NEWS FILE PHOTO Brooks-Medicine Hat MLA-elect Michaela Glasgo speaks with a supporter on Tuesday, April 16, 2019. The Brooks-Medicine Hat MLA sits on the standing committee on private bills and public private members bills, which discussed Bill 207.
jappel@medicinehatnews.com@MHNJeremyAppel
A contentious private member’s bill allowing physicians to deny certain services on conscientious grounds has been amended in an effort to alleviate the concerns of stakeholders, including the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta.
Brooks-Medicine Hat MLA Michaela Glasgo is one of 11 MLAs from both parties who sit on the standing committee on private bills and public private members bills, which discussed Bill 207 Monday after its first reading was passed in the legislature on Nov. 7.
Glasgo, who voted in favour of the initial reading, clarified the amendments are proposals, which cannot become part of the legislation until after the second reading, when the bill moves into the committee of the whole.
The private members’ bill brought forward by Peace River MLA Dan Williams has been criticized for allegedly infringing on patients’ right to receive medical services, such as abortions, assisted suicide and gender reassignment surgery.
It’s also been called redundant, since “freedom of conscience” is already protected under section 2(a) the Charter.
Glasgo says the purpose of the legislation is to expand upon this protection.
“We have a number of people with a variety of views and deeply-held personal beliefs who are in professional capacities, including the medical field,” she said.
“We see a growing pressure on conscience rights in Canada. Despite the fact that it’s enumerated in the constitution, we do see a lot of groups and a lot of people who would seek to impose a strong hand on doctors, nurses and professionals.”
The legislation now includes a stipulation “to respect the rights of patients to access health care services.”
It says physicians who don’t want to provide a service must offer “timely access to resources that provide accurate information about all available health care services,” and that they must provide a service if refusing to do so “would result in an imminent risk of death to (the patient).”
Glasgo said these changes were the result of Williams listening to the concerns of stakeholders.
“Mr. Williams said pretty plainly in his comments today that he did see there was some opposition. It would be pretty hard not to see that. It’s been everywhere,” said Glasgo. “We’re also pretty aware that sometimes you need to extend an olive branch, which is exactly what’s happening with the amendments that are being proposed.”
Medicine Hat’s other MLA – Drew Barnes – told the News he wouldn’t have voted for the bill as it was originally written, joining Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer and Airdrie-Cochrane MLA Peter Guthrie as UCP critics of the initial legislation.
“As I know it now, I would be against it, but I’m also willing to watch and see what these amendments are,” said Barnes. “It looks like there may have been some unintended consequences. It looks like there may have been a lack of key stakeholder support, like the College of Physicians and Surgeons.”
The college of physicians expressed support for the amendments in a news release, saying the bill is in “greater alignment” with its own regulations on conscientious objection.
“Based on the new wording, Bill 207 would not change how CPSA functions as a regulator,” the release says.
Jim Groom, a political analyst at Medicine Hat College, says the legislation could be testing the waters for the government’s social conservative agenda, while serving as a deliberate diversion from the “draconian budget” passed last month.
“I’m concerned that the government may be using this as a back door to get legislation in that they don’t want to admit that they want in,” he said. “Rather than have the government come forward and say, as they normally do, ‘This is our position and this is what we’re doing,’ they bring it through a private member.”
Groom suspects it must have the premier’s tacit approval.
“Jason Kenney has got good control over his caucus. There’s no way that he would allow a private member’s bill to come this far if he was not in support of it,” said Groom.
