2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 26, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Role of workers in health care system

J. Nuraney

Contributions of seniors

D. Hayer

Mining industry in Cariboo area

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Health care system surveys

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Emergency health care service levels

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Review of constituent's case of children in government care

E. Brenzinger

Hon. L. Reid

U.S. tariff on hog exports

V. Roddick

Hon. J. van Dongen

Autism services in B.C.

J. Bray

Hon. L. Reid

Petitions

J. MacPhail

Motions without Notice

Membership changes to committees

B. Penner

Speaker's Statement

Release of auditor general report on salmon

Committee of the Whole House

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 76)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004 (Bill 76)

Committee of the Whole House

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

[ Page 11691 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2004

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. MacPhail: I ask the House to join me in welcoming three

leaders of the Right to Privacy campaign. Darrell Evans is the executive

director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, Clara

Halber is with the Seniors Network of B.C., and Paul Lewand is chair of the B.C.

Persons with AIDS Society. They're here today with some information that I'll

table later. They are reminding us that every time we allow our personal

information to be managed by private companies, we lose a little more control

over our personal privacy. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. S. Brice: Over the lunch break I had the pleasure of

being the recipient of an actom rand of poetry. A random act of poetry — pardon

me. I was visited by….

An Hon. Member: Easy for you to say.

Hon. S. Brice: That's right.

Mr. Speaker: Poetic licence.

Hon. S. Brice: I was visited by Wendy Morton, poet, and

Janice Wormald. They are here promoting poetry and poets and literacy in Canada

nationwide. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. Bennett: I have five introductions today, the first ones

I've had, I think, in over two years. First of all, I want to welcome a former

constituent, a lady who lived in Cranbrook with her husband for over 20 years

and who has emigrated to Victoria. I would like the House to help me welcome

Joanne Paige. I have a couple of constituents here. Larry and Donna Hall are

both retired career civil servants with the Ministry of Forests. Larry worked

for the Ministry of Forests for 35 years and Donna for 17 years. They're down

from Cranbrook just having a look around to see how the business of the province

is conducted. Please help me make them welcome as well.

It is also my honour this afternoon — on behalf of the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection, who couldn't be here today — to help welcome two

representatives from a great conservation organization, the B.C. Wildlife

Federation. We have somewhere in the gallery this afternoon Mr. Chris Bos, who

is the chair of the B.C. Wildlife Federation fisheries committee, and also the

executive director, Tony Toth. Please help me make these two gentlemen welcome.

W. Cobb: With us in the House today is James Allanach, one

of our hardworking LAs. With him is his mother, Gail Kivol, and his sister

Angela Allanach. They are visiting here from Medicine Hat, and they're here to

watch politics in process in B.C., so please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Visiting us today in the gallery is one of a

number of candidates seeking NDP nominations. Particularly, we have a candidate

seeking the nomination in the riding of Cariboo North, Mr. Bob Simpson. He is

also a forest company executive in his community there. I would ask the House to

please welcome Bob and, potentially, to welcome him into one of the seats in the

Legislature here after May 17.

B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce

a distinguished guest and a fellow who's become a friend of mine over the last

two years, Mr. Marvin Wodinsky of the Canadian consul general office in Seattle.

For the past year and a half or two years he's served very admirably as the

acting consul general for Canada in the Seattle area. I think he did a very good

job representing Canada's interests in the Pacific Northwest. I had the honour

today, along with a number of other members, to join you in having lunch with

both him and the new consul general for Canada, a gentleman by the name of Jeff

Parker, who just took up his post last month. Would the House please make Mr.

Wodinsky welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I'd like to welcome a very wee soul to this

place. It's my son. Will Nicholas Ivan Donnelly is here. Weighed this morning at

the helijet with my dear colleagues, he weighs 22 pounds. If you see him this

afternoon, step lively. He's not very tall. I'd ask the House to please make him

welcome.

B. Suffredine: As the member for East Kootenay just pointed

out, some of us who live further away have a long time between visits from

people in places we live. I want to make an introduction of someone who's a bit

unique. My son James phoned me — via long distance, of course — from Carleton in

Ottawa and asked if I would be introducing him because he's here watching

question period via his web camera off the Internet. I would ask that the House

please make him welcome.

[1410]

Hon. G. Bruce: This was a good weekend for the Cowichan

Valley and for British Columbia. We were awarded the North American Indigenous

Games. I would specifically like to ask this House to congratulate the Cowichan

people and the people of the Cowichan Valley for such an excellent presentation,

which they put together for the bid committee. It was in Connecticut on Friday.

I've got to tell you that if the games themselves come off just a portion of the

process of what was employed in gaining the bid acceptance, we'll have excellent

games here in the Cowichan Valley and for British Columbia.

Would you please congratulate the Cowichan Indian band on their

successful application for these games.

[ Page 11692 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ROLE OF WORKERS

IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

J. Nuraney: It is not very often that one likes to talk

about any mishap or unfortunate emergency that takes place in one's family, but

I have a compelling reason today to share my experience with the House.

Ten days ago my younger brother, Salim, suffered a heart attack.

My sister-in-law, Yasmin, called for an ambulance, and within minutes the

paramedics arrived, saw the gravity of the situation and took my brother from

his West Vancouver home to the Lions Gate Hospital in North Vancouver. The

doctors there quickly recognized that there was going to be a surgical

intervention necessary, and they asked that my brother be transported to St.

Paul's Hospital.

The ambulance, when it arrived at St. Paul's, was met by a doctor

and a nurse at the gate. He was quickly taken to the cardiac care unit and into

the operating theatre, where two shunts were inserted in his artery, which was

blocked. As this procedure was going on, a nurse came out, talked to the family,

comforted the family and told them exactly what was going on. In the next hour,

as he was brought out, with great relief to the family, the doctor explained

what had happened and what the procedures were all about.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this moment to pay a special tribute

to our doctors, our nurses, our paramedics and the support staff for the

excellent work that they did. They are some of the best in the world, and they

are one of the reasons why British Columbia is the best place on Earth.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

D. Hayer: We all know the contributions made by our

seniors. Through their dedicated efforts they created the province that we have

become, and they continue to contribute with generous volunteering of their

time, experience and expertise. As a government, we have done much to recognize

these contributions. We proclaimed Seniors Week in B.C. This June we introduced

a new licence plate to honour our 80,000 veterans, and we paid tribute this year

to the work of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Seniors will not be forgotten in the new federal health funding

allocation, which our Premier played a large role in obtaining for the

provinces. The $715 million will go directly to reducing surgery waiting times.

There was more good news for seniors at the recent UBCM

convention, where the Premier announced a $2 million grant for our local

governments to better meet the needs of their aging population. Earlier this

year the government pledged $20.7 million to improve patient access to hip and

knee surgeries, plus an additional $5 million to reduce the wait time for

cardiac surgeries.

In Surrey-Tynehead the Minister of State for Seniors' Services has

twice met with local seniors. Also, we recently opened a new seniors housing

complex in my riding, and a few years ago we provided low-income seniors with

more housing and better care options by opening the 54-unit Guru Nanak Niwas

development. I was also very pleased to hear that the Premier recently announced

a new seniors caucus committee which will serve as an access point to government

for B.C.'s seniors groups.

Sometimes we forget to thank those who have given so much to make

this province a better place to live, but with all these initiatives this

government is trying very hard to show its appreciation to all our seniors.

There is still much more to do as we keep striving to improve the lives of our

seniors.

MINING INDUSTRY IN CARIBOO AREA

W. Cobb: I'm pleased to stand today and highlight some very

good news for my riding and, as a matter of fact, for all of B.C.

[1415]

For the first time in seven years trucks loaded with copper ore

are rolling out from Gibraltar Mines near Williams Lake in the great Cariboo

country. In the last couple of weeks the mine began shipping product after being

shut down in 1997. They resumed round-the-clock operations, bringing with them

250 direct mining jobs and a potential for hundreds more spinoff jobs. It's a

huge shot in the arm for the Cariboo. In the first five days alone they hauled

over 1,000 tonnes of ore from Gibraltar, and they expect to produce 70 million

pounds of copper and 1 million pounds of molybdenum annually.

There has already been $46 million in investment, and they have

plans to make a further investment to protect the mine from future fluctuations

in the price of copper. They are also looking into $100 million for the

construction of an on-site refinery, which in turn could spur even further

mining development in the region.

It's good news for the Cariboo, and it doesn't stop there. Work is

underway to reopen the Mount Polley gold and copper mine, also near Williams

Lake, and the QR gold mine near Quesnel.

In the last few months the unemployment rates in the region have

dropped to their lowest in years. In the Cariboo there is a genuine optimism

about our economic future. These mines will bring the kind of strong,

well-paying jobs you can build a family around. We made changes to encourage

investment in B.C.'s mining sector, and now those changes are paying off with

jobs and prosperity.

The Cariboo is strong once again and becoming even stronger, so

the measures we have taken over the last three years to revitalize B.C.'s

economy are also helping the interior. I say that today we have 250 more

examples of how that is true.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

[ Page 11693 ]

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM SURVEYS

J. MacPhail: British Columbians have come to expect public

relations to trump the truth with this government, but let me give you a recent

example. Last month the government made a big deal about an emergency room

satisfaction survey which found, for example, that on Vancouver Island 88

percent of patients were satisfied with emergency care.

I would actually invite the members to take a closer look at the

survey before they ape their government's cheers. The survey only found that 65

percent of patients were satisfied with the information they received, and 74

percent were satisfied with access to care. Not one category exceeds 78 percent

satisfaction, yet magically the overall number is boosted to 88 percent. Can the

Minister of Health explain what new math was used to arrive at this inflated

satisfaction number?

Hon. C. Hansen: The survey that was done is one that's

going to be repeated. There are, I guess, questions when surveys like this are

done in other jurisdictions, and I think it's important to point out that what's

most important is that it becomes a benchmarking number so that we can actually

track and show that there is improvement in the system going forward.

I can assure the member that this survey was done by a very

reputable organization. It was done totally at arm's length from the ministry,

and I have every reason to be satisfied with the numbers.

J. MacPhail: Let's see why the minister has confidence —

ill-placed confidence — in the survey. Again and again the government claims

they're doing a good job, but the facts just don't support the spin. A 31

percent increase in wait-lists — "Not our fault," say the Liberals. Twice as

many people waiting for hip surgery — "Not our fault," say the Liberals. Bogus

patient surveys put out by unaccountable health boards that all of a sudden jack

up the positive outcome by a good 10 percent….

When will the Minister of Health just admit that patients in B.C.

are suffering as a result of higher wait-lists, overcrowded hospitals and broken

Liberal promises?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting that the member focuses on

wait-lists instead of wait times, because I think most across Canada were

looking at wait times. I would refer the member to a survey done….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the

answer to your question.

[1420]

Hon. C. Hansen: I would refer the member to a survey that

was done by Statistics Canada, where they actually did a survey on access to

health care of over 30,000 Canadians in the year 2001, right after their ten

years of administration. They repeated that survey again two years later, and it

was just released, I believe, in June of this year. What it shows is that

British Columbia now has the shortest median wait time for access to specialists

and the shortest median wait time when it comes to access to diagnostics. There

are only two jurisdictions in Canada that have shorter median wait times for

access to elective surgery.

That is a survey that was done of individual Canadians, not a

survey of doctors but a survey of Canadians asking them what their experience

was with the health care system. What that survey shows is that there has been a

dramatic improvement in the median wait times for access to health care services

in British Columbia over the last three years.

J. MacPhail: Again, we have the Minister of Health using

spin, because I read that report. The median wait time has nothing to do with

better service to patients, and he knows that from the survey.

Let's go to the people actually on the ground. I challenge the

Minister of Health to give that answer that he just gave to the health

professional at the Royal Jubilee Hospital who last month put out an urgent plea

for more beds. Let me quote. Here's the e-mail, dated September 29 of this year.

It is a leaked internal e-mail obtained by the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

J. MacPhail: No, no, Mr. Speaker. Don't bring them to

order. They have every reason to groan, because here's what it said: "Just a

heads-up that we are in trouble today. One of the worst days I've seen. Some

very sick patients admitted in the ER, and staffing is an issue in both ERs. We

will be cancelling a significant volume of surgeries, but that alone won't get

us out of the glue."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. MacPhail: To the Minister of Health: I dare him to stand

up and tell this health professional that there's nothing to worry about, that

things are getting better, that the government appointees on health boards have

done a survey and — good news — that everyone is happy. Why doesn't he tell that

to this person who did this e-mail?

Hon. C. Hansen: I won't say that we've solved all the

challenges in health care, but I will say that things are improving. We now have

lower wait times and lower wait-lists when it comes to access to cardiac

surgeries. It is true.

In fact, if you go back and look at her record when she was the

Minister of Health in this province, look at the number of patients that they

had to ship out of Brit-

[ Page 11694 ]

ish Columbia down to Washington State to get radiation treatment. Do you know

what? In British Columbia today there is no wait time for access to cancer

treatments, unlike when she was in government.

Last year we increased the number of surgeries and other major

procedures that were done in this province by 38,000. I understand we're soon to

get an update on that which will show we've even been accelerating the rate at

which surgeries have been increasing.

I will acknowledge to this member that we have a challenge when it

comes to joint replacements, and I can tell her exactly why. It is because more

patients are being put on those wait-lists earlier in their need for treatment

than was ever the case before. In fact, if you go back and compare knee

replacements from 1991, when she first formed government, to today, we have

increased the number of knee replacements that are done every year by 350

percent. But we know that the demand continues to grow, and we need to do more

as well.

EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE

SERVICE LEVELS

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister is spending too much time

watching their government's ads self-promoting, and maybe the minister is

spending too much time electioneering in Surrey. Maybe he should spend some time

in the hospitals talking to front-line workers and health care professionals.

Let me quote from another e-mail sent by a health professional

earlier the same day: "We are absolutely desperate today for beds. We're holding

30 admitted patients, ten of whom are in the hallways and two in the waiting

room. Some of the hallway patients have a length of stay of eight days in a

department that is never quiet and never turns down the lights."

[1425]

Can the Minister of Health tell us how satisfied these patients,

lying in hallways under bright lights for eight days, are with the health care

system under the B.C. Liberals?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: As a matter of fact, I was at Royal

Columbian Hospital last week, in the emergency room. Some significant changes

have been made to make sure that patients can be placed on the wards much sooner

than has ever been the case before.

I do get out and I do talk to front-line workers, probably a lot

more than either of those members do. What they tell me in emergency rooms

around this province is that they continue to have the days that are

unpredictable. When they do have huge challenges on those unusual days, when

there are more patients coming in than would ever have been anticipated…. But

what I have been told by emergency room nurses and emergency room physicians is

that it's not as bad in the last couple of years as it was during the 1990s.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister's problem is that he is looking

at bogus surveys with inflated numbers that tell the minister how everything is

just fine. Well, the urgent call for help continues. Let me quote….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: The urgent call for help continues. Let me quote

the e-mail: "We also have no more stretchers left to put anyone on. I also have

nine other patients in the waiting room, four of whom are urgent, that still

need to be seen — but again no place to put them and no stretchers to put them

on. We don't even have any hallway space left."

Will the minister stop the spin, stop telling us what a good job

this government is doing and just admit the truth expressed in this e-mail —

that very sick patients are waiting without stretchers in hospital hallways in

chaotic and completely unacceptable conditions?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll be the first one to admit that there

are still challenges that we have to address in the health care system. When we

formed government three and a half years ago, I will tell you what the biggest

challenge was in emergency rooms around this province: it was a shortage of

nurses, because the previous government had done nothing to make sure we had an

adequate number of emergency room trained nurses in British Columbia. We had

1,000 nurse vacancies around this province…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Hansen: …and now we've got that down to manageable

levels. We have less and less overtime being worked by emergency room nurses in

British Columbia, and we have been able to fill those positions around this

province. That is why today there are still challenges. There are still the days

that are unusually stressful, but it's one heck of a lot better than it was when

they were in government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

REVIEW OF CONSTITUENT'S CASE

OF CHILDREN IN GOVERNMENT CARE

E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of Children

and Family Development or the Deputy Premier, concerning a female constituent.

This is a constituent who, as a young woman, was exploited first by an abusive

boyfriend and second by a government that

[ Page 11695 ]

saw fit to take her three children away without providing her any counselling

or legal advice. Her youngest child, who is now seven years old, is not even

being raised by the legal guardian that was assigned by the ministry. As a

result of not receiving counselling and legal advice from the government, she

was unaware of her rights. Consequently, she is unaware of where her two oldest

children now are.

My question is: will the minister review this file, assign a

caseworker to the file and fully review this matter for my constituent?

Hon. L. Reid: I thank the member opposite for the

information. If she wishes to provide it to me, we will certainly take it into

consideration. Thank you very much for bringing it forward.

[1430]

U.S. TARIFF ON HOG EXPORTS

V. Roddick: My question today is to the Minister of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. As reported, the U.S. Commerce department has

decided to slap tariffs of up to 15 percent on Canadian hogs, claiming that

Canada's hog producers are dumping the animals into the U.S. at below-market

values. Considering the damage that the BSE and the avian flu crises have

created for B.C. agricultural producers, this new and totally unwarranted tariff

is just another burden that the B.C. agriculture industry doesn't need. We still

have to eat to live.

To the minister: what effect will the U.S. tariff have on B.C.'s

pork industry, and what can be done to deal with yet another attack on our

province and our country?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I will say that the Canadian industry

and our….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Canadian industry and the federal

and provincial governments are very disappointed at the U.S. Department of

Commerce interim decision. The final decision will be made in March of 2005.

They will have to prove not only dumping, but they will also have to prove

injury to their market. Our producers have come through an extended period of

depressed prices. This decision will have the impact of lower domestic and

export prices for our B.C. producers. It will also mean that they will incur the

legal costs of fighting this, what we believe to be an unsubstantiated action.

British Columbia is taking a leadership role in pursuing review and reform of

the anti-dumping and countervail provisions in the World Trade Agreement to try

and prevent these kinds of unsubstantiated claims.

AUTISM SERVICES IN B.C.

J. Bray: My question is to the Minister of State for Early

Childhood Development. Recently government implemented changes to the provincial

programs affecting children with autism. Some misinformation that's got out

there from various groups has obviously drawn questions from parents in my

riding. These are parents of autistic children who rely on these programs in the

care and nurturing of their children.

Can the minister please explain why government chose to make the

changes to the provincial programs affecting children with autism and how these

changes affect the parents of these children?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond, because it is vitally

important that the correct information ends up in the hands of families in

British Columbia today.

I can tell you that we moved to a direct funding model for

families who have children with autism. We have coupled that with an enhanced

diagnostic program in British Columbia so that, indeed, more children had a

diagnosis earlier on in their mandate. We wanted very much to ensure that that

information was in the hands of families much, much earlier. That is the essence

of a strong early childhood development focus.

Our support to families, hon. member, allows us to put in place

direct funding. I can tell you that we have an under-six funding model in

British Columbia today that puts in the hands of families approximately $20,000

annually — $1,667 a month. We have the over-six funding model that puts in the

hands of families $6,000 — $500 monthly — to allow them to purchase services

between 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the afternoon — vitally important.

We have also enhanced that level of programming by putting in

place the opportunity for the government to be the direct payer of that service

as opposed to having families become an employer. Indeed, the process is much

more straightforward, much simpler for families to undertake, and frankly, I

welcome the opportunity to continue to have this dialogue with families.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. MacPhail: I rise to present a petition signed by 13,104

individuals from across the province. The petitioners call on the government to

halt the contracting out of the administration of Medical Services Plan and

Pharmacare and to keep our personal medical information under public control.

These petitioners here are joined by 38,599 additional individuals who have

signed the petition on line for a total of more than 51,500 protesting the

government's actions.

Motions without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGES TO COMMITTEES

B. Penner: I seek leave to move a motion that the Hon.

Brenda Locke, MLA, be substituted by Mr. Dave Hayer, MLA, as a member of the

Select Standing Committee on Education and that the Hon. Patrick

[ Page 11696 ]

Wong, MLA, be substituted by Mrs. Gillian Trumper, MLA, as a member of the

Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations; by Mr. John Nuraney, MLA, as a

member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and by Mr. Barry

Penner, MLA, as a member of the Special Committee of Selection.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[1435]

Speaker's Statement

RELEASE OF

AUDITOR GENERAL REPORT ON SALMON

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to advise the House

that tomorrow the auditor general of British Columbia will be releasing a report

entitled Salmon Forever: An Assessment of the Provincial Role in Sustaining

Wild Salmon . This report will be released simultaneously with the auditor

general of Canada and the auditor general of New Brunswick. My office will

release this report as soon as possible tomorrow.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 76.

Committee of the Whole House

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2004

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 76; J.

Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 1.

J. MacPhail: This is Bill 76, the Social Service Tax

Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, where the Finance minister last week announced that

after raising the PST from 7 percent to 7.5 percent about three years ago, he's

now lowering it back to where it was when he took over government — to 7

percent. Prior to his introducing this legislation, though, the Minister of

Finance did table the first quarter report for this fiscal year, and I just want

to go over some of those stats before I ask my question.

In the first quarter report it said that the first quarter report

assumes that a Canadian dollar will trade at an average of 75.2 cents this year

and 77.8 cents next year. It's trading at 81 cents (U.S.) today. I will just

quote from an

article that appeared over the weekend around this issue. It's

from the Times Colonist, page B1 on Sunday, "Rising Loonie Closes Port

Alice Mill," where it says: "Port Alice pulp mill was shut down and 330

employees laid off Friday due to a rising Canadian dollar, a devastating blow to

the North Island if the closure lasts."

[1440]

That's because of the rising Canadian dollar. Now, that's the

management saying it's because of the rising Canadian dollar. The union is not

joining them in this, but there is no push-back from anyone saying it is

anything other than that. Of course, the reason I bring that up is because

virtually 80 percent of British Columbia's exports are now with the United

States.

Lumber prices. The Finance minister's February budget assumed

lumber prices of $300 per thousand board feet. The first quarter report changed

that, and it reports that the 2-by-4s would be trading at $395 per thousand

board feet this year and $325 per thousand board feet next year. Of course, we

saw over the last six weeks that lumber prices have plummeted and that

Madison's , which is the industry pricing newsletter for the forest sector,

has pegged the benchmark thousand board feet of spruce-pine-fir 2-by-4s at $318

(U.S.) last week and is predicting that the prices are going to fall further.

That's their prediction.

We know from the Finance ministry's own document that for every

$50 change in the price of lumber, the government revenues are affected

negatively or positively by $75 million to $125 million. A fall from the Finance

forecast of $395 to $318 now for lumber is significant. That's significant and

substantial revenue loss.

Retail sales. I went on line to B.C. Stats, the B.C. Stats

Infoline , and the headline on the most recent report from B.C. Stats is on

retail sales. After six months of growth, retail sales in British Columbia

slipped 0.2 percent in August. Average weekly wages. Again, the reason why these

are important is because fully 65 percent of the economy is driven by consumer

demand in British Columbia. Retail sales are down. Average weekly wage rate,

Statistics Canada, the same…. I know this government likes to rely on Statistics

Canada. They're reporting that year over year, January to September showed a 0.4

percent decline in the average weekly wage rate. From January '03 to September

'03, compared to January '04 to September '04 — the latest stats — the weekly

wage rates declined 0.4 percent. We are the only province in the country to

experience that decline.

The average hourly wage rate, according to the same Statistics

Canada year-over-year report…. From January '03 to September '03, compared to

January '04 to September '04, there was a 0.9 percent decline in the average

hourly wage rate. Again, we're the only province in the country to experience

that decline.

On the basis of that, I want to ask the minister, I guess…. Sorry,

Mr. Chair. I'll ask the Attorney General, who is, I guess, substituting for the

Minister of Finance. My first question is this. Based on that information, in

September the first quarter report predicted a surplus for this budget of $865

million. That's up from a $100 million surplus forecast in the budget in

February of this same year. The Finance minister announced, when he introduced

this legislation, that this reduction in the

[ Page 11697 ]

sales tax by 0.5 percent will mean that $140 million less will be collected

this fiscal year. He didn't announce any revision in his forecast, though. Does

this now mean that the minister is forecasting a surplus of $725 million? Or if

that's not the case, what is the forecast in light of this decrease in revenue?

[1445]

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that the actual projected cost

of the reduction in the general sales tax, which will be made effective because

of this legislation, is $120 million — not the $140 million figure that the

member just referred to. To the extent that the first quarter reports projected

an $865 million surplus for the current fiscal year, if the $120 million figure

proves true, then we have spent $120 million of that $865 million projected

surplus.

J. MacPhail: What's the annualized tax expenditure of this

reduction of sales tax?

Hon. G. Plant: The projection is $270 million.

J. MacPhail: In deciding to change the sales tax back to

what it was when this government took office, was there any revision of any

other aspects of the forecast? I assume the Ministry of Finance must have done a

new forecast based on making this huge expenditure.

Hon. G. Plant: I don't believe there's been any revision in

the forecast. The occasion for revision upward and downward in forecasts is the

publication of the quarterly reports. I think that's an answer to the question.

J. MacPhail: We can expect the next quarterly report in

December — when?

Hon. G. Plant: I believe it is due in December, yes.

J. MacPhail: I hope it's more than "I believe," because I

think it's the law.

Two and a half years ago the Minister of Finance justified his

sales tax increase from 7 percent to 7.5 percent on the basis that the

government had to pay for the doctors, the physicians' arbitration. That was

$600 million more that the government collected out of people's pockets to pay

for doctors. Supposedly, it was for the doctors' wage increase.

Now we have the government, it just so happens during a

by-election, spending hundreds of millions of dollars, yet what's happening to

physicians' salary or wage increases across the country? Well, ten days ago

doctors in Ontario won a 24 percent wage increase. The head of the BCMA, British

Columbia Medical Association, Dr. Jack Burak, was in the media immediately

suggesting that that's where his membership is heading when negotiations start

next October. That would be the starting point for negotiations: a 24 percent

wage increase. Doctors in Ontario make more than British Columbia doctors now.

My question on that is: what plans does the Minister of Finance

have to ensure that the province will be able to afford to pay any increase in

doctors' salaries without raising this or some other tax?

Hon. G. Plant: The Finance minister made a decision based

on his assessment of the financial situation of the province, taking into

account all of the circumstances that were disclosed in the first quarterly

report. His view was that the rationale for the imposition or the incremental

addition of the half percent in sales tax a couple of years ago had been

transformed with the passage of time. The province is in much better financial

circumstances. He had always expressed his reluctance about the imposition or

the increase in the sales tax and viewed it as a priority that, in the event

that we were in a position as a government to make tax decisions returning to

the people of British Columbia some of the money that they earn and provide to

government, it was a priority initiative for him.

Accordingly, he brought it into the House. I note that he brought

it into the House while the Legislature is sitting, and therefore we have a

chance to debate it. Members will have the opportunity to express their views on

whether or not this is a good fiscal measure as we proceed to vote on the

sections of the bill.

[1450]

The main rationale, I think, for the change now is the Finance

minister's assessment of the state of the economy overall and the state of

public sector expenditures and revenues and his view that with the projection

now of very, very significant surpluses over the next few years, it was time to

give back to British Columbians some of the money that we asked them to provide

to us a couple of years ago.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. The New Democrat opposition

was never in favour of this government jacking up the provincial sales tax in

the first place. We didn't feel there was any necessity for it whatsoever.

Let's just look at who pays more provincial tax, who has made the

sacrifice over and above the consumption tax increases. This is from the

government's own Budget 2004 documents. These people are paying more provincial

tax. A two-income family of four earning $60,000 pays $128 more in income tax

this year, a senior couple with a pension income of $30,000 family income pays

$128 more in income tax, and a two-income family of four earning $30,000 pays

$435 more in income tax as a result of this budget. Now, who is paying less this

year? Well, an unattached individual earning $25,000 pays $8 less in income tax.

A two-income family of four earning $90,000 pays $154 less in income tax. The

unattached individual with no children earning $80,000 pays $221 less in income

tax.

I'm quite surprised that this great announcement of taking $120

million out of the surplus was not done with any analysis that perhaps there was

a way of sharing the wealth a little bit more in terms of this, although this

was a very regressive tax and hurt low-income people as well. I'm only bringing

these statistics

[ Page 11698 ]

to the attention of the government for their forecasting, because this

expenditure of forgone revenue will wend its way through this budget and the

next budget. Some of the premises upon which this current surplus is forecast

have already been diminished with a higher U.S. dollar, lower lumber prices,

some lower commodity prices and lower average wages, lower disposable income.

Of course, Mr. Chair, all I'm doing is saying that in order to

prove that this is not an election ploy for the by-election…. Boy, a government

that has to spend 120 million bucks to win a by-election is desperate, if you

ask me. But this has implications for much else in the budget forecast, and I

just note these so that the Finance minister knows that others are watching as

he moves forward in terms of his budget forecast that he will bring forward for

the second quarter report in December.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I can't resist pointing out that only

an NDP member, and a former NDP Finance minister at that, would regard the $120

million that is being returned to British Columbians here as an expenditure of

government. It's the attitude that I saw manifested day after day when she was

the Finance minister when her party was in power. They treated the people's

money as though it were theirs and certainly did very little in the five years I

was here in opposition to ever return any of it to the people.

I am confident that the Finance minister did the analysis that

needs to be done to determine that this was a prudent and appropriate measure to

reduce the tax burden, particularly the consumption tax burden, on British

Columbians. I'm confident that when the member has the opportunity to…. In fact,

my understanding is that the member has already expressed her opinion on this

subject, because I don't think there was anyone who voted against this in second

reading. I may be wrong. I wasn't here that day, but I haven't seen any record

that anyone opposed this initiative in second reading.

[1455]

It's good to ask questions about budget assumptions and so on, but

at the end of the day, the question is: do we think that it's appropriate to

return these dollars to the hands of British Columbians at a time when all of

the forecasting done by government suggests that we are in line for some very,

very significant surpluses, not just this year but over the next couple of

years? I, for one, think it is appropriate that we reduce this consumption tax

by the half a percent that is proposed in this bill.

J. MacPhail: Let's be very clear. The NDP opposed the

raising of this tax by half a percent. That's what we opposed. Who in their

right mind, after knowing that the government shouldn't have raised that tax,

would now oppose them returning to what it was when this Liberal government

assumed office?

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 76, Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 2004, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate of Bill 71.

Committee of the Whole House

SAFE STREETS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 71; J.

Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:59 p.m.

section 1.

J. Kwan: This is a very thin bill — it is only three pages

long — especially given all the bluster we've heard from the government on it.

It has exactly one definition, two sections of any substance, one consequential

amendment and the commencement part relating to the bill.

[1500]

Let me ask the Attorney General the question around solicitation

under

section 1. How does this definition of solicitation compare to other uses

in criminal laws?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, this is a stand-alone definition. It's

one of, I guess, four

definitions in the bill, and it's written for the purpose

of capturing the public policy intention of this legislation.

There are provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with the

offence of solicitation. I don't know whether those provisions define the word

"solicitation." Certainly, if there is not a statutory definition of

solicitation in the Criminal Code, then there would be lots of common law

interpreting it. But in this case, we've created a definition which is intended

to serve the purposes of this act, which are not criminal but rather relate to

the province's ability to do things such as regulate passage on the streets.

J. Kwan: In the definition it defines "solicit" as follows:

"…means to communicate, in person, using the

[ Page 11699 ]

spoken, written or printed word, a gesture or another means, for the purpose

of receiving money or another thing of value, regardless of whether

consideration is offered or provided in return."

When the government put in the words "another thing of value,"

what are they envisioning?

Hon. G. Plant: In addition to asking for money,

solicitation might involve asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich or some

other matter like that.

J. Kwan: For example, then, begging for food would be

deemed to be another thing of value in this context, under this definition.

Are there issues relating to this definition of solicit in federal

laws around solicitation on the issue around prostitution?

Hon. G. Plant: Not that I'm aware of. As I say, this is a

stand-alone definition intended to be used for the purpose of elaborating the

meaning of the word "solicit", which is then used as one of the essential

ingredients in explaining and defining the offences in sections 2 and 3 of the

act.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Kwan: Sections 2 and 3 are the substantive parts of the

bill. As I said, there are really only three sections to the bill — well, five

sections, I should say, because there is the "Commencement"

section and then the

"Consequential Amendment" under

section

Section 2 sets out the offence of soliciting in an aggressive

manner. Does the minister agree that there are existing laws that already cover

this nature of behaviour?

Hon. G. Plant: There are no provincial laws which encompass

the behaviour described in or sanctioned by

section 2 of the Safe Streets Act.

J. Kwan: When I say existing laws…. There are other laws,

though, that do exist. Is the minister aware of that? If so, what laws is he

aware of?

Hon. G. Plant: The Criminal Code prescribes certain kinds

of behaviour, including assault and assault causing bodily harm, and I know that

there are municipal anti-panhandling bylaws in a number of cities and towns in

British Columbia. Of course, those don't apply across the province as a whole,

and this bill will have provincewide application.

[1505]

J. Kwan: The Criminal Code applies across the province —

not just across the province but across the country, I would say. Then, of

course, there are municipal laws that deal with these. There are existing laws

that deal with these issues and the nature of this kind of behaviour.

Perhaps the minister could tell me: what does the Attorney General

feel is gained by specifically naming panhandlers, beggars and other street

people in this separate act on the issue around this?

Hon. G. Plant: This act doesn't name anybody. It prescribes

certain activities. It does not care who is performing the activities. But if

you solicit in an aggressive manner…. This

section explains what that means. For

example, if you solicit by obstructing the path of the person that you're asking

for money from; by using abusive language; by proceeding behind, alongside or

ahead of the person you want money from; by approaching as a member of a group

of two or more other persons; or by continuing to solicit — all of those things

can form the beginning of the basis of this provincial offence, provided, of

course, that they are carried out in a manner that would cause a reasonable

person to be concerned for the solicited person's safety or security. That seems

to me to be the essence of what sections 2(1) and (2) are about.

As I say, the bill is scrupulously neutral as to who is conducting

the solicitation. It focuses on activities, not on economic status or other

forms of status.

J. Kwan: Well, we've also heard, though, from a variety of

people — including the members in this House and including a particular member

who wishes to try to gain, I suppose, notoriety at the expense of the people who

are targeted in this bill through a variety of actions and stunts, one might

say. We know that's taking place. In fact, groups of people have been named by

various politicians from the government's side, particularly in relation to this

bill.

We know this bill targets panhandlers. We know this bill targets

beggars. For example, under

section 1, which we just talked about, the other

"thing of value"…. I was asking the Attorney General: what is the other "thing

of value"? The Attorney General responded: "Food or drinks." So we know that it

targets people who are begging for food, for example. We know that it targets

panhandlers who might be begging for spare change, for example.

We have a separate bill that deals with these issues. The

government felt that it was necessary to have this before us. We have other

significant crime and safety issues, but the government felt that it was

important that it target beggars, panhandlers and other street people in a

separate act. That's what we're debating today under this bill.

I was asking the Attorney General about what other laws exist that

might deal with these issues, and the Attorney General named the Criminal Code

and a variety of municipal acts. What flaw did the Attorney General see in the

existing laws on harassment, intimidation and threats that he felt did not

answer the concerns the government sees — and therefore, this bill is now

required?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, first of all, the member seems to

think that it's only possible for government to pur-

[ Page 11700 ]

sue one aspect of problems with safety at a time. In fact, this is a

government that is doing many things to help keep our communities safer,

including everything from a newly announced task force to respond to

Indo-Canadian gang violence that the Solicitor General talked about just within

the last day or so. A whole range of initiatives are underway that are frankly

too numerous to mention. If that is the place this member wants to take this

debate, then I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to explore those over the

course of the afternoon.

[1510]

The fact is that this is but one tool, and it is one tool to use

in response to an admittedly complex problem. The fact that the problem is

complex should not paralyze government into inaction, and it has not paralyzed

government.

We are responding to the challenge of street behaviour in a number

of different ways, including the recently announced mayors' task force that's

looking at things around homelessness and causes of homelessness. There is also

the street crime working group, which looks at the relationship between certain

forms of street-level criminal activity and some of the social and medical

causes of that behaviour. Of course, we have committed to put 100 percent of all

traffic fine revenue collected in the province back into the hands of

communities, which I hope and, frankly, expect the communities will use to meet

the law enforcement priorities that they have in their communities.

There are a range of things being done here, but in that range,

within that complex array of policy responses, one tool that we think will be

useful and helpful is this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is

not criminal law; it does something different than the criminal law. It is

different from municipal bylaws in the very simple fact that it applies across

the province as a whole, so there is one standard set of rules that apply to

activity on the streets, whether it's activity in Dawson Creek or activity in

the Cowichan Valley or activity in downtown Vancouver. I think it reaches out

and touches in an appropriate way some kinds of behaviour that are offensive

irrespective of who is conducting them.

This bill does not prohibit begging. It does not prohibit

panhandling. It prohibits, particularly in this section, aggressive panhandling.

It prohibits abusive, belligerent panhandling. It prohibits gang panhandling. It

prohibits somebody who has asked once and been turned down from harassing and

following and besetting that person, from continuing to do so — not just in a

way that might cause one individual to be concerned about their safety but,

rather, in a way that meets the test in the section, which is that it would

cause a reasonable person to be concerned for their safety or security. That is

something that is missing from the law.

What we're doing here is not actually part of the law of British

Columbia, and therefore, it is filling a space that has been empty. I think it

is a space that has caused concern. We know that over 80 percent of the mayors

and councillors of the towns of British Columbia went to the UBCM and made it a

priority to speak loudly and persuasively so that government would hear their

voice saying that they wanted this additional tool to be part of the tools of

law enforcement and regulation.

I know that members representing communities from around the

province have, like me, heard concerns from business groups, from community

groups, even from individuals, saying that it's time we took a step to make sure

that our streets are places where we can feel safe and secure. One aspect of

that, one step forward in helping us achieve that goal, would be a piece of

legislation that prohibits certain behaviour that I, frankly, believe most

citizens think would be offensive.

I will say this, Mr. Chair. We will see how people vote on this.

It seems to me that the only answer to this section, the only answer I've ever

heard over the last month or so, is a debate about something else. It's a debate

about homelessness, or it's a debate about poverty. Those are important debates,

but they are not what this bill is about. We're dealing with those issues, and

we can debate the adequacy of government's response to those issues.

[1515]

I guess the question that we will see an answer to at some point

this afternoon is: what do members of the assembly believe should be the rules

around how you ask for money — how you beg, how you panhandle, how you cajole,

how you try and get help on the streets? What this

section says — the

section

we're looking at, Mr. Chair — is that you can't block somebody's path when

you're panhandling. It doesn't say you can't panhandle. It says you can't block

somebody's path. It says you can't use abusive language. It says you can't

follow or beset them. You can't approach them as a member of two or more other

persons, and you can't continue to solicit after you've been told no. You have

to do all of that in a way that would meet the test of a reasonable person.

That's the heart and soul of this. The other issues are, I think,

largely different issues, but I look forward to continued debate.

J. Kwan: It is interesting to note that the Attorney

General says that the debate about homelessness is not what this bill is about.

It is very interesting to get those words on record, and that's the quote from

the Attorney General just moments ago.

We know that the issue around, I think, the desperation of

people's lives. We know that the homelessness issue has been contributed to by

this government with their cut to — the elimination of, I should say, more

accurately — affordable housing initiatives targeting people who need safe and

affordable housing.

We know that the government, when they first came into office,

before they did anything…. One of the first acts, aside from giving their tax

breaks to the big corporations and the high-income earners, is that they

[ Page 11701 ]

actually froze about 1,000 units of affordable housing. We know that

significantly, the dollars targeted towards the construction of affordable

housing were taken away from those initiatives and put towards assisted living,

which was formerly funded under the Ministry of Health.

It is interesting to note…. I have a whole long list, as well, of

projects or initiatives that the government eliminated, which I think

contributed to the situation in our streets, contributed to many people's

desperation on the streets. I don't want to rehash my words and, certainly,

those of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings or our party's position on the

question around whether or not we want safe streets. Every single British

Columbian, I believe — I would say without hesitation — wants safer streets.

Make no mistake about that. I think that there are many contributing factors to

working towards and creating safer streets and safer neighbourhoods.

There are issues with respect to programs that have been

eliminated and the social safety net that has been weakened by this government.

Those things contribute to unsafe streets. We see this, and I certainly see this

in my community.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: I have the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who is

the media hound on this issue, going around and heckling me, saying: "You don't

think that aggression is an issue."

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

J. Kwan: Let me just quote not my words but someone else's

words on this issue — Mayor Alan Lowe, one of a handful of B.C. municipal

leaders with significant downtown problems that need to be addressed: "I have

been an advocate saying I do not believe we need the Safe Streets Act. We have

the Criminal Code to deal with aggressive panhandlers." This is a direct quote,

Mr. Chair.

L. Mayencourt: So you'd rather criminalize panhandling.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard continues to

heckle me and says: "But you'd rather criminalize panhandlers." What on earth

does this MLA think that this government is doing with this bill?

[1520]

Instead of actually coming forward with solutions to deal with

people who are desperate on the streets, to assist them, to work with municipal

leaders such as Alan Lowe, who has great issues and who actually went on record

to say that he does not believe we need the Safe Streets Act…. Instead of

working towards that, you have the MLA trying to pull media stunts by going into

the downtown east side and playing tourist for one week, as though somehow, all

of a sudden, he understands what the issues are around poverty and homelessness.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Order.

J. Kwan: Give me a break. The folks down in our community

are saying that it's nothing but a media stunt. This government is trying to

attack people in an unprecedented way.

And not only that. Let me further quote on record an

article that

was written in the Times Colonist on October 6: "Displaced beggars need a

place to go…." It's a long article. Let me just take a part of it from this news

article:

"But there are laws already — assault and harassment come

easily to mind — to deal with the most objectionable characters that make

people uneasy: squeegee kids who kick in the door of a car when the driver

won't pay them to smear their windshield, panhandlers who spit in the faces of

passers-by without a dime or a fiver to spare, or those growling threats at

nervous seniors from darkened doorways."

It's another source that actually says there are already

laws in place to deal with these issues.

Of course, I might note this act actually doesn't deal with what

the penalties are if you commit an offence under this act. At least the Criminal

Code does. At least the city bylaws provide that information.

Then you have the police from Victoria saying: "What's the point

of writing a ticket to someone who has no money? Anthony, who patrols downtown

Victoria on a regular basis, says concerns about aggressive panhandling, at

least in Victoria, are overblown. "To tell you the truth, I get very few calls

about aggressive panhandling," he said.

I will tell you that I was at UBCM in Kelowna. I listened to some

of the debates of the municipal leaders. You know what? People raised the issue

of government cutting a variety of programs that would help assist in minimizing

the problems that they have in their communities around homelessness, around the

victims assistance program, around street youth programs, around legal aid

services, around Crown prosecutors, around women's centres. You know what, Mr.

Chair? Those motions were passed by the UBCM delegates overwhelmingly.

What has the government done in addressing those issues? Zippo.

Nothing. If they valued the municipal leaders' words, maybe they would have

taken action in addressing those issues as well.

A lot of the speakers who spoke to this motion…. Yes, they

supported it, but they were saying: at a time when they don't have other options

from this government, when there is significant downloading of the problems on

the local governments, what are they to do? And yes, local governments are

desperate because of the off-loading from this government in terms of the

programs.

We know that existing laws do apply — the Criminal Code and

various municipal laws. We know the

[ Page 11702 ]

aggressive behaviour that this government likes to say this bill targets is

already covered under other laws. We know that those kinds of aggressive

behaviour are already an offence under the Criminal Code.

We know that this bill will target panhandlers and beggars, but we

also know that those individuals — they themselves — are often the target of

abusive language and actions. We know that those who are marginalized often face

significant abuse on the streets.

[1525]

I'd like to ask the Attorney General: when he says they're a

government that addresses a whole array of crime and safety issues…. They say

it, notwithstanding that it was this government that actually took out community

policing support. Notwithstanding that, I'd like to ask this minister this

question: is the Attorney General planning on bringing new laws, a new bill

perhaps, to address the issue of aggressive or abusive behaviour or words

against the homeless on the streets?

Hon. G. Plant: You know, I think when the member gets up in

the morning, the first thing she probably does is get down on her knees and say:

"Oh, Lord, grant me another day where I may avoid tripping over my hypocrisy."

Unfortunately, this is one of those prayers that never gets answered. She made

some allegation about freezing projects or something that she claims this

government did in the first days of its mandate. Actually, I was here in the

summer of 1996, a newly elected MLA. The member opposite was elected, I think,

for the first time and was elected as a member of government. The very first

thing — not just the second thing or the third thing but the very first thing —

her government did was to freeze every single capital project underway in

British Columbia.

So you know, I mean, it must be a wonderful thing to do to be able

to constantly just wash your mind of your own record, because in order for the

member to get indignant about anything, she has to do that. The very first thing

they did was stop every capital spending project in the entire province. Now, a

cynic might have said that the reason they did that was because they wanted the

joy of multiple reannouncements to follow in years after that. Sadly, a cynic

might ask: "Well, did they actually ever do some of those things that they

announced four or five times?" I lost track of the number of times that there

were announcements made by the former government of things that never, ever

happened. In fact, I will always remember Corky Evans's statement to the effect

that the NDP ought to apologize to the British Columbia public because they did

promise things that they had no intention of doing. So that's the record.

What's the record on our side of the House? Well, we spend $154

million a year on social housing. That's the most that any government has ever

spent in the history of British Columbia. That's progress. It may be something

that we need to continue to look at, but it seems to me that if we're going to

have a debate about social housing, you ought to have it on the basis of the

facts as they are, and those are the facts.

Mr. Chair, the member talked about the absence of any express

penalty regime in this bill, and I'm certainly willing to pursue that issue in

greater detail if the member is interested. As the member well knows — or ought

to know, because she has been in government — it's not necessary for there to be

any express provisions with respect to penalties in this bill because of the

operation of the Offence Act and other regulations in government which allow us

to bring this into effect and bring particular enforcement regimes into effect

without the need for a provision in this bill.

I can readily understand why, for the first hour or so after the

introduction of the debate, people who didn't know that that's the way

legislation operates in British Columbia might be forgiven, certainly, for

raising the issue. But for the member to continue to pursue it when she knows

full well that there is no substance whatsoever to that argument strikes me as

being someone who is a little hard up for good reasons to complain about this

legislation, so she's going to continue to rely on some bad reasons.

Finally, the member asked whether there is anything in this bill

that deals with the idea of aggressive behaviour directed against homeless

people. Well, as I've said, and I'll say it again, this bill makes no

distinction between the homeless and those who have homes. It makes no

distinction between those who are tall and those who are short. It regulates and

prohibits and says is wrong some activity. It's an offence to demand things. It

would be an offence under this bill to aggressively panhandle a homeless person.

That's the protection that the law affords. It is the equal protection of the

law. That is something that I think the law should do. Of course, if a homeless

person were to be the victim of an assault or a criminal act, then I would

expect that a homeless person would get the benefit of the law and that the

matter would be investigated by the police, and if a crime had been committed,

then there would be an information sworn, and proceedings would take place.

[1530]

So in fact, when it comes to criminal behaviour, the law protects

those who are without homes as well as it protects those who have homes, and

this bill does not discriminate on the basis of whether you have a home or not.

What it does say is that it's not possible and not permitted to panhandle in a

manner that is proscribed under

section 2.

J. Kwan: It is interesting to note…. You know, this

minister likes to call me hypocritical on issues. But you know what? Maybe the

minister would like to check his facts. Maybe he would actually like to tell the

truth to British Columbians on what actually happened with this government, what

this government campaigned on during their new-era campaign and what they

actually implemented over the last three and a half years.

This government and this Attorney General like to get up and brag

about their record on housing. I'd be prepared to stand up to this government

any day on our housing record versus this government's housing record — any day.

[ Page 11703 ]

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The MLA for Vancouver-Burrard is heckling me that

I'll have my chance in May. You bet I'll have my chance in May, and so will he.

What he doesn't understand is that he has failed to advocate…

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please, member.

J. Kwan: …for his people in his community. What he has

failed to understand is that he was one of the MLAs that went out there and

trumpeted the government's cut and the elimination of 1,000 units of affordable

housing — newly constructed projects that were slated and budgeted for under the

previous administration.

I am proud of the NDP record on housing, let me tell you, Mr.

Chair. Since the federal government left the national program on affordable

housing in 1993, British Columbia was one of two provinces continuing to build

new affordable housing in programs for people in B.C.

Under this government since 2001, since the last election, you may

ask the question: are there any new affordable housing programs, new

construction initiatives for British Columbians? The answer would be no. The

ones that the government is announcing, which they claim the previous government

liked to re-announce, were the projects that were committed under the previous

administration.

They have only just come to completion, because projects, as you

know, take more than one day to build. Sometimes it takes several years. It is

this administration that cancelled over 1,000 units of affordable housing, and

it is not a coincidence that relates to this bill on issues around people who

are desperate on the streets.

Last winter, the GVRD did a study on homelessness. Wouldn't you

know it? It just so happens to coincide. The information they discovered was

that the homeless people in our communities in the lower mainland had actually

increased by about 1,200. It just so happens to coincide with the number of

units that were lost through affordable housing programs, the new affordable

housing units to be constructed in the province.

Is that a coincidence? Maybe. You know what? Let us be clear.

Housing is not the only promise the government had reneged on. Not only have

they cancelled key initiatives in constructing and building new affordable

housing programs, they have cancelled others as well. The Kettle Friendship

centre….

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. We have to get

back to this bill, on

section 2. You're obviously straying a lot from the

content of this bill. I would ask you, please, to get back to ask questions on

section 2 of Bill 71.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm trying to set the

context of the people that are desperate on the streets as it relates to this

section of the bill that targets the people….

The Chair: Member, member, please take your seat. I think

you've made your point. As I said, let's get back to the content of the bill,

section 2.

[1535]

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, as always, for being

extremely helpful with debate, and thank you for your advice.

The context I'm setting out for the Attorney General, on which he

challenged me to respond in my questions to him…. I am much obliged to do

exactly that — with that challenge, with the Attorney General's answer to my

question on targeting people, on bringing in a piece of legislation that

actually does not, in my view, provide solutions to trying to deal with issues

our community members are faced with.

When you have no access for programs such as the Picasso Café,

which funds youths, homeless youths….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, please. Member for Vancouver-Burrard,

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair.

What nonsense has just been spouted out by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard. It was this government that cancelled the funding for Picasso

Café, not the previous administration. What complete nonsense. If he actually

looks at the facts and reads them and understands them, maybe he will actually

contribute to the debate.

He says that the previous administration tried to close it four

times. The reality is that the previous administration didn't, and I was one

that advocated for the continuation of support for the café. And what did this

MLA do? Did he go out to advocate for the Picasso Café? No. This government has

shut down Picasso Café, a proven project that helps out youth — homeless youth

and at-risk youth — with employment initiatives.

That project, which this Liberal MLA did nothing to try to save,

was actually started not by the NDP administration but under the Social Credit

government 15 years ago. This Liberal government cancelled their funding.

Have you seen the issues around youth at risk that are now being

targeted by this act? Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that this MLA just sits

there. He can go into the downtown east side and go into communities and do his

little media stunts, but when it comes to reality and doing real work and

rolling up your sleeves, to actually say: "I am going to be fighting for the

funding for those projects…." He has actually done nothing to actually help.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, please take your seat for a second.

Let's keep the debate between the minister and the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant.

[ Page 11704 ]

J. Kwan: That would be useful and helpful. If the member for

Vancouver-Burrard wants to be useful and helpful and constructive for a change,

he might actually provide factual information for debate instead of sitting on

the sidelines and heckling and actually rolling up his sleeves to do real work

to address the concerns — particularly advocating for the funding cuts that this

government has forced on communities, creating even more desperate situations.

There was a report last week in the Victoria Times Colonist

about a homeless man that was stabbed on Sunday. As my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings and I have pointed out, our streets are often the least safe

for our poorest homeless citizens. The Attorney General says: "Oh, but this bill

will provide protection for everyone." "It does not discriminate," he says.

Yet we know that with this bill, the people who are perhaps most

marginalized and who are most vulnerable and most desperate will face tremendous

challenges in addressing their issues. Yeah, it is my community in the downtown

east side where we just have had more information about eight more women that

are missing in the downtown east side, adding to the total. It's close to 70 so

far.

I know people will say there are laws that deal with that, and

there are. There is an investigation ongoing into these issues, but it took some

time to really have people focus on the issues and the situation we have in the

downtown east side community. Yet we're still calling for a public inquiry into

the matter, and the government has refused.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General this question: what advice

did the Attorney General have about the constitutionality of the provisions in

this

section of the bill?

[1540]

Hon. G. Plant: My view is that the

section we have before

us,

section 2 of the Safe Streets Act, is within the constitutional authority of

the province and does not violate any constitutional principles, including, for

example, the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Charter.

J. Kwan: So is it the opinion of this Attorney General that

this bill will actually be constitutionally upheld in the courts?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes. If the bill is challenged, my view is

that the bill will withstand challenge.

J. Kwan: Well, we will see. We will see whether or not this

bill will actually stand up to the constitutionality provisions we have in this

country. I, myself, do not believe that it will. I think it is likely that this

bill will be challenged.

The minister says that this bill targets aggressive behaviour.

Aggressive behaviour includes "threatening the person solicited with physical

harm, by word, gesture or other means." What are "other means"?

Hon. G. Plant: The words "or other means" at the end of

section 2(1) are intended to encompass the possibility that there may be other

ways in which someone might be threatened, other than by word or gesture. Rather

than constrain the statute, we thought we should provide a sort of general

definition. The principal concept there is that there has to be a threat. There

has to be a threat of the person being associated with physical harm. There are

many ways, I suppose, that you could make a threat. If the word "word" and the

word "gesture" do not encompass all of those, then the last three words in the

bill should encompass them.

J. Kwan: The bill does not talk about penalty. There's

nothing that deals with the issue around penalties. What is the penalty applied

to someone who commits an offence under this act?

Hon. G. Plant: It's the same as in the Trespass Act. If no

other regulation is passed, then there's a

section of the Offence Act, which I

think is

section 4, that says that in proceedings by way of information, the

maximum fine would be $2,000, or a maximum term of imprisonment of six months,

or both. That is a default that would operate if no other action were taken.

It's also open to government to enact regulations under something called, I

think, the Violation Ticket Administration and Fines Regulation. That could

provide for the enforcement by means of ticketing. Through that mechanism,

different fine levels could be established. All that's required in order to make

that happen is a regulation. There does not need to be any change to the

statute.

J. Kwan: When the bill was first introduced, the Attorney

General was in the hallways responding to media inquiries about this bill, and

he said that the government would be bringing in regulations. Is he now saying

that the government may not be bringing in regulations? What is the intention of

the government with respect to that — let the penalty component of it be

defaulted to the Offence Act, or are we anticipating regulations? If so, when

can we expect those kinds of regulations?

[1545]

Hon. G. Plant: What I think I said in the hallway on the

day the bill was introduced, and what I will certainly say here now, is that my

intention is to consult with the UBCM, with the Safe Streets Coalition and with

law enforcement authorities and to receive the views of others, including

members of the public who may have an opinion on the subject of enforcement. I

want to hear the views of at least those three groups about what they think the

best mechanism for enforcement is. Then we will make a decision about how we

want to proceed. I don't imagine that this will be a very lengthy or extensive

process. We may well have a decision on that and may even have regulations in

place by the end of the calendar year.

J. Kwan: I'd like to put this on record, and I'd like to

receive the minister's response to it. This is a letter from

[ Page 11705 ]

the Lookout Emergency Aid Society dated October 5, 2004, addressed to the

Attorney General. Let me just quote part of it. It talks about what Lookout does

generally, and then it goes on to talk about the issue around the Safe Streets

Act.

"Since the calendar year 2000,

Lookout has seen a dramatic 174 percent increase in the number of turnaways.

We believe this is in direct correlation with the downsizing of various

services and resources and has contributed to the desperation that people on

the streets are feeling. Not infrequently we have situations where individuals

come into our shelters ineligible for EI, ineligible for BC Benefits, and yet

are unable to either gain employment, or in other instances they have major

difficulties to maintain employment. This situation has resulted in greater

poverty and increased panhandling.

"While we acknowledge that amongst any

group of people there are individuals whose behaviour is

unacceptable — threats, theft, etc. — the majority of the homeless are people

who are simply trying to cope."

Then it goes on to say: "We believe the police have the

authority to deal with unacceptable behaviour." It goes on to urge the

government to not move forward with this bill. It's signed by Karen O'Shannacery,

the executive director — someone who actually is in the downtown east side every

single day, unlike the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who goes down there and

plays tourist for one week and claims that he knows all the problems and

challenges and the solutions. This is from the Lookout Emergency Aid Society,

who actually has put this letter to the minister with respect to their concerns,

Mr. Chair, and I'd like to hear the minister's response to that.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I received the letter. I thought it

made a good case for continued government action on a number of social policy

fronts. In fact, what we have before us is a provision of a bill that says that

it doesn't matter whether you're poor or rich; you can't beg for money in

circumstances where you cause somebody to be afraid for their safety or

security. The member and I obviously have a difference of opinion about whether

or not that is a legitimate public policy objective. I do think that it

shouldn't matter what your circumstances are.

The law — and it's pretty fundamental law — will allow you to

stand on the street and ask for money, but it shouldn't allow you to harass

people. It shouldn't allow you to get together in gangs to demand money. It

shouldn't allow you to follow after people for money. In fact, there is no

provincial legislation in place to deal with that behaviour. This will remedy a

gap. It not only operates differently from the Criminal Code in general terms,

but the activity which is proscribed by this

section is defined much more

precisely than you will find in the Criminal Code. That's in order to give

people a pretty good sense of what it is that we think should be prohibited and

what should not be.

I certainly respect the views of the folks from Lookout. I know

that they're powerful advocates for the social and economic conditions of people

who live disadvantaged lives, and we will continue to do what we can as

government to work on those matters, but they're actually not what's before us

here in this bill, with respect, Mr. Chair.

[1550]

J. Kwan: The minister already has a copy because the letter

was sent to the minister on October 5, 2004, and it was copied to others. In the

letter, yes, it raises the issues in terms of cuts in services. For example,

just to name a few, some of the cuts that the government has made since they've

taken office: cuts to the Kettle Friendship Society, the community services

fund, PACE2 and the Kiwassa Employment and Assistance Centre, the Multicultural

Family Centre, the Picasso Café, which I raised on the record….

The Chair: Member, take a seat, please. We're once again

getting off track for the bill. Let's get back and maintain your questioning to

section 2 of Bill 71. Thank you.

J. Kwan: Well, those are some of the examples of cuts that

Karen O'Shannacery has raised in her letter in terms of government resource

funding and in terms of government cuts. They do relate, because I don't think

that we can look at this issue of panhandlers, beggars on the streets, for

example, which this bill does target…. I suppose the minister can continue to

pretend that it doesn't target this group of people, but this bill does target

them. You know what? I have a substantive number of these folks in my riding.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard says that my riding is the worst neighbourhood

in Canada.

L. Mayencourt: I've never said that. I have never said

that, Jenny, and you know I haven't.

J. Kwan: I challenge that insult. It was on CKNW, Mr.

Chair.

L. Mayencourt: I have never said it.

J. Kwan: It's on record. So I think it's insulting for

these kinds…

L. Mayencourt: You're insulting.

J. Kwan: …of comments to be made about my neighbourhood and

about the riding that I represent.

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard, please refrain from getting involved with this debate. I

appreciate it. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Thank you. I would certainly concur with that

advice — that he should refrain from this debate. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard certainly has nothing constructive to add to the debate.

The Chair: Member, maybe I should suggest to you as well to

not egg him on. Please focus on the bill.

[ Page 11706 ]

We're on

section 2. Focus on the bill, and focus your comments on the bill

rather than members of the House.

J. Kwan: I was just agreeing with your comments.

Karen O'Shannacery has written to the minister about the Safe

Streets Act. She says directly in her letter that this situation that the

government has put forward, that is the situation of eliminating critical

services and resources — downsizing, to use her words exactly — of various

services and resources…. I was naming some of them on the record that she says

have resulted in greater poverty and increased panhandling, which this bill

targets.

She also said that they believe that the police have the authority

to deal with unacceptable behaviour through charging people through the Criminal

Code and through the municipal bylaw. She raises two issues in terms of the

problem that has been escalated by this government's actions, by their

elimination of critical programs that would support communities and individuals.

She also says that we have laws in place. Yes, she is urging the government to

take action in reinstituting programs that would help individuals who need the

support.

This

section of the bill says that a person commits an offence if

the person engages in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to be

concerned for the solicited person's safety or security in one or more one of

the following activities during the solicitation or after the solicited person

responds or fails to respond to the solicitation. It goes on to say,

"obstructing the path of the solicited person," "using abusive language" and so

on.

Let me ask this question. If under

section 2(2)(a) — "obstructing

the path of the solicited person…." Let's say, for example, a panhandler or a

beggar who is begging for food is standing in front of someone, and the person

refuses to give or ignores or whatever, and the person is still standing there,

would that be deemed to be obstructing the path?

[1555]

Hon. G. Plant: If you stand in somebody's way when they're

walking towards you and you do the other things that are part of the offence and

you do so in a way that would cause a reasonable person in the position of a

pedestrian to be concerned for their safety or security, that would constitute

an offence.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just say this. I'd like to close with

these remarks about this

section of the bill. According to the Attorney General,

this

section of the bill targets aggressive behaviour when someone is

soliciting. I've put on record concerns that this government has failed to

address. I've put on record an example of someone else who has, on behalf of her

society, raised her concern that this government had failed to address,

particularly around providing the kinds of supports that are necessary — the

kinds of supports to the individuals and to the organizations that are providing

these services to individuals.

In fact, if anything, this government has only made the situation

worse by cutting programs and cutting the resources. PEERS, another initiative —

Prostitutes Empowerment, Education and Resource Society in Victoria — had their

funding cut, for example. The WISH Drop-in Centre, which would actually address

some of the issues of people begging for food — drop-in centres often provide

food and support to people — this government saw fit to cut. This government cut

the Studio program for at-risk youth — again, 17 years of service from the

Studio that this government cut. It wasn't a program started by the previous

administration, under the NDP; it was started by the Socred government and

supported through different administrations but cut by the Liberal government.

Legal aid cuts raise another issue. The government has cut legal

aid representation for administrative law for people who are faced with poverty,

and they will have no access to legal representation on these issues, because

government cut those programs. The government saw fit to do all of that. Then,

in the meanwhile, they pretend that they're very concerned about safe streets

only to find that they've contributed to the problem.

Then you actually have Mayor Alan Lowe coming forward and saying

that we don't need a Safe Streets Act in downtown Victoria, which has problems,

and he actually speaks against the Safe Streets Act.

I want to be very clear that the opposition does want safe streets

for everyone, but we're calling on the government to provide the resources and

the programs that are necessary to support individuals and organizations to help

us create safer streets. We're calling on this government to be ever mindful of

their actions. This bill, in my estimation, is a cynical political exercise by

the government, for they have done little to actually address the issue around

safe streets. We must acknowledge there are already existing laws that target

aggressive behaviour that the minister claims this bill is trying to target.

[1600]

Hon. G. Plant: Let me just say a couple of things. I want

it to be clear that — and this is partly in reference to an issue the member

raised earlier — there is a difference between this and the Criminal Code. This

law reaches into different places and different kinds of activity than the

Criminal Code. It is not an answer to this bill to say: "Ah, but we have the

Criminal Code." They speak to different things. Nor is it an answer to this bill

to say: "But there are municipal bylaws."

The first reason that is so is that not every town and city in

British Columbia has those bylaws. In fact, there may be only four towns and

cities — maybe a handful, at any rate — that actually have bylaws that are close

on point to the provisions in this bill. On that basis alone, it's not an answer

to this bill to say: "Ah, but there are municipal bylaws." The person who says,

"Ah, but we have the Criminal Code, and we have mu-

[ Page 11707 ]

nicipal bylaws," is unfortunately, upon close analysis, not actually offering

an objection to this bill.

This bill fills a place that is not filled by the law. There is an

additional element, which is the difference in enforcement power available to a

municipal bylaw enforcement officer on the one hand versus what is available to

a peace officer enforcing this bill. Those differences, too, are real, and they

are substantial. They also represent an answer to the question: "Why not just

rely on the Criminal Code and municipal bylaws?"

This bill speaks to something slightly different, and it does so

in a way that reaches across the whole of the province. It does speak truly and

substantively to an issue I have had raised with me by individuals, elderly

people who feel intimidated when they walk down the streets because they're

being persistently panhandled — behaviour that would fall short of a criminal

offence but is, nonetheless, behaviour that, from their perspective, is

threatening. It causes them to think twice about being on the streets.

I've heard from visitors to Vancouver who wonder why it is that we

have a problem of aggressive panhandling on the streets of Vancouver, to take

Vancouver for an example. Alan Lowe may be right. There may not be a problem on

the streets of Victoria. Every town will have its own circumstances. But I know

there is a problem on the streets of Vancouver, because I've sure heard a lot

about it.

I guess I think about the situation of a 79- or 80-year-old woman,

a little bit frail, who still likes to go downtown, who wants to be able to go

to downtown Vancouver and have a nice day out with a friend or two and shop. I

guess I have to say we can have a discussion about social policy and economic

policy, and we can shout at each other the way there has been some shouting this

afternoon.

I don't doubt that those are difficult issues. I don't doubt that

we're going to continue to have a debate about whether government is adequately

responding to some of the social conditions that are present on the streets, but

they are beside the point of this provision. This provision says that it doesn't

matter what your circumstances are. You can't bother other people to the point

where you're behaving belligerently.

So I guess I have to say, having heard some of the opposition to

this provision and to the other provisions: what is it about the dogmatic Left

that makes them so unwilling to speak up for those who feel safe on our streets?

I have heard nothing from the member opposite to say what she would do to deal

with the real problem that exists.

She takes a path from the real problem, which denies it, by trying

to talk about another problem. I don't doubt that there are other problems, but

the fact is that there are people on the streets who behave inappropriately, who

harass people mercilessly for money. Why shouldn't the law provide a tool to

respond to that? It's behaviour that falls short of the Criminal Code.

[1605]

In the course of the debate in the public over the last few weeks,

I've heard lots of examples used of behaviour that looks to me like it would

constitute a criminal offence, followed by the rhetorical question: "Why don't

we use the Criminal Code?" Good question, but this doesn't deal with that

behaviour. This doesn't deal with an actual assault.

If I spit in your face for no reason on the streets, that's an

assault. That's a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada. What if I am just am

nasty to you and won't let you go, and I keep asking you and asking you for

money? Just to personalize it, what if the person doing the asking is 6 foot 2,

240 pounds, and the person on the other end is 5 foot 4 and 79 years old? What

is it about the Left that makes them so unwilling to speak up on behalf of those

people?

All they can do is talk about something else. All they can do is

have an argument about the adequacy of social programs. Good argument — totally

beside the point. All they can do is second-guess the government's motives. Let

me tell you about the government's motives, Mr. Chair. The government's motives

are to try to do something to make our streets safer. That's what over 80

percent of the municipal officials of British Columbia want us to do. Those are

people who are close to their communities.

Yes, those municipal mayors and city councillors may want

government to do other things about social and economic policy. That may be so,

and maybe we should listen to them, but that's a different debate. That's not

this debate. This debate is about whether we should step forward and say yes,

there is certain behaviour that interferes with the right we have as citizens to

pass freely without hindrance on the streets. That's a very fundamental right.

I never hear the dogmatic Left speak on defence of that right. I

have never heard anyone opposed to this bill stand up and say, with credibility:

"I believe that citizens should be allowed to pass freely on the streets." What

I hear instead is some statement like: "I believe in the right of socially

disadvantaged people to abuse other citizens." I don't accept that. It may be a

perspective that you can legitimately hold. I think it is a perspective that you

can't really legitimately hold. I mean, I just don't get it.

We've certainly had a good opportunity to poke and prod at the

details of this. We haven't had that debate. I don't know why the member is

completely uninterested in the words of the section. Maybe it is because she

looks at the words of the

section and realizes that no sane person could oppose

this provision, unless we were to stand up and have a debate about the homeless,

as though being homeless created some kind of inherent right to abuse other

people.

I don't buy that. We live in a civilized society. Falling on hard

times is not a reason to be belligerent to other innocent people. It is just not

acceptable, Mr. Chair. It should not be acceptable. We should all agree on that

fact here in this chamber. We can debate spending and social programs, and we

have done that.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is certainly a passionate

advocate for the social and economic circumstances of the citizens in her

community,

[ Page 11708 ]

and I respect her for that. I respect her advocacy on behalf of the

disadvantaged across the province as a whole. Why does being disadvantaged give

you a right to gang up, with a couple of other people, and beset somebody as

they're following their way down the street, just trying to go about their

business? I never hear an answer to that question. It's because there is no good

answer to that question.

When they stand up — and they will stand up and will vote against

this — are they voting for unsafe streets? Are they saying they care so little

about the rest of us? Are they saying that they care so little about the average

citizen, that they're so wrapped up in justifying an argument about the

circumstances of the economically disadvantaged that they're willing to slap the

rest of British Columbians across the side of the face and say: "You don't

matter, and we should be allowed to assault you, abuse you, harass you,

intimidate you, speak belligerently, because you are better off than we are"?

[1610]

I can't believe that is an argument anyone could take seriously.

And do you know this? Eighty percent of the mayors and city councillors in

British Columbia don't take that argument seriously, and they don't for a minute

think that this bill is the answer to all that ails society. All they see here

is all that is here, which is a very carefully defined prohibition of some

pretty carefully articulated behaviour that I think, read objectively by most

citizens, would find support.

People would say no, you shouldn't be allowed to panhandle

aggressively. We'll allow you to panhandle, but you can't stand in the middle of

the street, block somebody's passageway, gang up with a bunch of other folks,

use abusive language and carry on harassing and besetting people. That's not

right. We shouldn't allow that.

I think this is a provision…. It's not the same provision that was

introduced earlier by the private member. We've actually taken some care to try

to make sure that it is a careful and precise and, I believe, pretty well

drafted provision that strikes at something I think most British Columbians

believe should not be permitted.

So I urge all members, as we approach the possibility of a vote on

this section, to think about what it is that ordinary British Columbians want

from us in this Legislature. I think what they want from us is to set some basic

standards, enforceable by the law when there is a problem of such pressing and

persistent nature that it requires a response in the law, and those standards

are established in this

section of the bill.

Hon. S. Brice: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Brice: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of

Finance, I wish to acknowledge in the House this afternoon 17 grade 7 students

from Wolfe Elementary School in Vancouver-Fairview, with their teachers Ms.

Krista Tulloch, Mr. Craig Chaplin and Ms. Susan Tulloch. I ask the House to make

them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: I could not let the minister, the Attorney

General, get away with those comments, Mr. Chair.

I, too, want to welcome the children visiting the Legislature, but

let me just say this: they're getting a valuable lesson today of what not to do.

That is what the Attorney General has just done: to make it up as you go along,

no matter what the reality is or what the facts are. That's what we just heard

from the Attorney General — making up the facts as it suits him.

Here is a valuable lesson for those who are here in the

Legislature today and those who might be watching the debate. The Attorney

General accuses the opposition of supporting…. Somehow, people who are faced

with aggressive behaviour on the streets — whether it be from a beggar or a

panhandler — as though somehow it is okay behaviour…. Mr. Chair, the minister is

not only wrong on that assertion, but he is purposely misconstruing what the

opposition has been saying on this issue.

The Chair: Member, I must warn you that the implication you

are making here with that comment is unparliamentary, so just be very, very

cautious, please.

J. Kwan: I want to be very clear, Mr. Chair. I'm exercising

every caution in my words that I'm putting on record here today, because it is

misinformation about the opposition's position that the Attorney General just

put on record. It is not true. It is false, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we'll see how you vote.

J. Kwan: What I have put on record and have been very clear

about this issue…. The Attorney General sits there and says: "We'll see how you

vote." On second reading I have already spoken against the bill.

[1615]

Let me tell you, Mr. Chair. The Attorney General would like to

reduce the issue as though somehow this is just strictly about setting standards

of behaviour. Well, it isn't. I hate to tell the Attorney General that it isn't.

It is about us as a society as a whole — how we conduct ourselves, for those who

are poor, which this bill targets, as well as those who are not so unfortunate

as to have to beg for food or be on the streets to panhandle for support. It

speaks to a society — we as a whole — about who we are and how we will deal with

the people who are most marginalized in our communities.

Is it as simple as the Attorney General would like to put it —

simply to say: "Oh, well, we'll slap a piece of law in place that says you are

not allowed to do that, and if you do it, you're going to be hauled off the

streets and that's it, end of story"? Meanwhile, the gov-

[ Page 11709 ]

ernment cuts funding for housing; cuts funding for social support programs

for youth, for the homeless, for those who are marginalized in our communities,

for those who are mentally ill, those who are faced with multiple diagnoses in

our communities; and closes drop-in centres for people to drop in to get a cup

of coffee.

And somehow, when I bring those matters up for debate as it

relates to this bill — and about we as a society and we as a government and how

we address those issues — the Attorney General says: "That has nothing to do

with anything, and the member is just bringing it up — completely irrelevant."

Then he went on to accuse me as if somehow the Left has this

position. Well, I have news for the minister. He can call me whatever he wants,

and he has in this House and insulted me in untold ways. He can go on and do

that. He did it in the trespass act, and today he did it again when we debated

this bill. Maybe that makes him feel better and makes his colleagues feel

better, but that's not the real issue. You can call me any name you want and

accuse me of whatever you want, Mr. Chair, to the Attorney General, but you know

what? That does not negate the crucial issue that I want to bring up relating to

this bill.

It isn't just about slapping a piece of law in place — telling

someone that they can't stand there and solicit in an aggressive manner, as

though somehow that means you're setting standards, while you cut programs

without putting the supports in place. It doesn't mean that. When you have

emergency shelters and representatives from there sending a letter to the

Attorney General telling him: "Do not be simplistic" — I think, implicit in the

letter — "with your approach to addressing this critical issue, and understand

that all of the government's actions have ramifications and that they have

contributed to increased panhandling and therefore created unsafe streets."

Let me just put this on record. I had the pleasure most recently

to engage in a discussion with the former mayor, Mayor Philip Owen, on the week

that we were off, on the Friday. I was back in my community at the Carnegie

Centre, and we were celebrating the Heart of the City Festival at Carnegie. They

were celebrating the talents of the people in our community, which certainly

very few people in this chamber actually acknowledge — the hidden talents, the

unbelievable voice that the singer sang with, the music that they played.

It was just unbelievable artistic expression that I have rarely

seen anywhere else, in a community that people say is the worst community in

Canada — that the MLA from Burrard says is the worst community. I have seen with

my very own eyes and experienced over more than 20 years now in the downtown

east side the strength and the talents of these people.

In that conversation with Mayor Owen, with several people…. It was

a conversation that we all just stood around and said…. It was actually the

Friday after this bill was introduced in the House on Thursday. I was talking

about this bill, and the former mayor said: "You know, I really don't know what

people are talking about when they say that the 100 block of Hastings is

unsafe." He says to me: "I park my car in the 100 block of Hastings Street. I

walk out, and I actually feel safe in this community." He says to me: "I don't

know what people are trying to do."

When they said to him, when he was the mayor, that he should

actually become more like the mayor of New York and bring in laws and bylaws

that prevent people from being seen to be poor on the streets, to address the

issue around prostitution and the drug issue and so on…. He says: "You know, all

that does is push the problem to someone else's neighbourhood, and then you ask

the question: what does that solve?"

[1620]

This is a former mayor of Vancouver, Mayor Philip Owen. In our

conversation, we sort of talked about these issues in general, and that's what

he told me. He is certainly not deemed to be the Left, as the Solicitor General

likes to peg people into holes — certainly not.

Let me just say this as well. Part of this information was brought

forward by my colleague during second reading debate, but I would like to put

this on record. I would like to put the question relating to this abstract to

the minister, and I would like to seek his response.

This is a study that was done on the issue: A Social and

Economic Impact Study on the Ontario Safe Streets Act on Toronto Squeegee

Workers . The abstract reads:

"Squeegee cleaning was once a primary source of economic

activity for many homeless youth in Ontario. Effective January 31, 2000, the

Ontario government officially censured this activity, along with other forms

of 'aggressive' begging. This paper reports on the social and economic impact

that the Ontario Safe Streets Act…has had on a sample of 50 homeless youth in

Toronto.

"Youth who were once actively engaged in

squeegee cleaning prior to the Ontario Safe Streets Act are now

living more difficult lives. Although the legislation has not had the effect

of completely eradicating this work, two years after squeegee cleaning was

banned, homeless youth who once heavily relied upon the income from squeegee

cleaning are now more likely to be sleeping in more dangerous environments,

are more likely to be panhandling, selling drugs (males) and collecting social

assistance.

"There is also evidence to suggest that

relations with the police have worsened for these youth since

the Ontario Safe Streets Act came into effect. These findings are then

discussed in terms of neoconservative punitive modes of social control and

social exclusion."

I would like to seek the minister's response to this study

and the abstract I just put on record.

Hon. G. Plant: I think the study was directed at the

activity of squeegeeing, which is not really, I think, caught by

section 2 of

the bill. I appreciate the fact that the impact of the Ontario legislation has

been studied. I'm sure it will continue to be studied. I have not actually read

the study in detail. The reason I haven't is because this bill is targeted at

phenomena that I accept are a problem on the streets of British Columbia, and

this bill is targeted at that activity.

For the reasons that I have tried to express at some length in

this debate today, the legislation, I think, strikes appropriately at a problem

and does so in a way

[ Page 11710 ]

that is carefully circumscribed. We'll see how it is applied as it is

enforced on the streets, assuming that it is supported by the members of the

House.

J. Kwan: Isn't that convenient for the Attorney General to

say that has nothing to do with the bill? Isn't it interesting that Ontario

actually went down this experiment. They actually brought forward a thing called

the Safe Streets Act in Ontario. They actually did a study on it three years

after the act was passed, and they found that the problems….

While it might appear to have dealt with the problems on the

surface, in reality what has happened is that the youth who were at risk, who

were panhandling on the streets, who were targeted by that bill, as would be

this bill in British Columbia for the use on our streets…. They actually found

them to be in more dangerous environments, that they are actually dealing with

issues more complicated, perhaps, than the situation now and that they are in

fact in a situation of selling drugs and so on.

You wonder: is that the alternative we want? Is that the direction

we want to take it? The Attorney General asked a question — facetiously, I'm

sure — about what we want. What do we want, and what is our solution to the

problem? I actually do have an amendment to this bill that I will table at the

appropriate time, Mr. Chair.

What I want is this — let me be very clear: real solutions to

people's problems and challenges that will make a difference. I can tell you

that right now, Mr. Chair. I want affordable housing programs that would house

people who are homeless on the streets right now, that we reduce the rate of

homelessness in our communities. I want the PEERS program's funding, for

example, to be reinstated so that people who need those kinds of programs to

provide them with the kind of supports they need to get off the streets would

actually have the opportunity to do so. That is just to cite a couple of

examples.

[1625]

We live in a society that is democratic and free, and I am proud

to be a Canadian. Make no mistake about that. I am proud of the opportunities

that are offered me as an immigrant in this community. Make no mistake about

that.

I come from a country where I saw untold numbers of people who

were poor and who were begging on the streets every single day. I remember that

as a kid when I was growing up, I thought: oh my goodness, how could it be that

people are living in paper houses? I had paper houses at home, but they were for

my dolls when I was nine years old, not for real people on the streets. And

that's what I saw.

When I came here, I saw a better society and better opportunities

for everyone. It is about that. We live in a rich society, and there is no

justification whatsoever that we actually have the poor living on the streets.

There is no justification for this government to be cutting the kinds of

programs they have cut and then doing nothing about it and turning around to

say, oh, but we want to set standards of behaviour.

It is no justification for this Attorney General to accuse the

opposition, that somehow we will step back and say that everything is fine, that

we want to see seniors be accosted on the streets and be faced with aggressive

behaviour. That is utter nonsense. It just goes to show you how shallow — how

shallow, really — the thinking is around the government's actions to date.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

Falcon

Coell

Les

Wong

Chong

Locke

Hansen

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Roddick

Bray

Cobb

Lee

Murray

Plant

Bond

Brice

de Jong

L. Reid

Penner

Jarvis

Orr

Nebbeling

R. Stewart

Hunter

Chutter

Mayencourt

Johnston

Bennett

Krueger

J. Reid

McMahon

Brenzinger

Masi

Nijjar

Bhullar

Hayer

Visser

Lekstrom

K. Stewart

Bloy

Suffredine

Whittred

Sultan

Kerr

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1630-1635]

section 3.

The Chair: Attorney General, I believe we have an amendment

section 3. We'll deal with that first of all.

Hon. G. Plant: There are two amendments. I will move the

first amendment. This is an amendment published in the Orders of the Day

to amend the proposed

section 3 by adding a new subsection:

[SECTION 3, in the proposed

section 3 by adding the following

subsection:

(3.1) No offence is committed under subsection

(2) (

a) if the person soliciting

(

a) has express permission, given by the

owner or occupier of the premises on which the automated teller

machine is located, to solicit within 5 metres of the automated teller

machine, and

(

b) solicits only on the premises.]

On the amendment.

J. Kwan: Maybe the Attorney General could be more specific.

There are two amendments that I see. Is he moving both of them at the same time?

[ Page 11711 ]

The Chair: No, member, just the amendment to

section

Section 3.1 is a separate section. We're just dealing with the amendment to

section 3.

J. Kwan: Then we're now debating the amendment on this

language: "No offence is committed under subsection (2) (

a) if the person

soliciting (

a) has express permission, given by the owner or occupier of the

premises on which the automated teller machine is located, to solicit within 5

metres of the automated teller machine, and (

b) solicits only on the premises."

That's the amendment we're now dealing with. Then let me put some questions to

the minister about the amendment.

The five-metre rule that the government has put forward — why five

metres? Where did that come from?

Hon. G. Plant: We gave consideration to a number of

different options here. One of the options was to have no bubble zone

requirement at all, but our view was that the idea of captive audience

solicitation becomes most problematic when someone is being solicited when

they're waiting for a bus and they're right beside the bus stop. We thought that

we needed to put some limit around what the no-go zone would be, if you will,

and argued that five metres was a reasonable distance.

J. Kwan: Specifically in this amendment, automated teller

machines — that is, ATMs — are named here, but it doesn't name any other kinds

of things, whether it be a bus bench or whatever the case may be. Why is that?

Hon. G. Plant: What we're trying to permit with this

amendment is the fairly common occurrence of charities setting up a fundraising

drive on bank premises, sometimes within five metres of an ATM. The defence only

applies in respect of solicitation on the bank premises.

J. Kwan: In this bill if a person…. There was much to-do

from the government in making the issue that you would only be committing an

offence if, in fact, you solicited in an aggressive manner. I would suspect, for

example, Girl Guides who are selling cookies in a bank or outside a bank or by a

park bench or anywhere else are not committing an offence, because they're not

doing it in an aggressive manner, I wouldn't imagine. Why the contradiction?

Hon. G. Plant: There is no contradiction. We're now

debating a new section. We are now debating a

section which makes the

solicitation of a captive audience an offence. That

section is directed at a

slightly different phenomenon.

[1640]

Here we're talking about somebody who is standing around waiting

to use a cash machine or waiting in line to use a pay phone or a public toilet,

or they're waiting to get a taxi, standing in a taxi pickup zone in front of a

hotel, perhaps, or they're getting in or out of a taxi that's pulled up in front

of a building. The idea here is that these are people who are not just passing

down the street. They're not just walking down the street. They're on the street

in a particular place for the purpose of doing something. The principle that we

are trying to capture here is the idea that it is wrong to take advantage of the

fact that somebody is standing around waiting to use a pay phone, for example —

who really can't move, who can't get out of the way. It's wrong to stand up

right beside the person using the pay phone and start to panhandle that person.

It is a different concept than the concept of aggressive

solicitation. This is a concept that is directed at what happens when people do

certain things on the streets. We have tried to capture all of the examples we

can think of that represent what we consider to be situations where you could

use the term "captive audience."

We're saying that you can panhandle — you can't panhandle anywhere

aggressively — but you can't panhandle within a few feet of a bus stop. You

can't panhandle within a few feet of a cash machine. You can't take advantage of

the fact that somebody is standing there trying to do some other business and

bug them for money. It's a different concept.

Accordingly, this idea of aggressive behaviour does not form part

of the offence in

section 3 and is not captured by the amendment that we're

proposing for

section 3, which recognizes the fact that sometimes when you go

onto bank property or credit union property, there may be a cash machine. We're

now talking about inside the premises, and we didn't want to prohibit what is a

fairly common occurrence with charities who do fundraising — usually, I would

think, with the permission of the property owner — on bank or credit union

premises.

J. Kwan: What about in the malls?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know what the member means by: "What

about the mall?"

J. Kwan: We know that, for example, there are a number of

charities who actually engage in the kinds of activities the Attorney General

just talked about that are being exempted under this

section of the act. It may

not be near an ATM machine, but there are people — I've seen them, actually —

soliciting in that way in malls that are private property, for example. Are they

committing an offence under this act?

Hon. G. Plant: Not unless they're within five metres of an

ATM or a pay phone or a public toilet or any of the other circumstances captured

within

section 3. I should say that it is possible that when we're talking about

somebody who is in a mall, we are talking about somebody who is on private

property, and other considerations may come into play there, including the

considerations addressed by the recent amendments to the Trespass Act.

[ Page 11712 ]

Amendment approved.

section 3 as amended.

J. Kwan: As the Attorney General said, this

section of the

bill deals with "captive audience." Does the definition of captive audience

exist in other laws that the Attorney General is aware of?

Hon. G. Plant: There is no definition of captive audience

in this bill.

J. Kwan: In this bill, under

section 3, it reads:

"Solicitation of captive audience prohibited." In that context it lists out a

number of situations where a person commits an offence if a person, for example,

"solicits a person who is using, waiting to use, or departing from a device

commonly referred to as an automated teller machine." That

section now has been

amended with the five-metre zone — bubble zone — regulation. There is also the

question around a person soliciting who is using or waiting to use a pay

telephone or public toilet facility, etc. Broadly speaking, this

section of the

act outlines these situations and those individuals within them as captive

audience.

My question to the Attorney General is: are there any other laws

that use this concept of captive audience?

[1645]

Hon. G. Plant: An example that I do know of is the Safe

Streets Act of Ontario.

J. Kwan: Anything in B.C.?

Hon. G. Plant: If the member is asking the question about

whether there is another provincial law that describes an offence in terms that

prohibit the solicitation of a captive audience, I am unaware of any other

existing provincial statute.

J. Kwan: That is a question that the minister himself

wanted to ask, perhaps, and put the answer on the question. That is not the

question that I asked of the minister. It's not that complicated a question. I

actually think that I saw the Attorney General's staff shaking her head. Maybe

I'm wrong.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, order please.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, member.

J. Kwan: On a point of order, please, Mr. Chair. The

Attorney General is just shouting at me on a question I put to him. He is

continuing to shout at me. If he has a point of or