

based. However, there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation. If the industry

doesn't agree that that standard reflects the particular rating a game should

have in B.C., then a retailer here could challenge it. I should also say that my

understanding is that efforts have been underway to ensure that B.C. does have

input into the ratings board and into the agency with the ESRB.

There has been some resistance in the industry of late. I'm sure the industry

will come to its senses, particularly with the bipartisan support for this

initiative. Hopefully, we can overcome that resistance, and that will enable us

to have greater input into the way the ESRB operates and an understanding of

their system. Clearly there are games, as the member said, that may come from

outside the ESRB catchment area -- if I can say that -- that will need to be

rated in a different way.

At the end of the day, we're taking a very important step here. We're taking

a step on behalf of parents. I encourage every legislator here and every parent,

actually, to go into a video store and ask to see a clip from one of the games

that is rated by the ESRB as unsuitable for kids. Don't stay long. It'll make

you sick to your stomach. But it's important to see it, because if you don't see

it now, you may see it two or three years from now, and in that interceding

period, your kids may have seen it before you, a lot more than you'll ever see

it.

It will also bring home the point that this is no longer about Bugs Bunny or

the Road Runner, as the Attorney General said. This is about games that reward

people for maiming each other, games that award points . . . .

There's one game called Karmaggedon that rewards people for killing people by

driving over them in a car. There are the shooter games that the Attorney

General referred to, in which the person playing the game is put into the role

of an assassin. There are games that involve all sorts of cross-linkages between

sex and violence, voyeurism. I won't go into it. It's very disturbing. And I

think the notion that this is an area that could remain completely unregulated,

when it can have such a profound influence in socializing kids, is way more

disturbing than whatever concerns the industry may have about this regulation.

[1605]

I applaud the Attorney General for having carried through on this initiative.

I think it's a great day for British Columbia. We can lead North America. Europe

has already got some regulation, but North America does not. Many in North

America are looking to us on this initiative. It's attracted national and

international attention.

I think that if this House votes unanimously for it, that will send a very

strong message to the industry and to others that, while we believe in freedom

of expression, while we believe in the creativity that is deployed in the

creation of video games, while we love playing video games -- I'm an addict for

video games; I've actually got one in my pocket right here that I play from time

to time, I confess -- that does not mean that we can allow our kids to simply be

steamrollered by messages that desensitize them, that encourage them to be

aggressive, that cause a climate of fear in our schools and that in the long run

can do much damage to them, to our society and to us all.

This is legislation whose time has come, and this is a province that can be

very proud that we're at the front of the pack. I want us all to stand up and

support this for ourselves, for our kids and for what we believe in. It's good

legislation, and I think we should all support it.

Hon. E. Gillespie: I would like to begin my remarks by expressing my

admiration and my appreciation for the work of the previous Attorney General,

the previous speaker here, the member for Saanich South, and the work that has

been carried forward by the current Attorney General. And I'd like to say also

that I'm very pleased to hear today that this legislation, the Video Games Act,

will be supported by the opposition as we go through this debate.

The previous speaker said: "At the end of the day, we will speak as

parents." I rise today to speak as a parent. I called home about half an

hour ago and asked my 14-year-old son to turn on the legislative channel and pay

attention to this debate. I hope he has called his friends, so that they too can

hear the expression of concern, the concern of the people of this province about

the children in this province.

The Video Games Act is about classifying video games into children, general

audience, youth and adult categories to control access to video games and to

ensure that prohibited material in video games is not available.

Others have spoken about the days of innocence, the early days of video

games. I was introduced to Pong in 1976. Pong is a very simple game; there

couldn't be a more simple game. There are two bats and a ball. You can vary the

speed of the game, and you can vary the size of the bat. That's about as

complicated as it gets. Pong games were embedded in bar tables, and the more you

drank, the more difficult the game became. But it was indeed a very simple game.

The next game I saw was a tiny Nintendo game that was sent to me from

Singapore. It featured skydivers who jumped out of airplanes. There was a boat

waiting below, and if the boat caught the skydiver, the skydiver was safe. If he

missed, the skydiver fell to the sharks.

[1610]

Well, now I have a son who will be 14 tomorrow. I'd like to take this

opportunity to wish him a very happy birthday. What more could a 14-year-old

want for a birthday party than time spent with his friends playing video games?

What would

[ Page 17709 ]

any 12-, 13-, 14- or 15-year-old boy want more than to rent a Nintendo, rent

some games, have some friends over, eat some chips, drink some pop and have a

really good time? Well, that's what my son would like to do, and that's what his

friends would like to do. And on my son's birthday list are a whole series of

video games that he would like to enjoy with his friends.

We've had a lot of discussion in our family about video games, the kinds of

discussions that have been referenced by earlier speakers. We know, as parents

viewing our own children, what happens when those children come off of two or

three hours spent playing video games or watching TV. We see that aggressive

behaviour, and we know that it's not acceptable. It doesn't improve our family

dynamics, that's for sure. We make efforts to limit that kind of exposure in our

family, in order to improve the family dynamic, but also so that our children

have the opportunity to experience the whole variety of what life has to offer.

So tomorrow my son and his friends will be at the local swimming pool. We'll

gather together later for pizza and chips and pop, no doubt. And I look forward

to joining them at that point. But they'll also be talking about their video

games, because among them, they buy, they rent, they share, they download from

the Internet. The more exciting the game and the more realistic the game, the

more those boys want to have access to it.

At the same time, we have a very active debate occurring in our community

about bullying, about violence and, in particular, about violence against women

and sexualized violence. The focus of that debate is around the school. I would

submit, as others have submitted here, that while children spend much of their

day in school, children exist in families and in communities that experience

violence, that allow violence, that are desensitized to violence. How can we

expect, in those communities where people are desensitized to violence, that

they will identify and deal quickly with issues of bullying among children in

school?

In a couple of weeks, toward the end of April, we will be acknowledging,

right across this province, Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. I look

forward to the day when that week is no longer necessary in our calendar, when

violence against women is not a part of the experience of women's lives, of

community lives across this country, but violence against women has been

prevented, and there is no longer the need to have that public debate and that

public acknowledgment. But today and tomorrow there is the need for that

acknowledgment, because we live in a society that is desensitized to violence.

This legislation establishes a framework for regulation, a regulation whose

time has come. I am very pleased to hear today that the opposition and

government will be voting together to support this legislation.

M. Sihota: I hate to start a speech with a little bit of nostalgia.

But I have to say . . . . I was just talking to my good friend from

North Coast, who is retiring, saying that I was just sort of looking around

these chambers, wondering what my last speech in this chamber may be. You know,

I remember a former Speaker, John Reynolds, saying that he liked to come in here

and look around. I've never had that feeling, but I always did wonder what my

last speech might be. This might be it. And I'm glad if this is it, because it's

an issue that I personally feel very strongly about and one which I've worked on

as a member of our caucus to try to see if we could make some movement on it.

[1615]

I think the reason why I feel strongly about this issue is in part that I'm a

parent of two children who watch television from time to time and in part that I

talk to a lot of parents everywhere I go in my community who feel powerless to

do anything about the amount of violence -- the quantum of violence -- that

their children are exposed to on a day-to-day basis, be it on television or by

virtue of video games. You just seem powerless, as a parent, to be able to deal

with all those influences you all worry about that impact on your children. You

wonder whether or not there are interventions that the state can make to try to

sort of shield children from exposure to things that we all know -- morally,

ethically or philosophically -- are unacceptable influences.

I don't know. I like to think that those of us who are in this chamber

believe in our heart of hearts that we can make a difference and that we have an

obligation to take those conversations that we hear and some of the frustrations

that parents feel and some of the worries that parents go to bed with at night .

. . . Maybe we can do something here to perhaps give them some comfort or

to make a statement that we, as elected members of society, are endeavouring to

sort of think on their behalf and try to come up with and formulate some

solutions to the concerns they have. I think it's fair to say that those

concerns are very, very well founded.

You know, an average child growing up today in North America will spend twice

as much time in front of a television, watching TV or videos, than in front of a

teacher. We all like to think, because this is the way we were all raised, that

teachers make . . . . It's an incredible job that they do. To me,

it's the most incredible profession that exists, when you think about how they

take a child from the formative stages to adulthood and guide them through. But

we all like to think that teachers make a huge impact on children. When we

expose teachers and all the good they represent and of course their

professionalism . . . . They're taking children and sort of

nurturing them along, when we as parents don't necessarily have the skills to do

that as educators or the time to do it as working people.

We acknowledge as a society that teachers have a huge impact on the growth

and development of children. And then when you pause to think that a child

spends twice as much time watching television or video games on television than

he or she spends in front of a teacher, you begin to wonder what kind of impact

this television violence has on young people. And you start to think that

perhaps some of the things we see that occur in society today, some of the

things we don't like -- the amount of violence and bullying and attitudes

towards women and racial minorities . . . . You wonder sometimes:

how are these attitudes founded, and how are they reinforced?

I wouldn't want to lay everything at the foot of television and say that

that's the sole contributor to this kind of behaviour. But I will say this,

because I believe it. I will say that television is a significant contributor to

the development of those kinds of attitudes -- violence or racism or disrespect

for human beings, showing the lack of dignity. I think television does shape the

behaviour of people.

Inasmuch as the industry may argue otherwise, I think most of us, as parents,

know intuitively that what they're

[ Page 17710 ]

watching is having an impact on them. That's why we watch over them when

they're watching what they're watching. That's why we try to play some role as

regulators -- if I can put it that way -- and as parents, in terms of steering

our children away from behaviours or activities that we think are undesirable.

Accordingly, to me it has always been obvious that exposure to television

violence has a harmful effect on children.

There was a 1986 study that found that television violence . . . .

I want to quote this study. It's not my habit to read speeches, but I want to

quote from a study. The 1986 study found that television violence contributed to

juvenile crime and -- listen to this -- that watching television was the single

factor most associated with aggressive behaviour. It was more of a factor than

poverty, more of a factor than race, more of a factor than parental behaviour.

Watching television was what conditioned children, young people, to aggressive

behaviour and juvenile delinquency.

[1620]

Now, you think about that. Think about a young child growing up in an

atmosphere of poverty. I have to say that many of the constituents I have the

privilege of representing here in the Legislature find themselves in situations

of poverty. You think that that might have an impact in terms of people crossing

the line and engaging in behaviour just to try to find their way out of poverty.

And then you think about them being at home and watching television violence,

coming to the conclusion that that, more than their socioeconomic condition,

defines the potential for them to be engaged in juvenile behaviour.

Commenting on a speech by my colleague from Saanich South, who did a lot of

good work in this area as the Attorney General . . . . He pointed

out, and I want to reiterate, that on an earlier study, the American Pediatric

Society, in issuing a report in the early 1990s, said that the single most

significant thing that we can do to reduce the incidence of violence in young

people was to get them away from the television set, to remove them from the

television set, because it had an effect in terms of encouraging violent

behaviour. The single most remedial factor that we could trigger as a society

was to get children away from television. Think about that.

Some may call it this, but this is not some disreputable organization. This

is the American Pediatric Society, which for generations has observed, commented

on and catalogued the behaviour of young people. And it said that this was the

single most significant factor that would serve a remedial purpose.

Now, despite all of that pressure . . . . You would think that

the television industry would change. You would think that the television

industry, the media industry, in North America would say: "We have a

responsibility to society. We are a point of impact. We colour the way young

children think." We know that. And we all, as parents, know that they do.

You would think that the industry themselves would say: "You know, we have

some social obligations, and maybe we should stop selling and encouraging and

condoning violence. Maybe we ourselves, in a self-regulatory way, much in the

way that parents self-regulate children's behaviour in front of the television,

would assist in the development and maturation of society by trying to reduce

the quantum of violence in the material that we sell."

Surely to God, in the art form that's known as television there must be art

forms that are aimed at children that can bring out the best in children rather

than teaching them the worst. Surely to God the artistic capacity of people in

that industry must be such that they can perhaps channel their programming in a

far more positive way.

Now, I'm not talking about mind control or saying that somehow the industry

should accept the moral values that I adhere to. But I do think that there's a

basic set of responsibilities that they have. But on the contrary, what the

industry has done is that it has continued to escalate the amount of violence

that is depicted on video games and on television to children -- continually

escalated it.

A recent study done by a company called Mediascope was looking at this issue.

It found that on television, 40 percent of all violent interactions showed no

harm to the victims and 58 percent of the time, no pain. Think about that, hon.

Speaker. When you're watching television as a young child, when you're watching

a video game as a young child and you see violence being perpetrated on one

person by another, when you see an assault of one person on another, almost 60

percent of the time there's no indication that that assault generates pain to

the human being who is the recipient of that assault. And 47 percent of the time

-- almost 50 percent of the time -- there is no harm inflicted on a person,

because they don't show it.

[1625]

You know, think about that. The reality is that if people strike one another,

if someone kicks somebody, if someone slaps somebody, if someone takes a fist to

another person, then you know there's going to be harm inflicted upon the body

of that individual. And yet 47 percent of all violent interactions or scenes

shown on television showed no harm to the victim, and 58 percent of the time

they showed no pain.

According to this study, 73 percent of all violent scenes show the

perpetrators going unpunished. Think about that. We have a Criminal Code that

says that you can't hit somebody against their will. You can't go out and strike

somebody and engage in the act of assault. Yet on television, 73 percent of all

violent scenes go unpunished.

The study went on to show that a total of 25 percent of violent interactions

on television involved handguns, and only 4 percent of violent programs

emphasized an anti-violence theme. Twenty-five percent of the interactions

involved handguns, and most of those showed no consequential behaviour in terms

of harm upon the person that was shot.

Now again, let's put this in some kind of perspective. That's not real. If

you strike somebody, you harm people. If you shoot somebody, it's not as if the

person just gets up and walks away. That's surreal; that's unreal. But that's

television. That's violent videos. It's not the real world. No wonder we are

raising children today in a society where they're insensitive to the

consequences of violence. Whether it's verbal violence or bullying, they are

thoughtless about what kind of impact that has on the recipient or insensitive

to the consequences of violence, just generally, when it occurs to one person.

They laugh at times when people engage in the kind of behaviour we see too much

these days in our schools.

It desensitizes people. Other studies have shown that not only does it

desensitize people, it also, for some children in society, causes them to live

in a world of fear where they think that violence is normal, and they want to

have no part of it. And they wonder how others will react to them if they take

[ Page 17711 ]

them on, in some sense of the word. So children live in an atmosphere of

paranoia and of fear because of the quantum of violence shown on television and

on video games.

I said at the outset that there are things I like to think we can do about

the problems I've alluded to. I'm pleased to be part of a government that is

trying, and in many ways being leaders in North America in trying to do this.

I'm very much proud to be part of a government that has brought this bill before

the House. Not only does this bill allow for a classification system . . .

. And I have to say I don't really believe a classification system by

itself would ever work. As others have commented, and I won't repeat in the

course of this debate, people will look past it, and parents are sometimes too

busy to fathom the implications of the classification system. Industry itself

will advertise around it.

But by taking some of the other initiatives we've taken in the provisions of

this legislation, I do think that we are at least taking away the capacity of

children to access videos that have an unacceptable level of violence attached

to them by at least saying they cannot be displayed in a public place, that they

must be placed somewhere out of sight and that adults only can have access to

those games, as is represented in the bill that's before us.

There are some who have said -- and I wish that those in the press gallery

were listening now -- that this session of the Legislature is wasted time.

They've said that this is an unnecessary session and that there was no need for

the government to prolong this session, since the budget has been passed. They

argue that the government has run out of mandate and we ought to go to an

election.

[1630]

This bill, hon. Speaker, is not wasted time. This is not an unnecessary piece

of legislation. This is a bill that is long overdue. And for all of those cynics

who have been a part of my life in this building for the last 14 years, perhaps

for once they should take the time to comment on the initiatives that this

government is bringing forward in terms of regulating violence in video games.

They should say, "Good on this government; good on this Legislature"

-- because I suspect that the bill will pass on a unanimous basis -- for the

kind of statement that we are making in this chamber today in debating this

bill, to acknowledge that the session is very much worth it.

We're all here, despite our ideological differences, because we all believe

that the kind of society we're trying to create has to be better than the one

that we inherited. We're all here to try to craft a society that is better for

our children than the one that we found, whether it be in terms of trying to

create a better health care system than we inherited or a better education

system than we were educated in or a better environment that we breathe in.

We're trying to improve society. That is what political life is all about. That

is what political debate is all about. It's what this chamber is all about.

I said at the outset -- and I'll end on this note -- that this may be my last

speech in this chamber. I don't know if it is or it isn't. I don't know, but

it's getting close to that time. I know that much -- right? I can't be prouder

of my political party for taking the initiative that it has in introducing this

bill. If this is the last speech, I feel great.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I'm really, really pleased with the comments we've

heard in the House today. I'm pleased that the opposition will be voting with us

on this, I think. It's an important bill. You know, just last week I met with

the district parent advisory council in New Westminster and talked to parents

about this initiative, among others, and they're universally supportive.

Very briefly, there were a couple of points made by the opposition critic

that he suggested I might address at this point, and I will. There is the issue

of whether we do a made-in-British Columbia system. As the opposition critic

correctly pointed out in his remarks, this legislation sets up a framework. It

allows us to adopt any system we like. We're going with the ESRB system now,

because we think it's a good system and because we want to be sensitive to the

industry. But if we desire, at some point in the future, if we decide it suits

British Columbians better, we can establish a made-in-British Columbia system or

some form of hybrid. Arguably, because of the two simple changes we've made

around the age rating for teen and mature, we have a minor form of a hybrid

system already.

The member for Saanich South may have made this point already, but I wanted

to make it clear. The opposition critic also raised the issue of whether we

might participate in some way with the ESRB. Those are ongoing discussions.

We're trying to negotiate right now, actually, whether British Columbia might

get a position on the committee that makes these decisions, in order to ensure

that there is British Columbia input at the point at which decisions are made

around classifications.

There was also a concern raised about the ESRB. The fact is, as I indicated

earlier, it does rate about 80 percent of all games in North America now. But

for games that may come from elsewhere, this legislation allows us to review any

product we wish. So if the ESRB hasn't rated it, we can certainly rate it

ourselves. We will be able to do that by setting up a system by regulation.

[1635]

Finally, there was the issue of arcades, which is an important issue, and

it's one of the most frequently asked questions that I'm faced with. This

legislation will allow us, as well, to move towards the regulation of arcades.

But we want to take this one step at a time, do it right with retailers first,

and we expect in short order that arcades will be next. We've said that quite

publicly. I've said it publicly, so arcade owners and operators are on notice

that this is coming. Certainly, we've already done some work with the arcades

that this government runs, which are on B.C. Ferries, to remove some of the

games that are a serious problem. We did that last summer. We already know that

B.C. Ferries has a committee working on this. They're working already to comply

voluntarily with what we're establishing here today. That's all I have to say on

second reading.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second time now.

The Speaker: If the members could take their seats, we'll be able to

do this division, please. Members, the motion is second reading of Bill 19.

[1640]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Bill 19, Video Games Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 17712 ]

Introduction of Bills

Hon. C. Evans presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2001.

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

time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, this legislation continues the process of

rationalizing and restructuring collective bargaining structures within the

health sector in British Columbia. This legislation continues the process

initiated with the Dorsey Commission in 1995 and the amendments to the Health

Authorities Act in 1997.

These amendments, hon. Speaker, move us to four sensible bargaining units in

this sector by merging two presently established units within the facilities

subsector and the community subsector into one larger unit covering all

unionized workers providing the same kind of service within the health services

and support sector.

[1645]

This legislation also merges two trade union associations that are currently

established into one new association and ensures that these changes will take

place in a controlled and systematic fashion.

I believe that these changes build upon the progress that has very recently

been made at the bargaining table and will help to ensure a workable bargaining

system in health care in future.

I would urge all members to support these changes, hon. Speaker. I move the

introduction and first reading of this bill and I move that it should go to

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

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 18.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED

FOOD LABELLING ACT

(second reading)

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Will the members come to order.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think this bill actually addresses something that

is of importance to British Columbia. And I would invite . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: If the opposition has a point of order they would

like to make, I would invite that. Seeing no point of order, I'll proceed. I

move the bill be read a second time.

Yesterday the government introduced legislation on a topic which is of great

importance to British Columbians: the right of consumers to know whether the

food available to them contains genetically engineered material. I'm pleased to

say that this government fully supports that right.

Now, a little earlier this afternoon, we were debating the Video Games Act,

which is a video classification system. The opposition justice critic said

something which I think was important in terms of a statement of principle and

that was that he felt it was the duty of the state to ensure that citizens are

properly informed about the nature of the products that they are consuming. That

was in the context of the video classification bill. Now we're talking about

products that people actually consume, put into their bodies. So the question

is: does the same apply here? We believe it does.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the hon. members to come to order. The hon. member

for Richmond-Steveston will come to order.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: There seems to be some concern around the nature of

an exposure bill. Now, I think the point of an exposure bill is to make sure

that it is there for the public to see. And the commitment is that that bill is

not passed, that that bill should not become law without further consultation.

That in no way curtails the right of government to bring forward that bill for

debate, especially in this case. We're talking about debating second reading,

which is the point at which we debate the bill in principle.

We have introduced this as an exposure bill. The purpose of the bill is to

promote public discussion and to get input on the best way to proceed with the

legislative response to the consumers' wishes to know whether the food they and

their families are eating is genetically engineered. In many cases, an exposure

bill receives first reading only. I'm rising . . . .

Interjections.

[1650]

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Again, hon. Speaker, I certainly am open to a point

of order by the opposition if they have one to make, but I'm not seeing that.

As I stated at first reading, this bill will not be enacted during this

session. Government now will begin a thorough consultation period involving

discussion with the agrifood industry, the biotechnology industry,

environmentalists and consumers, with a view to introducing new legislation on

the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered food in an upcoming session of

the Legislature. I don't think it's a partisan issue. I actually think it's an

issue that people care about.

The use of genetically engineered material in the production of food destined

for human consumption is rapidly becoming a high-profile issue in many parts of

the world. An increasing number of conferences are held on the topic. The media,

almost daily, run stories on the issue. Last night I went and visited the CNN

web site to see what material was there, and there is a great deal of discussion

of this throughout the world and certainly throughout North America. Public

opinion polls, including the one I noted at the CNN site last night, repeatedly

indicate a growing concern about GE foods.

So the question is: what is genetic engineering? What is the fuss all about?

The term genetic engineering refers to the

[ Page 17713 ]

application of recombinant DNA and RNA technologies, which involve the direct

molecular manipulation of the genetic structure of organisms or viruses,

including the addition of foreign genes, gene alterations, duplications or

deletions. The resulting genetic structure is passed on to the organism's

offspring.

With the use of GE techniques, genetic material may be transferred within and

between species and across the kingdoms of plants, animals and micro-organisms.

Methods of achieving this transfer include the use of vectors, such as parts of

the DNA of bacteria or viruses that carry a gene into another organism, or the

use of a gene gun that shoots tiny gold particles coated with genetic material

into an organism.

It should also be recognized that genetic material may be altered through

traditional means such as breeding and selection processes, as well as natural

means of reproduction. The term genetic engineering in the bill does not include

these traditional means of modifying or altering genetic material, nor does it

include induced mutagenesis or induced polyploidy -- the exposure to mutation

agents, usually radiation or chemicals, to cause genetic mutations. The upcoming

consultation process, as well as the recommendations of the proposed expert

advisory panel, may lead to further refinement of the definition of genetic

engineering and of the types of technology to be included or excluded in any

labelling regime.

GE foods have only become widespread in the diets of Canadians in the last

four years. The British Columbia agrifood industry has adopted genetic

engineering technologies to a limited extent over the past five years. However,

technologies currently in development may be widely adopted in coming years. The

time for government to act, we believe, has arrived.

In Canada now, the current labelling system for foods sold here does not

require food producers, processors or retailers to identify the presence or

absence of GE materials in their products, unless the foods contain known

allergens or the food has a substantially different composition than its non-GE

counterpart. Certification as organic is currently one of the only ways for

consumers to be confident they are not buying GE foods. Producers may also

voluntarily label their food as GE-free or non-GE if it is not GE food. Food

that is not labelled in one of these ways, as GE-free or as organic, remains a

mystery to consumers. They do not know and have no way of knowing if the food is

or is not GE.

The federal government is not at this time contemplating mandatory labelling

of GE foods. However, given the introduction in the House of Commons, on

February 28 of this year, of a Liberal private member's bill requiring mandatory

labelling of foods containing more than 1 percent of genetically engineered

material, it is evident that concern about this issue is widespread. This

province would welcome the opportunity to work with the federal government or

with other provincial or territorial governments to arrive at a consistent

approach on this issue. The province's only concern -- the only concern -- is

that the needs of consumers be met.

[1655]

In the absence of decisive federal action, the government is prepared to take

the lead. Do we have the legislative authority to do this? The answer is yes.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the province has jurisdiction to legislate on

a matter of property and civil rights. This matter has been interpreted to

include the authority to legislate with regard to consumer protection and

consumer information. This matter is a consumer information matter, which brings

us to the health and safety issue.

By introducing a bill on mandatory labelling of GE foods, what is the

government saying about the safety of GE foods? The answer is that we're not

saying anything about the safety of those foods. This bill is about providing

consumers with the information that they want to have to make their own

decisions about whether or not they and their families will consume such food.

The