2003 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill

88)

Hon. S.

Hagen

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre

D. Hayer

Minerva Foundation leadership program

P. Sahota

Opening of financial services

call centre in Surrey

B. Locke

Oral Questions

Traffic fine revenue and funding of

municipal police forces

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

Flooding in northwestern B.C.

B. Belsey

Hon. R.

Coleman

Impact of unemployment rate increase

on number of

income assistance recipients

J. Kwan

Hon. M.

Coell

Maintenance of highway medians

S. Brice

Hon. J. Reid

Comments by Agriculture minister to

cattle rancher

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van

Dongen

Point of Order (Speaker's

Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Ver-Tel Communications Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)

Christensen

Committee of the Whole House

Ver-Tel Communications Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Ver-Tel Communications Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)

Second Reading of Bills

Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)

V. Anderson

Committee of the Whole House

Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)

Second Reading of Bills

Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)

V. Anderson

Committee of the Whole House

Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)

V. Anderson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd.

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)

Committee of the Whole House

Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Hon. G.

Collins

Reporting of Bills

Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Third Reading of Bills

Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Second Reading of Bills

Business Corporations Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2003 (Bill 86)

Hon. G.

Collins

B. Locke

Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No.

2), 2003 (Bill 87)

Hon. G.

Collins

Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)

Hon. G.

Plant

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Brenzinger

D. Hayer

Mayencourt

D. MacKay

K. Stewart

S. Orr

J. Nuraney

I. Chong

R. Hawes

K. Manhas

J. Bray

P. Bell

B. Lekstrom

K. Johnston

V. Anderson

B. Bennett

[ Page 7621 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge

special visitors from Holland. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Como

van Hellenberg Hubar, the Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada, and his wife

Liliane van Hellenberg Hubar-Schilling. This is the ambassador's first official

visit to British Columbia, and I'm pleased he has travelled here to discover the

many opportunities our beautiful province presents. He is accompanied by Joop

Corijn, consul general of the Netherlands at Vancouver. Would the House please

make them feel welcome.

[1405]

Stewart: It is my honour to introduce today a guest from my riding. Dr.

Frank Ervin is here today. He talked to caucus about the dangers of smoking. If

anyone here needs any encouragement to quit smoking, I suggest they talk to him.

He's a specialist in internal and respiratory medicine, and I wish the House

would make him welcome today.

Sahota: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House an amazing

young lady who is here in the Legislature today, spending the day with me. She's

a dedicated, intelligent and hard-working young lady, who was chosen to

participate in the Follow a Leader program sponsored by the Minerva Foundation.

Would the House please make Sepideh Alavi welcome.

Visser: In the gallery today is one of the hardest-working public servants

this province has. She's led a community through a very trying time over the

last couple of years. She and her council have built a vision for their

community, have renamed their highway the "tree to sea" highway, and

have provided leadership in that community that has gone above and beyond the

call. Would the House please make welcome Sylvia McNeil, the mayor of Tahsis.

S. Orr: It's

my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman from my riding called Bob Sorsier.

Bob was a very hard worker in my 2001 campaign, and then he left town. I hope

that isn't what drove him out of town. Anyway, he's now back, and we're very

pleased he's living back in Victoria. Would the House please make him welcome.

Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce to the House a visitor from

the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii. Tanis Woode is here today. Would

everybody in the House please join me in making her feel welcome.

W. Cobb:

It's my pleasure today to introduce a friend and, actually, neighbour. She

lives in my complex in Williams Lake — retired teacher, Avis Delaney. Would

the House please help me make her welcome.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I want to introduce two very important people to the Legislature

today. They are two registered nurses from HealthServ Professionals B.C., Dianne

Casper and Katherine Byam. They're here today to give members and staff their

flu shots. They're in room 145. I know that many members have taken advantage of

this already, and I would encourage others to do so. Please make them welcome.

Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to introduce Ellen Sculley to the House. Ellen

is visiting here from Vancouver with Tanis Woode and Avis Delaney, and they're

looking forward to a boisterous question period. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PRIVATE MANAGED FOREST LAND ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Private Managed Forest Land Act.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management proposes to create the Private Managed Forest Land Act. This

bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitment and deregulation

initiative. The bill underscores government's goals of operating more

efficiently. It also demonstrates this government's ability to responsibly

manage the province's natural resources in partnership with those being

regulated, while decreasing administrative costs and complexity.

[1410]

In 2001 the

core services review of the forest land reserve concluded that the reserve's

land use controls did not serve a compelling public interest. The public,

however, retains an interest in encouraging landowners to manage their land in a

way that protects public environmental values and promotes reforestation. This

bill follows through on the government's commitment to create a mechanism for

the continued regulation of forest practices on private land assessed as managed

forest, while eliminating the forest land reserve.

The

legislation will create a new governing council representing an innovative

partnership of members appointed by government and by private forest land

owners. The governing council will establish and enforce environmentally

sustainable forest practices on

[ Page 7622 ]

private managed forest land in accordance with objectives set by the

government in the act.

I'm pleased

to present this bill in the House today. I move that the bill be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 88,

Private Managed Forest Land Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

B.C. FAMILY HEARING

RESOURCE CENTRE

Hayer: I rise today to recognize the excellent work being done by an agency

in Surrey-Tynehead. The B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre, which helps educate

children who are deaf or hard of hearing, opened their new building October 30

on 92nd Avenue and 152nd Street in my Surrey-Tynehead constituency. The opening

is possible because of generous support from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, through government funding and other donations. A preschool is

moving into this new building, and our government also helped the preschool

replace its old communication equipment for children who have difficulty

hearing. On top of that, the centre also receives annual operational funding

from the ministry.

The B.C.

Family Hearing Resource Centre helps more than 325 children and their families

from all across B.C. who struggle with issues surrounding deafness and hearing

difficulties. I know from personal experience how hard this can be on a family.

My own nephew suffers from a severe hearing disability.

This

preschool helps young children, through family-centred programs, to prepare for

school years. The remedial training and support the children and family receive

at this centre is outstanding. The school's dedicated staff members should be

commended for all they do to help the children communicate and become productive

members of our community.

Other

contributors, businesses, foundations, service clubs and individual donors also

deserve recognition. There are also many others who help, including those who

volunteer their time. I want to say thank you and recognize the ongoing support

that the Ministry of Children and Family Development offers these young

children. It makes life more exciting and the future brighter for these children

and their families.

MINERVA FOUNDATION

LEADERSHIP PROGRAM

Sahota: Earlier I rose to introduce Sepideh Alavi, who has chosen to take

part in the Follow a Leader program by the Minerva Foundation for B.C. Women.

Founded in 1999, the Minerva Foundation is an independent, non-profit society

governed by a volunteer board representing the cultural and geographic diversity

of British Columbia. The foundation's mission is to create opportunities for

women throughout British Columbia and help them realize their economic and

leadership potential. They want to open doors for women so other women can pass

through them.

The

foundation focuses on four priority areas: economic security, safety, education

and leadership development for girls and women. It is the leadership development

aspect that I've had the opportunity to be involved in, particularly the Follow

a Leader program. This program is coordinated by the Minerva Foundation and

sponsored generously by KPMG and the Vancouver Sun . This initiative

provides a forum for young women from grade 12 to graduate students and

introduces them to potential career paths. It provides training for both leaders

and the young women in establishing mentoring relationships. As well, it's a

vehicle for good corporate citizens to support leadership development and

advance opportunities for women in B.C. to assume leadership roles in all facets

of society.

Last week I

had the chance to meet not only Sepideh, the young lady who's shadowing me as

part of the program, but the other young ladies and leaders who are mentoring.

It has been an honour for me in having this opportunity to be around some of our

future female leaders. All the young women in the program are intelligent,

articulate, dynamic, inspiring and caring. I know that for the Minerva

Foundation and all the women leaders who are mentoring, they are truly proud of

these young ladies. I want to congratulate all the women on their leadership and

for being part of this very important process and program.

[1415]

OPENING OF FINANCIAL

SERVICES CALL CENTRE IN SURREY

Locke: I rise in the House today to express my constituency's elation with

the news that J.P. Morgan Chase will open a call centre in the riding of

Surrey–Green Timbers. [Applause.] Yes, more good news.

As you all

know, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. is a leading global financial services firm with

assets of over $793 billion, and it operates in more than 50 countries. This

company — which is a leader in financial transaction processing, investment

management, private banking and private equity investment for consumers and

businesses — announced Monday its intention to open a 150,000-square-foot call

centre in Surrey's Central City building that will eventually employ more than a

thousand people.

J.P. Morgan

Chase is headquartered in New York and serves more than 30 million consumers

nationwide, including many of the world's most prominent corporate,

institutional and government clients, so I'm sure the company does not make its

decisions lightly. In announcing the deal, J.P. Morgan Chase officials credited

the area's deep, diverse and educated labour

[ Page 7623 ]

pool as contributing to its decision to locate operations in B.C. and

specifically in Surrey.

Hiring for

the new centre is expected to begin this spring. The government of British

Columbia has worked hard, putting time and energy into attracting this business

to our region. Thank you to the Premier and the Minister of Competition, Science

and Enterprise. Clearly, the company's announcement can be held as a classic

example of how this government's policy, its directions with the economy and the

favourable investment climate are attracting international business and

investment to British Columbia.

This

announcement by J.P. Morgan Chase is good news for the province, this country

and especially the people of Surrey–Green Timbers. I would like to take this

opportunity to congratulate the Premier and the B.C. government on bringing this

success story to B.C. and my hometown.

Oral Questions

TRAFFIC FINE REVENUE AND

FUNDING OF MUNICIPAL POLICE FORCES

MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that crime is on the increase in British

Columbia, reversing a downward trend under the former government. The board of

trade has released its own study that calls….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: The board of trade….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: The board of trade has released its own study that calls for an

infusion of dollars on policing. When he was asked about the report in the

House, the Solicitor General blustered and attacked the messenger.

The

government takes in approximately $100 million per year from traffic fines. This

same government campaigned on a promise to send 75 percent of traffic fine

revenue to municipalities to fight crime.

To the

Premier. He campaigned on a new-era promise to transfer 75 percent of traffic

fine revenue to municipal policing. When is he going to do it?

Hon. G.

Campbell: That will be completed prior to May 17, 2005, as we committed to

the people of British Columbia and as we have committed to local government for

the last two and a half years.

I think

it's important to note that as we work with local governments, we're working to

provide integrated policing, to provide comprehensive services throughout the

province. That's why we're creating safer, more secure communities for everyone

to live in.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Isn't it interesting that this new-era promise may be completed in

May of 2005?

An Hon.

Member: I heard "will."

MacPhail: Oh, may. Believe you me, may.

We know the

promise that, provincewide, about $10 million of traffic fine revenue is now

sent to municipalities by this government. If this government had actually

fulfilled its promise, there would be an additional $65 million that could go to

putting more cops on the street and perhaps reverse the trend under this

government toward more crime.

[1420]

The Premier

might think it's appropriate to break this promise so he can help his struggling

Finance minister to balance the budget, but most of the people I talk to on the

street think the Minister of Finance's political career comes second to the

safety of their streets. When is the Premier going to give the municipalities

the additional $65 million in funding, as he promised them, to help fight crime?

And if he's going to make them wait until May of 2005, why? Why is it this

promise he decided to break?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As the member opposite knows, this government laid out a

comprehensive platform before the voters in 2001. We intend to carry that

platform out. We undertook, unlike the previous government, to provide 75

percent of all traffic fines to the local communities to help meet their

policing needs. That commitment will be met — will be met. It will be met

prior to May 17, 2005. There are two budgets prior to May 17, 2005, and the

member opposite can know this: that commitment will be met.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Here's the New Era document, the bible of the Liberals:

return 75 percent of all traffic fine revenue to municipalities to improve

community policing and crime prevention. Interesting….

Interjections.

MacPhail: Very interesting that they cheer an unfulfilled promise.

Under this

government….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Under this government, crime is on the rise, homelessness is on

the rise, unemployment is on the rise, and the number of people about to be

[ Page 7624 ]

kicked off income assistance grows daily. The only thing on the way down is

this government's credibility. They managed to give a tax cut of $2 billion,

which has failed miserably, on day one in office. On this one, people who want

safe streets have to wait until May of 2005.

The

government treats the New Era document as its bible, a religious text.

When will the Premier order his failing Minister of Finance to keep the faith

with the province to give the municipalities $65 million more to fight crime?

When are they going to stop just faking it with bills that mean nothing?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I am the first to admit that it has taken us more than two and a

half years to undo all the damage the member opposite created. For years,

municipalities have asked provincial governments to provide them with support.

We all know that the peak of property crime in British Columbia was under the

previous government — in 1996, 86.7 offences per thousand. We know that it has

been going down for the last number of years. We know that municipalities asked

for almost ten years for support from her provincial government in the past, and

they turned a deaf ear.

This

government has not done that. This government has committed. We have committed

to local communities. We have a Solicitor General who is working with local

communities. We are providing for integrative police services that meet the

needs of local communities. The member opposite should know this: unlike her

government, we are committed and we will deliver 75 percent of all traffic fines

to local communities for policing and for crime prevention programs, so their

communities will be even safer.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

FLOODING IN NORTHWESTERN B.C.

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General. As we attempt to recover from the recent floods in the southwest of our

province, there's another flooding that occurred in the northwest. Heavy rains

in the Pacific Northwest have caused the Kalum and Nass rivers to flood their

banks, leaving many residents of outlying communities without road access and

power, and some even homeless. Can the minister tell the House what actions are

being taken for these flood victims throughout the Pacific Northwest?

Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, I appreciate the member and the other members from up

in that area who have been in contact with me and the emergency response centre

that's set up in Terrace with regard to this particular disaster.

We treated

this the same as any other disaster. Emergency social services were on the

ground immediately. We activated our PREOC centre, which is our emergency

response centre in the area. I have personally spoken to the director up there

who's in charge of operating it on the ground, as have my staff. We have sent

sandbags. We have sent generators. We are now preparing to airlift in food,

which was happening today. The bridge that's out is at the same level of

priority as the one south of Pemberton, and Highways are working on that

immediately.

IMPACT OF UNEMPLOYMENT

RATE INCREASE ON NUMBER OF

INCOME ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

J. Kwan:

Today Statistics Canada reported that for the seventh consecutive month, the

number of British Columbians receiving employment insurance benefits has

increased — the worst record in Canada. That shouldn't be a surprise, because

unemployment is at a ten-year high and B.C.'s economy is dead last in Canada.

Given these dismal numbers, can the Minister of Human Resources tell us how many

people he expects to be added to the welfare rolls when employment insurance

benefits run out? No spin, no rhetoric — just the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: I know where 1,500 jobs are going to be. They're going to be in

Surrey in a couple of months.

I think one

of the things the opposition continually fails to realize is that times are

changing in British Columbia. The Olympics are coming. We've got a convention

centre being built. We've got transportation plans throughout this province.

There are jobs. I think yesterday I mentioned that in the Vancouver Sun a

report said close to a million new jobs over the next 15 years.

Maybe, just

maybe, the opposition doesn't want to see British Columbians succeed, but

British Columbians are succeeding. This government is helping British Columbia

businesses to create jobs, and those jobs are going to give families decent

incomes — far be it from when they were in government.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

Well, the facts don't lie, and Statistics Canada has put out the information.

British Columbians know the truth. They know that unemployment is through the

roof, they know that the economy is dead last, and they know that this minister

has an obligation to answer basic questions.

B.C. is

second only to Ontario in the year-over-year increase in the number of people on

unemployment insurance. Surely, the minister is aware that with more people

unemployed — 200,000, more than ever in its history — and with more British

Columbians collecting unemployment insurance, he's got a big problem coming.

He won't

tell us how many people he's going to kick off income assistance come next

April. Can he tell

[ Page 7625 ]

us how many people he expects to add to the rolls as the economic situation

becomes more desperate for thousands of British Columbians?

Hon. M.

Coell: For the first time in the history of British Columbia, there are two

million people working in this province. Mr. Speaker, 100,000 jobs have been

created in this economy since this government was elected.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: My ministry actually has tens of thousands of job opportunities for

income assistance clients, and 20,000-plus people have been placed in job

placement and training programs by this government. I think the opposition, once

again, fails to realize that British Columbians want to succeed, the economy is

moving, people are coming back to this province who left this province when the

NDP was government, and people are starting to succeed in this province for the

first time in a decade.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

MAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAY MEDIANS

S. Brice: My

question is for the Minister of Transportation. Over the summer a number of my

constituents approached me concerning the reduction of mowing on the medians on

the highway. The minister at that time indicated there would be a review. Can

the Minister of Transportation please tell me what the nature and outcome of

that review is?

Hon. J.

Reid: I did meet with many municipalities, quite a few at UBCM in the fall,

and they did talk about the pride of their communities, the pride in their

communities. We have worked with them on this issue and have decided that we

would have a limited mowing program. We will work community by community to

assess priorities.

We've had a

very successful first year of our Adopt-a-Highway program. In conjunction with

the Adopt-a-Highway program, working on a community-by-community basis, we will

have a limited mowing program going forward this next spring.

COMMENTS BY AGRICULTURE MINISTER

TO CATTLE RANCHER

Nettleton: Apparently the Minister of Agriculture was very anxious to talk

to rancher Sharon Robertson after discovering that I had arranged for her to

come to the Legislature tomorrow as well as to make her available to the media.

Consequently, the minister phoned Ms. Robertson, whereupon she asked him why,

for example, the government had no problem guaranteeing millions in funding to

rebuild trestle bridges destroyed by fire but refused guarantees for the

ranchers devastated by mad cow.

The

minister's further comment to her was that he wished Sheila Copps had kept her

mouth shut and hadn't said that. Mr. Premier, do you know anything about this

situation, and can you explain the Sheila Copps comment?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I was not aware of someone coming to the Legislature. We have a

policy that we have established with our staff that every call, every letter,

receives an immediate phone call. We try and assist individual producers with

their applications.

There are a

number of programs available both for 2002 and for 2003. As I said yesterday,

we'll be announcing a program shortly on cull cows. We have run a series of

workshops and regional meetings for producers. I believe there's a good range of

programs and assistance available to producers, and we will continue to help

them in any way that we can.

[End

of question period.]

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr.

Speaker: During the afternoon sitting on Monday, the Leader of the

Opposition rose on a point of order relating to a ministerial statement made by

the Government House Leader on Thursday, October 23, immediately following

question period. Essentially, the member's objection was that she had not

received an advance copy of the ministerial statement and was therefore not in a

position to make a timely and appropriate response.

The

Government House Leader, in his response to the point of order, stated that

while governments try to provide advance notice of ministerial statements to the

Chair and the opposition, such advance notice is not always possible and that,

in any event, there's no statutory or other obligation imposing this practice.

The Government House Leader further stated that the information provided to the

House was, in fact, not provided to him until the end of question period and

that, in any event, the Leader of the Opposition was not in the House at the

time. Had she been in the House at the time and requested a right of reply, it

would have been granted.

The timing

and content of ministerial statements has been thoroughly examined in the

earlier decisions of the House, and I refer hon. members to two decisions

recorded in the Journals of the House: one on March 20, 1987, at page 26

and another on April 27, 1999, at page 231. I commend these decisions to members

who wish to examine the matter further.

The Chair

has examined the contents of the ministerial statement, considered the

circumstances under which it was made and can find no breach of order. Indeed,

the ministerial statement dealt with the matter

[ Page 7626 ]

that had just been canvassed in question period, and the Chair feels that the

ability of the House to respond promptly to matters of concern should be

encouraged.

[1435]

Touching

briefly on the matter of replies to ministerial statements, this House has on

occasion permitted a deferred reply to a ministerial statement, but clearly each

case must be decided on its individual merit. The Chair encourages notice to be

given wherever possible, but neither the rules of this House nor its precedents

indicate that such is mandatory.

Hon.

members, if I may, would you just take your seats for a moment.

The Leader

of the Opposition raises a point, and I would like to refer all members to their

copy of Standing Orders . I know most of you will have difficulty finding

this little book, but it's in your office somewhere. Specifically, it's

section

47A, which refers to oral questions,

section (b), which I will read to you. I

won't read the whole thing. "Questions and answers" — note that it

says questions and answers — "will be brief and precise and stated

without argument or opinion." I recommend this

section to you, as I would

not like to have to read this at every question period in the House, but I will

if necessary.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: With leave, I call private member's Bill Pr406.

Leave

granted.

Second Reading of Bills

VER-TEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Christensen: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill

simply restores Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. to the register of companies.

Motion

approved.

Christensen: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of

the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr406,

Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

VER-TEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr406; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Christensen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:39 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr406,

Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, I call Bill Pr407.

[1440]

Leave

granted.

Second Reading of Bills

BURON CONSTRUCTION LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Anderson: I move the bill now be read for a second time.

It returns

Buron Construction to the register of companies.

Motion

approved.

Anderson: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr407,

Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BURON CONSTRUCTION LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr407; H. Long in the chair.

[ Page 7627 ]

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Anderson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr407,

Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Bill Pr408.

Leave

granted.

Second Reading of Bills

BURON CONSTRUCTION

(1986) LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

Anderson: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It's a bill

to restore Buron Construction to the register of companies.

Motion

approved.

Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the

Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave

granted.

Bill Pr408,

Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BURON CONSTRUCTION

(1986) LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr408; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

Sections 1

to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Anderson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:44 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr408,

Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 72.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

MANUFACTURED HOME ACT

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 72; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Sections 1

to 6 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. G.

Collins: On

section 7, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 7,

(

a) by deleting the proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:

(2) The regulations may require that notices respecting particular classes of

transfers be submitted for filing only through persons specified by regulation

or designated as qualified suppliers by the registrar. , and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (5) by adding "or designated" after

"specified".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 7

as amended approved.

Sections

8 to 20 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 21,

(

a) by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the

following:

[ Page 7628 ]

(3) The regulations may require that applications respecting

particular classes of exemptions be submitted for filing only through persons

specified by regulation or designated as qualified suppliers by the registrar. ,

and

(

b) in the proposed subsection (4) by adding "or

designated" after "specified".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 21

as amended approved.

Sections

22 to 31 inclusive approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 32 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 32, by deleting the proposed subsection (1) and substituting

the following:

(1) Unless the manufactured home complies in all

respects with the standards prescribed by regulation at the time it was

manufactured or is exempted from this

section by the regulations or by the

registrar, a person must not move, sell, offer for sale or advertise for sale a

previously unoccupied manufactured home or a manufactured home that was

manufactured after May 15, 1992.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 32

as amended approved.

section

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 33 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 33, by deleting the proposed

section and substituting the

following:

Disclosure statement to be provided to prospective

purchaser

(1) A person must not sell or offer for sale a used or

previously occupied manufactured home unless

(

a) the person discloses in writing to any prospective

purchaser whether or not the manufactured home complies with the standards

prescribed by regulation, or

(

b) the manufactured home is exempted from this

section by the

regulations or by the registrar.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person discloses in

writing to any prospective purchaser that the manufactured home was manufactured

on or before May 15, 1992.]

Amendment

approved.

Section 33

as amended approved.

Sections 34

to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to

section 38 standing in my name on the order

paper.

[SECTION 38, in the proposed subsection (5) by striking out "or

33" and substituting "or 33 (1)".]

Amendment

approved.

Section 38

as amended approved.

Sections 39

to 47 inclusive approved.

section 47.1.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the amendment to add

section 47.1 standing in my name on the

order paper.

[SECTION 47.1, by adding the following section:

Registry

Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

47.1

Section 3 of the Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, S.B.C.

2002, c. 17, is repealed.]

Sections

47.1 to 50 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 72,

Manufactured Home Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. G.

Collins: By leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave

granted.

Bill 72,

Manufactured Home Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 86.

Second Reading of Bills

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

As part of

the plan to reform and modernize the corporate laws of British Columbia, the

Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2.), 2003 makes additional refinements

to the Business Corporations Act by

[ Page 7629 ]

replacing approximately 15 sections of the current Bill 60. The Business

Corporations Act will be proclaimed in the spring of 2004.

[1450]

The

amendments in this bill are primarily technical in nature. They correct errors,

clarify language in the application of provisions and address gaps identified

during the public consultation since the passage of the Business Corporation Act

and the introduction of Bill 60 last spring. They also reflect further

refinements in the development of the corporate registry's automated filing

system and address transitional issues for pre-existing companies.

Finally,

the bill contains further consequential amendments to legislation, which

reference the current Company Act to reflect the change of name and the new

language and processes of the Business Corporations Act. Together, the

amendments in Bill 60 and Bill 86 will ensure that a solid legislative framework

is in place as we implement the new Business Corporations Act in the spring of

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

Locke: I'm pleased to speak to second reading of Bill 86, intituled the

Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. This is an amendment to Bill

46, which received royal assent last year. The Ministry of Finance should be

applauded for modernizing a key piece of legislation that will assist in

achieving a competitive environment for constituents in my riding and throughout

the province.

The prior

act was significantly out of date in terms of keeping up with corporate law

developments and technical advancements. Thanks to the minister's proactive

ministry, it is now much easier to form and operate small businesses in B.C.

Thanks to the minister's forward thinking, companies and the public alike will

have electronic access to the corporate registry and will offer on-line

corporate services seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

This piece

of legislation reflects solid business principles. Firstly, government should be

service-oriented. Secondly, government should be transparent. Thirdly,

government should be held responsible for keeping public services updated,

logical and modern for all constituents, including the business sector. In

reading through the act, one finds embedded common sense, a rational and

sensible approach.

In simple

terms, we are making it easier for businesses to succeed in B.C., opening the

door and encouraging investment as one more step in making B.C. the number one

place to do business not only nationally but internationally. The minister

deserves to be thanked for his commitment to developing this important piece of

legislation.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

consideration by Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 86,

Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 87.

UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The

Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 incorporates into legislation a

recognition of the role of the courts and the judiciary in determining

disposition of unclaimed court trust funds under the unclaimed property

legislation.

The

amendments provide for regulations to be established that will define when court

trust funds could be considered unclaimed property and available for transfer to

the non-profit administrator that is operating the ministry's unclaimed property

program. Regulations will also establish the rights and duties of the

administrator in relation to unclaimed court funds. These regulations will

contain the process rules and will be established through further discussion and

consultation with court administrators and representatives of the judiciary.

The

amendments require that before these regulations can be made, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must receive the recommendation of the Attorney

General, after the Attorney General has consulted with the Chief Justice or

Chief Judge of each of the three levels of courts in British Columbia. This is

the same process used for changing rules under the Court Rules Act.

addition, the approval of a justice, judge, registrar or master is required

before the Minister of Finance can pay unclaimed court funds to the

administrator. Hence, the amendments provide for greater control by the courts

and the judiciary in determining when court trust funds could be considered

unclaimed and in controlling the disposition of unclaimed court funds.

The

amendments provide that the non-profit administrator must make reasonable

efforts to locate the potential owners of unclaimed court funds. If the

administrator locates a person who was a party to a court action, but there was

no order from the court determining who is the owner of the funds, then the

administrator must refer the person to the court to obtain that determination.

Only in cases where the court has made a determination of ownership can

unclaimed court funds be paid out by the administrator. When unclaimed court

funds are transferred to the administrator, they're deemed to be unclaimed money

and are no longer held in trust. However, an owner's claim is never extinguished

until their funds are paid to them.

[1455]

The

amendments to the Unclaimed Property Act also address two minor housekeeping

items. One of the amendments supports deregulation by removing the

[ Page 7630 ]

requirements for a regulation to prescribe where the administrator must keep

administrative records. The other housekeeping amendment releases the

administrator from the existing

schedule of fees for searching for and copying

records in a court registry. Provision is made to establish an alternative

schedule of fees if one should be required in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill

87, Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 63, and we'll just await the arrival

of the Attorney General.

YOUTH JUSTICE ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the bill be now read a second time.

While our

justice system is broadly concerned with ensuring that there is fairness, and

our criminal justice system is concerned with ensuring that we have safe streets

and safe communities, the justice system has also long recognized differences in

the way in which we treat young persons as opposed to the way we treat adults

who are in conflict with the law. The Youth Justice Act will allow us to express

these differences by creating a new act that is specifically written for young

persons.

The Youth

Justice Act does the following. It repeals the existing Young Offenders (British

Columbia) Act, which is no longer consistent with federal legislation, and it

repeals the youth provisions in the existing Correction Act and then places

these in the Youth Justice Act, which will leave the Correction Act as a statute

that applies only to adults.

The Youth

Justice Act consolidates all of the relevant and up-to-date provisions from both

acts into one new stand-alone Youth Justice Act written specifically for youth.

One of the main objectives of the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, which

came into force on April 1 of this year, is to utilize alternatives to custody

and alternatives to court where possible and where that is the best justice

system outcome, and at the same time ensure that youth face serious consequences

for serious offences.

[1500]

I'm pleased

to say that in British Columbia, we utilize alternatives to court and custody

where that is the right thing to do. We have extensive diversion and

alternative-measures programs in place, and we are a leader among Canadian

jurisdictions in this regard.

It is also

important to note that our provincial legislation and this bill will ensure that

serious consequences are available as a sentencing option for six significant

provincial statute offences that previously could only attract non-custodial

dispositions. These offences include the offence of threatening the safety and

security of youth custody centres and adult correctional centres by bringing in

contraband to those places, a serious offence because it threatens the integrity

of the work done in the youth custody centres and the safety of those who are in

custody and those who work there.

Another

offence is the offence of trespassing on school property. This is an offence, of

course, that can arise in a number of contexts. Those contexts include the

possibility that trespass will occur when young people are being recruited for

criminal gang activity or sexual exploitation. We take school property seriously

in British Columbia. Trespassing on school property is already an offence, and

this act will ensure that custody is now available as a potential disposition

for young offenders who commit that offence.

A third

example of the offences where custody will now be available as a sentencing

option is the offence of breaching a restraining order under the Child, Family

and Community Service Act, as restraining orders can be made against young

persons to prevent them from sexually exploiting children or other youth.

At the same

time, offences where an adult would receive more than six months incarceration

will now attract up to 90 days in custody — not the maximum of 30 days, which

is presently the case in the law of British Columbia. For example, under the

Motor Vehicle Act these offences include driving while prohibited, driving while

prohibited by court order or operation of law, and driving while one's licence

is suspended. Breaching a restraining order under the Child, Family and

Community Service Act would also be included as an offence capable of attracting

up to 90 days in custody.

This bill

and the new Youth Justice Act that it will bring into force also support the

work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which has

primary responsibility for youth justice in British Columbia and, in particular,

the work being done by that ministry to devolve youth justice programs and

services to regional and aboriginal authorities. The changes and the work being

done by that ministry include enabling communities to develop and deliver youth

justice services within a consolidated, coherent, community-based service

delivery system as well as building capacity within aboriginal communities to

deliver a full range of youth justice services.

Services to

youth in conflict with the law are an important component of the broader

services to children, youth and families. Including youth justice services in

the community government's model will support the continued integration of these

services in the best interests of these youth. This approach is also consistent

with the new federal legislation, which supports a multidisciplinary,

rehabilitative approach to youth who commit offences.

[ Page 7631 ]

As I said,

Mr. Speaker, the Youth Justice Act is

an act that is specifically written for

young people — young people who need special safeguards — that acknowledges

their greater level of dependency and reduced level of maturity and, at the same

time, that ensures that young offenders are held accountable for their actions.

[1505]

This bill

will allow British Columbia to continue to be a leader in youth justice issues,

to ensure that the best possible range of outcomes and tools are available for

those who have to deal with young people in conflict with the law and to send a

message, which I think should be heard by young offenders, that within the

limits of our ability to do so in the laws of British Columbia, the Legislature

of British Columbia believes young offenders should be accountable for their

wrongdoing.

I look

forward to the remarks of other members.

J. Kwan:

Here we go again. Once again this government, in all of its incompetence and

arrogance towards this House, brings in a brand-new piece of legislation one day

and then calls second reading the next. Last week it was the revamped

Residential Tenancy Act, introduced for the first time Monday and then called

for debate less than 24 hours later without informing any of the stakeholders

affected.

I should

recall for the benefit of this House that this was a bill whose sole purpose was

to amend two bills brought in by this government just last year. They needed to

amend two of their own flawed bills from 2002 after ignoring what stakeholders

told them was wrong with the bills the first time around.

You would

think the government would learn from mistakes like that. You'd think they would

put a little bit more thought into legislation and into the process of bringing

legislation before this House. Instead, they brought their new tenancy bill in

on a Monday and then called second reading on it the next morning.

Here we are

again. Once again we have a bill that is introduced — in this case, a

brand-new bill — and it is up for debate in second reading less than 24 hours

later. Here's how this government operates. Yesterday morning the government

announces to the media that it is bringing in a brand-new Youth Justice Act. It

doesn't first tell stakeholders about the new legislation. They were just as

blindsided as we were in the opposition.

When the

government gets around to properly introducing the bill, the Attorney General

tells the House that the new Youth Justice Act parallels the federal Youth

Criminal Justice Act "by ensuring that serious consequences are available

as a sentencing option." I guess this government decided that the best way

to deal with this issue was to put on a good cop–bad cop act, because the job

of explaining the bill outside the House was given to the Solicitor General. The

message he was hammering home was that the federal government wasn't tough

enough on youth crime and that the new federal legislation was too soft because

it reduced jail sentences for jail offences for youth.

Come to

think of it, maybe instead of the good cop–bad cop act, this is more of a

partisan split we are seeing — the kind of split specific to this motley crew

called the B.C. Liberals. Of course, there are the B.C. Liberals who, like the

Solicitor General, have more in common with the Alliance Party than anyone else,

who take great delight in stomping all over anything the federal Liberals do.

Then there are those in the B.C. Liberal government who are less, shall we say,

squeamish about the L-word, who find it less convenient to trash the federal

government, and perhaps their Attorney General falls more into that camp.

The fact is

that people who work in youth justice think the federal Youth Criminal Justice

Act is actually pretty good legislation. The reason the federal justice act is

well regarded is that it separated violent crime from non-violent crime at the

same time as it signified a shift in philosophy away from custody for the sake

of custody and towards rehabilitating youth, because just putting kids in

custody accomplishes nothing, or perhaps worse.

To listen

to the Solicitor General, that is his whole purpose with this bill. Even the

representative of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police said, in response to

this legislation: "Kids in jail aren't a good thing for anyone. It's not

good for the kids, not good for society, and it's not good for the generation

growing up." He goes on to add somewhat halfheartedly that it would seem

that if the new penalties are seen as meaningful and a true deterrent to young

people, that would be a good thing.

Here's what

this government says this bill will accomplish:

"Under

the new act, youth can now face time in custody for six serious provincial

statute offences where previously probation was the most severe sentence

available. As well, youth can now face more time in custody for other provincial

statute offences.

"Youth

who trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation

or gang activity can now face custody instead of fines, community service or

probation.

"Youth

who violate the Motor Vehicle Act by driving while prohibited or

suspended could now face up to 90 days in custody instead of a maximum of 30.

"Youth

who bring contraband into a youth custody centre or adult correctional

centre can now face custody instead of fines, community service or

probation."

[1510]

That's what

this government has in mind, but the question is: in the real world, is that how

it works? Do youth about to commit a crime ask themselves: "Wait, I wonder

if this is one of those six areas of provincial jurisdiction that the Solicitor

General said in the newspaper that he was going to come down on with a hammer.

Gee, maybe I better rethink this"?

No one who

works with youth in the real world believes that. We contacted people working in

the youth justice area today and asked them about this bill. Well, first we had

to tell them what the bill was called, when it was introduced. Then we went so

far as to find the bill for them, because it was news for them — they

[ Page 7632 ]

weren't contacted; they weren't advised — just as it was news to the

opposition yesterday.

We talked

about the bill at some length this morning with the Victoria Boys and Girls

Club, because they are responsible for most of the youth justice contracts in

the city here. After telling us that they couldn't really comment until they

knew what the legislation was about, that they are only seeing what was reported

in the media….

I must say

that it's now becoming a familiar story that people actually don't know what

this government is bringing forward in legislation in spite of their claim that

they consult and they're open and accountable. People don't know about it, and

they have to depend on the media to find out.

What the

Boys and Girls Club told us is that any approach to youth justice has to be a

multi-faceted approach. It has to include education, incarceration and support,

and the most important piece of that is intensive support for the youth, the

family and the community. The Boys and Girls Club said that if this bill is just

about incarcerating kids without increasing support in the community, then it is

neither in line with the new federal legislation, nor would it be a positive

move.

We also

talked to respected criminologist Jim Hackler of the University of Victoria, who

did some radio interviews on Bill 63 today, and he also spoke to our staff. On

the radio, he was asked if he thought this government's new youth justice would

provide the deterrent the Solicitor General is promising, and he was very clear.

He said — and he laid out what evidence has shown — that youth behaviour is

influenced by peer pressure, by the push to establish status amongst peers, and

that to act as if youth weigh relative penalties is a simple-minded approach on

the part of the government.

He actually

wondered how the Minister of Children and Family Development, a former

superintendent of a youth custody centre, could let his colleagues, such as the

Solicitor General and the Attorney General — and he specifically singled out

the Human Resources minister — act in such a silly way. What a government

should be asking, Professor Hackler stated, is: what is the best way to prevent

juvenile delinquency and deviant behaviour? That showy, swaggering talk about

getting tough on crime is not the answer.

The

professor also said the bill was irrelevant, that it had and would have no

impact as a deterrent but was instead window dressing for the public. It's not

because it is completely divorced from the reality of the causes of juvenile

delinquency and criminal behaviour, but also because the province has

jurisdiction over such a small proportion of youth crimes. Professor Hackler

reiterated the view of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, stating that we

don't gain anything by putting kids in custody and that the only way to have any

impact is to intervene very early — at ages two, three, four and five — when

aggressive behaviour is first demonstrated.

[1515]

He cited

definitive studies from the United States which show that when impoverished

families receive support early, 15 years later we see a reduction by roughly

half in terms of risky and delinquent behaviour among youth. That is also

supported by a recent report given to the government entitled Profiling the

Repeat Offender: Implications for Early Interventio n by Nicholson and Artz,

2003. It is a report that this government actually paid for but then is ignoring

its recommendations.

Here is the

concluding

summary of that report:

"Although

the authors cited in this review offer many valuable suggestions for improving

the effectiveness of treatment in custodial programs, we're destined to fail our

most vulnerable youth if we focus all our energies on providing youth justice

responses to their misbehaviour. Our child welfare, education and mental health

systems must also have prominent roles in responding to the needs of these

youth.

"We

see that focusing on early prevention and intervention may provide the

best chance for reducing recidivism by preventing children's involvement in the

youth justice system in the first place. The evidence points to the need for

very early intervention for at-risk children — i.e., from the age of zero to

five — and their families.

"Solid

steps in early prevention include the early identification of aggressive

children. In order to implement interventions that support these children and

their families, we can begin by taking more seriously parents' and teachers'

concerns regarding aggressive behaviour in young children. We need to offer

parenting supports for families, develop and fund school-based identification

and intervention programs, and ensure that effective links are developed between

prevention and intervention initiatives. Improved integration of funding and

operation of all child-serving organizations is imperative.

"If

we take seriously the proven relationship between poverty and youth

delinquency, we would do more to ensure that parents of young children have

access to employment opportunities. We would consider implementing graduation

incentive programs to motivate youth to finish their high school education.

"In

our prevention work with children, youth and families, and in our work

with young offenders, we must improve our approach to assessment by focusing

more closely on needs. We need to work diligently to further our understanding

of and sensitivity to the role of gender in youthful offending. We need to learn

more about the specific and the special situation of youthful offending within

the Canadian context. We would do well to target effective interventions on all

young offenders when they commit their first offences, especially if a first

offence is committed before the age of 15.

"Finally,

providing sufficient supports to youth leaving custody constitutes our

last chance to prevent the further involvement in youthful offending."

These are the conclusions of a report paid for by this government

entitled Profiling the Repeat Offender: Implications for Early Intervention, by

Nicholson and Artz. It is a shame that this government is ignoring its

recommendations.

Of course,

as we know too well, this government is going in completely the opposite

direction. This is the government that is refusing young people — the very

target age of this bill — any assistance whatsoever unless they can prove they

have been independent for two years in a row. I'm talking now about the assis-

[ Page 7633 ]

tance for income assistance. I'll try to keep my sarcasm in check here,

because somehow I think that providing some income to a 19-year-old girl might

protect her from life in the sex trade a little bit more effectively than giving

potential pimps 30 days in jail.

This is the

government that's also reducing social assistance to young families by as much

as $200 a month. This is the government that, in one of its first acts, scrapped

universal child care, cut child care subsidies and made it next to impossible

for poor working families to provide the kind of quality early childhood

education that has been proven to be the best prevention of youth crime.

This is the

government that has brought the six-bucks-sucks minimum wage, a wage that most

affects immigrants — immigrant women and their families. Contrary to popular

belief, the majority of B.C.'s minimum-wage earners are women over 19 and not

youth. This is the government that cut an award-winning anti-bullying program

that was working in our schools, that has cut funds to the B.C. safe schools

initiatives and to popular, successful programs such as Rock Solid.

[1520]

This is

also the government that has threatened other crucial school-based programs so

many times that the parents, teachers and the administrators who banded together

to save these programs have been exhausted by the gruelling and shameful

process. This is the government that raised tuition fees and cut first-year

grants to post-secondary students, making it harder for youth to enter college

and university. This is also the government — and here we are getting to areas

closer to the Attorney General's own field — that slashed the Crown

prosecutor's budget and cut victim services. This is the government that closed

courthouses and jails and now, with this bill, will be putting greater pressure

on that very system.

Does the

Attorney General think this is the way to run a justice system? Does he think

the Solicitor General and the Premier's tough talk about getting tough on youth

will actually work in the real world — that it is actually a disincentive? Or

does he not agree that this is all about politics? The nuts and bolts of the

bill would appear, after the brief examination possible in the time allowed by

this government, to be mainly about responding to the new federal Youth Criminal

Justice Act, about bringing statutes concerning youth under one provincial act

and making the provincial language match the federal bill's language.

The

statistics on youth crime in B.C. actually show that youth crime is on the

decrease, as in the number of youth in custody. I will read from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development youth justice webpage that takes pride in these

declines and credits its own community-based alternative programs. "B.C.'s

number of youth in custody has declined steadily over the last ten years….

This decline can be attributed to a drop in…youth crime…including violent

crime, to integrated case management and to the addition of community-based

alternative programs and other treatment services."

The

politics this government is playing here, maybe because they are a little

sensitive about the board of trade's stinging criticisms over the rise in

property crime, is to add some tough measures on crime to this bill and then

take it to the public, hoping the public will respond positively to this kind of

pandering. We don't think people are that gullible. We think people understand

the real world because they, unlike this government, actually live in it. They

know that what influences youth is not the tough talk of his colleagues but the

kind of deep, serious cuts to the programs that vulnerable families depend on

— the cuts to school-based programs and child care, the cuts to legal aid and

other services made by this government that undermine support for children and

their families. That is what really affects kids.

Outside of

the House the Attorney General is, I guess, not trusted to carry the media show.

He's not seen to be able to carry the message of being tough on crime, but I

guess the Attorney General gets his chance here in the House to say what he

thinks about this bill. I'll be glad to discuss the many issues that arise as a

result of this bill at committee stage. If this government is sincere in

addressing and wanting to decrease crime amongst the youth population, wanting

to ensure that young people have a chance to succeed, then they would rescind

some of their very punitive policies and the budget cuts in the areas that

provide support to the youth and families in our communities.

It is well

documented, not just from the report I put on record that I just quoted moments

earlier. There is just a full library of research that has already been done,

which demonstrates that early intervention is the key. Cutting supports for

families, putting more stress on them, threatening that the government will cut

families — single parents with children over the age of three on income

assistance — off of income assistance, out of some arbitrary time limit, will

not assist in this process. It will, in fact, put more stress on the system,

more stress on the families, more stress on the community.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

[1525]

It would

put youth at greater risk of coming into conflict with the law, of not being

able to finish school, perhaps getting involved in alcohol and drugs. The

solution and the answers are clear. The reports are there. Don't take my word

for it. I know the government members just cast aside anything the opposition

has to say, but look to the libraries that are full with the reports that tell

you that early intervention is the answer.

The cuts

and the deepest cuts are still yet to come in the next budget year and the year

after. That is not the answer. It is not too late for this government to admit

that they're wrong in the budget exercise, that they want to invest in youth and

families and in these programs to support our communities in a way that would be

effective for the long term and not to engage in just

[ Page 7634 ]

cheap politics and try to win political scores with the tough talk on crime.

The

government needs to act in providing the supports that are necessary. It is time

for this government to put their money where their mouth is.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I was interested in the comments made by the opposition and certainly

heard, as I listened through and tried to distil what I heard, some of the

principles and comments being made within those. I think that I heard at least

five perhaps objectives, if not principles, within that conversation, one of

them being the notion of prevention. Certainly, I think all of us would agree

and know that prevention is the right focus and the right place and the right

direction for all of us to go in terms of issues of youth justice.

That's, in

fact, why this government and this Premier have appointed a Minister of State

for Early Childhood Development. That's why we focused so much of our resources

on early childhood development, so that we can look at early and positive

beginnings for children as they work their way through to adulthood. It is why

the Ministry of Children and Family Development has focused so many of its

dollars on family prevention, on family development, supporting and assisting

the needs of families as they look at and manage the challenges that face them.

The member

talked about consultation and made reference to the Boys and Girls Club of

Victoria. It's clear that we have been an actively consultative government. In

this ministry we've consulted with over 14,000 people in this province around

the issues of services to children in this province. In fact, we spoke with the

Boys and Girls Club just today, the Boys and Girls Club of Victoria as well, and

they said they have an excellent relationship with our ministry staff and are

very pleased with that working relationship and the direction and the

consultation taking place.

There was

discussion of the integration of services, and, clearly, what we've been doing

in this ministry and in this government is trying to coordinate services so that

we have a coordinated, integrated service delivery model that provides for

comprehensive service delivery. We talked about wanting to harmonize with the

federal legislation so that we can ensure that we are facilitating and enabling

the federal legislation to do what it is focused on and intended to do. There

was reference made to services outside of custody. The custody was not the right

and most appropriate way of responding to the needs of children at risk.

Certainly, we concur with that. However, there are times and there is research

which will show that many of the children coming into custody, perhaps as many

as 90 percent, have alcohol and drug issues, are actually under the influence of

alcohol and drugs. This piece of legislation will allow us, for those high-risk

children who are problematic — who do present a risk to the public — to be

able to slow them down for a moment, to be able to provide the services to them

which wouldn't otherwise be available to them.

There are

so often — and the Attorney General made reference to some of those people, as

an example, coming onto a schoolground who may be in breach of an order, an

order under the Child, Family and Community Services Act and a restraining order

placed within that…. This legislation will allow us to hold onto that person

for a moment in time, to be able to provide them with some of the services that

they may need access to because of some of the issues and problems which they

may be facing.

I know that

this government has taken a very focused, very evidence-based process and

direction in dealing with the issues as they apply to youth justice. They are

complex, they are integrated, but the model that we've put forward in this

province is one that does that.

[1530]

Bill 63

represents another step in the consolidation of youth justice services within an

integrated service delivery system to be provided for children and youth. In

fact, the former government in 1997 transferred youth justice services to the

then Ministry for Children and Families. I trust they had a belief that

integration and the model we're following is the right one to follow. In fact,

when we were in opposition, we supported that transition and that change because

of our belief and recognition of the need to have a comprehensive approach.

We've

continued that integration by including youth justice services on an ongoing

basis as part of the full range of services which are provided to children and

youth. The ministry has taken this youth-centred approach to hiring and training

staff. We've taken that approach in service delivery, and we've taken it in

program planning, so it's a broad-based spectrum of services that looks at and

responds to the needs of all children.

We have

now, and I think most observers across Canada would agree, probably the most

progressive youth justice system in Canada. We have taken a very positive

approach. We have had a community-based approach. Most observers will say, when

they look at it — many of them have reviewed it, and criminologists in British

Columbia will support that — that it is the most progressive youth justice

system in Canada.

Youth

probation officers' caseloads are now half of what they were in 1997, allowing

for better case planning, better case management of young offenders and indeed,

through that process, better protection of the public. Youth forensic

psychiatric treatment resources, addiction treatment resources and

community-based intensive support and supervision services for young offenders

have been substantially enhanced over the past few years.

A new

program has just been initiated. A program of family group conferencing has been

introduced as a way of using dispute mechanisms within the context of community

rather than using the court systems — again looking at ways that we can

integrate, coordinate and provide services that respond to the best interests of

children and have the best outcomes. The number of

[ Page 7635 ]

youth in custody is now less than half of what it was in 1997. Youth and

their families are receiving better services, and most importantly, the public

is now better served. This legislation represents another step in that progress.

Youth

justice services have been legislatively mandated in the past through the

Correction Act,

an act which was primarily designed to address adult offenders.

The bill before us now, the proposed Youth Justice Act, ensures that provincial

legislation regarding youth justice is youth-focused. It emphasizes

rehabilitation and integration of youth in conflict with the law and thereby

better serves the needs of youth, their families and the public interest.

Brenzinger: I'm standing today in the House to support Bill 63. I want to

applaud the minister, the Attorney General, for the bill, because he has

actually shown that he listens to the public, and this is what the public wants.

We want to

be clear that tougher consequences are for those youth who know right from

wrong. However, today I would like to highlight that the number of inmates may

be decreased in the future with more early intervention. I refer to children at

risk who have mental health issues or who are developmentally delayed but are

not identified while young.

One thing

this government has done is create a ministry for mental health and a ministry

for early childhood development. I was listening to the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I have to say…. Working in this field for ten

years prior to becoming an MLA, I can tell you that the past government did not

have those ministries and watered down the services to these children at risk.

[1535]

Education

on mental health disorders is important for caregivers, parents, educators and

professionals to be very knowledgable to ensure that children at risk are

identified and given the support they need while they are young. Perhaps the

frustration, the lack of acceptance in school, fears, low self-esteem and social

skills — just to name a few — turn some of these teenagers or youths to

drugs or alcohol because it's so difficult to function in society with

disabilities. If we can identify those youths — or children, before they

become youths — and give them the supports and the security of knowing that

they're okay, we could probably cut down on the number of youth going into the

criminal system, because they would be able to have the support systems there

that they need.

I support

this bill because I believe that the youth who know right from wrong should know

that there are hard consequences for them when they do something wrong. I think

the public has made that very clear. Certainly, in my office in Surrey-Whalley

it's been very clear that we would like to see tougher penalties. The other side

of it is that we do a lot of early intervention to identify the kids. I know

there's a high number of FAS children who grow up and end up in the system

through frustration, etc.

I just want

to applaud again the Attorney General for this bill — I think it's going to be

a really successful bill — along with the other ministries: the Ministry of

Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development and, of course, the

Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

Hayer: I'm very happy to rise to speak in favour of this act. I agree with

the basis of this act, which calls for a greater deterrence for young people to

commit crime. You know that more than 90 percent of our kids are good,

hard-working students and law-abiding, but it is those few who flaunt their

disregard for the law or for society. They have no respect for any authority,

for private property or for lives they impact with their criminal activities.

One of the

biggest problems we have with youth crime and violence is that they think they

are protected under the law. They think they can get away with it, doing

whatever they want. This bill will change some of that attitude, because now

some of them won't be getting away with it scot-free anymore.

Too often

we hear of young criminals who are caught by the police again and again, but

because there is little the police can do to these young offenders, they're back

on the street right away, looking for more trouble to cause. I'm a firm believer

that if you do the crime, you should do the time. Bill 63 provides for greater

time for youth offences. That is good, and perhaps it may make some other young

troublemakers think twice before they infringe on the rights of others. This act

is as much about respect for others as it is about increasing penalties for

crime, and that is a good thing.

I support

Bill 63 because it will contribute to safer communities. It will help make our

schools better and safer places to be in. I believe it is one more step toward a

reduction in youth crime. That is one more tool we have to change the attitude

on the street today that kids can get away with anything because there are no

deterrents. Only with acts such as this will we be able to convince renegade

youth that there is some punishment waiting for them, and if they break the law,

they have to pay the price. This act is one more step in returning respect to

the victims, and that is good news.

Mayencourt: It's an honour to be able to rise and speak on Bill 63, the

Youth Justice Act. When we got elected, we had a New Era document. It had

a lot of promises in it, and many of those promises we have met, and there are

others to fulfil. One that has been particularly close to my heart is the one

about creating safer communities and safer streets.

[1540]

Over the

last week we've had a lot of conversation in this House about safety, community

safety, crime and all of those issues. Today the Premier, in response to a

question, once again reaffirmed his commitment to safer communities for all of

British Columbia. This is something that is very fundamental to our government.

It's very, very important for us, because most of

[ Page 7636 ]

the people who live in British Columbia are good, law-abiding citizens. They

are people who deserve to live their lives free of fear and free of the tragedy

that so often is accompanied by crime. It's a really important promise that we

made and one that I work on virtually every day just to ensure that we in this

House put our minds to this in a very concerted way and face and make choices

that we need to do to provide that safety for people.

Bill 63 is

the result of a lot of work and a lot of consultation. It comes, really, out of

some changes to the federal Young Offenders Act, which was recently changed —

in April of 2003, I believe. The introduction of that bill gave us an

opportunity to take a look at our Young Offenders Act. It gave us an opportunity

to take a look at it in terms of what we're trying to accomplish for British

Columbia in terms of community safety and in terms of looking after young

people. It gave us that opportunity to have a conversation with many individuals

here in this chamber and also outside of this chamber about some of the

challenges we face when it comes to youth crime.

The bill

here fulfils some very important objectives. It brings us into line with the new

federal act. It matches the terminology they've used in the federal act. It

gives us an opportunity to be consistent from the federal act to the provincial

act, and I think that's a great benefit to British Columbians. Part of the

problem you have with provincial statutes and federal laws is that sometimes

people aren't really clear on what the message and consistency are. That

consistency is achieved with this act.

It also

parallels some of the federal legislation in terms of the types of punishments

or the consequences that are available to us when we are faced with the

unfortunate circumstance of a young offender. It allows us to increase some

penalties for, I believe, six different offences in British Columbia that are

more in keeping with the kind of spirit of what the province is feeling and is

concerned about. I think that's the very important work we are undertaking here

today.

I listened

to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the member for Surrey-Whalley, the

member for Surrey-Tynehead and also the Minister of Children and Family

Development. All of them started to reference some of the things we do. All of

them mentioned things we could be doing, and everyone starts at the very

beginning. At the very beginning is a little baby — a little baby that, if we

invest in, if we nurture, if we provide opportunity to…. If we provide the

kinds of resources that they need in families, and what have you, those kinds of

things we can do at the beginning of a child's life really have a profound

effect on how they turn out as adults. It has a profound effect on how a family

looks and how a community looks and how a province looks.

There are

many things we can do. One of the things we've done in this government, which

was referenced by other members here today, was create a Minister of State for

Early Childhood Development. That speaks volumes about the kind of commitment

this government has to children and families in this province. It's something

I'm really very proud of. When I speak to the Minister for Early Childhood

Development — we had a meeting in my office in Vancouver just on Saturday —

I know I've got someone there that's compassionate and understands the issues

and that knows it's really important to move forward and to protect children, to

provide families with the kind of mentoring and the supports they need so that

their children can grow up and live successful lives.

[1545]

The

Minister of Children and Family Development has talked about some of the

initiatives that he's going through right now. The Ministry of Children and

Family Development is moving the model of service delivery into regions. Why?

Well, it just happens to make very good sense for the people of, say, the

northwest or the interior to be able to deal with the issues in their

communities in ways that make sense for those same communities.

The

minister has gone to great lengths, and he's been applauded by youth service

providers all across this province for the intensive consultation he has engaged

in, for the planning he's put into this, for his ability to come up with the

right amount of money to support children and families in British Columbia. It

is another measure of this government's commitment to kids, to families and to

communities. It's something that is very, very important and something that we

need to remember.

We're

talking here about crime and punishment, but really we're talking about: how do

we fix a problem? Those two ministries are all about getting ahead of the

problem, and I think that's a really important thing that we sometimes forget in

this House, or maybe the public forgets — that we are doing things to protect

children before they have a problem. That's important.

We've also

created a Minister of State for Mental Health. I know that minister very well.

We've met on many occasions to talk about the variety of things that we can do.

You know, we look at the Youth Justice Act and often…. I mean, I look at it

and I go: some of those kids have mental health problems, and what are we doing

for them? What can we do for them? How can we make their life better? We do,

because we've put our minds to mental health as addiction services, as something

that is deserving of a minister — an advocate for all of British Columbia. His

passion for the job he has before him, for his ability to reach into the lives

of British Columbians and protect those who are less fortunate than us and who

live with mental illness….

It's a fact

of life. There are a lot of British Columbians who face those kinds of

challenges, and so we've put some energy towards that — some real people to

work on this. I know that as we work through the regional health authorities,

we're actually making a profound difference in the lives of people with mental

illness and, in particular, of children who live with mental illness —

children who live with their own mental illness or live in a family where mental

illness is

[ Page 7637 ]

an issue. We do those things because we know those are things that are going

to make a difference when the child is six, when the child is 12, when the child

is 18 and to the time when they become adults.

It's very

important work that we do in this Legislature. Community safety has got to be

just the most important thing in my work here. I really, really believe in this

kind of work, because I think so many people have kind of walked away from

calling people on their stuff, on being responsible. This act is really about

letting kids, parents and ordinary British Columbians know that they have a

responsibility. They live in a society that has rules, and those rules are there

for the benefit of all. Those rules are there to protect the children, to

protect adults, to protect communities and seniors and what have you. Those laws

are there.

This act is

an opportunity for us to communicate with the children and parents of British

Columbia that these are the things we believe are important and true. I look

through this act and I look at…. For the benefit of people that are not

sitting in this Legislature, we look at these acts, and they're a bunch of

paper. They have words on them of course. I look at

section 8, which is about

changing the rules here, about changing the rules for dealing with criminal

activity with kids. I think it's important that we send a strong message to

these kids that we care about them, that we're there for them at the beginning

of their lives and all through their lives, and we still expect them to be

responsible, whether they are 14 or 15 or 16. We expect them to be responsible

for their actions, and we expect them to understand these laws and these rules.

[1550]

We can do

lots about that. I know that when this act is proclaimed, when it's brought into

force, there are good and wonderful people who work in our community who will

work to communicate these laws, who will translate these sections, subsections

to kids, that make sense to families, that make sense to communities — all who

deal with creating a better and safer community.

I look at

one of the sections, and it talks about a particular crime. It says:

"Subject to

section 14, if the young person is found guilty of an offence

under

section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the court must make an order

prohibiting the young person from driving a motor vehicle for a period of 2

years." That's really heavy; that's big stuff. It means that if you're 16

and you have your driver's licence, you've yanked it. It's been yanked; it's

gone. You won't be driving until you're 18. That means a lot to young people. I

can remember how important my driver's licence was to me. What does that mean?

It means we're serious about protecting people in our community.

What is

section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act? It's a prohibition against driving for

failing to stop. What's that about? Well, in our province we've seen many, many

examples of police chases — 100 kilometres an hour, 150 kilometres an hour.

We've seen them throw out those belts that pop all the tires. We've seen

Mustangs wrapped around telephone poles because they were running from….

This is

important stuff. Those kinds of tragedies break the hearts of moms and dads.

They affect people that aren't just the immediate family of those young

offenders. They affect other families profoundly. They make a huge difference in

the lives of people, so there ought to be serious consequences for that type of

crime. There ought to be some reckoning, some sober thought, some time to sit

down and go: "Oh, I shouldn't have done that. I hurt someone and maybe

their circle of friends or their family. I hurt my community." So it is

serious stuff. It's really important stuff.

I've had

the opportunity to work on the safe schools task force and had the opportunity

to travel the province and meet teachers, students, community leaders and moms

and dads — all about the issues of bullying, harassment and intimidation. That

doesn't happen just in schools. It happens around schools. Schools are a good

place to do that sort of stuff.

I can

remember one community I went to, and we talked for a long time about bullying

and harassment and what have you. Over the course of many, many hours with

students coming forward, I learned that in that community one of the chief

concerns they had was people coming and recruiting their girls and their boys to

be in the sex trade, people coming onto a school property where kids are

vulnerable. They may have been adults or they may have been kids, but the fact

of the matter is that they trespassed. They came into a place that's supposed to

be safe and secure for kids, and they recruited them out of that — out of

their community, away from their families — and brought them to God knows

where — perhaps the downtown east side, perhaps downtown Kelowna. I don't

know.

Those kinds

of things are very serious crimes. Those are things that will alter children's

lives forever. I have the greatest respect for groups like PACE, which works

with young people that have been induced into the sex trade, and WISH, which is

in the downtown east side and works with young prostitutes as well.

I went to a

conference not long ago that was sponsored by the Minister for Women's Equality.

In that meeting we had a number of people who worked in the sex trade, who came

forward. I sat beside a young girl — I won't use her name — and she was 15

years old. We talked for a little while. She was talking about her dog, and she

was talking about what she was doing in school and whatever. I thought: this is

a really nice young lady.

[1555]

Midway

through the conference a name was called to come to the front to make a

presentation. The young girl, the 15-year-old girl beside me, walked to the

front of the room and talked about being induced into the sex trade, talked

about being lured in by an older girl in the school who'd told her that this was

the ticket to glamour. You know, this is how you get makeup. These people will

treat you really nice.

There are

sick people in our society who actually get off on young sex-trade workers.

There are people

[ Page 7638 ]

who think it's cool to go and do that sort of stuff, so there's a cycle that

happens where maybe a 15-year-old recruits a 12-year-old. It's a great tragedy.

It's something that really changes and impacts lives for a long, long time. This

young girl is moving out of the trade, but she talked about how once you're on

that train, it's so hard to get off it. This act talks about making that a

crime, about making it more of a crime so that we can actually punish people for

it, and I think that is truly, truly important.

This bill,

of course, is attempting to balance two very important things. It's attempting

to focus on the value of rehabilitation for young people and providing increased

consequences for youth who pose a serious risk to public safety. This balance is

really essential. It's so important. We need to recognize the needs of these

young offenders and be able to offer all we can to prevent their lives from

turning into ones filled with violence and despair and agony.

We need to

protect our communities. People shouldn't have to worry about being robbed or

being attacked in their homes or in their communities. I spoke a couple of days

ago about Christina, a 100-year-old woman in my community who was followed into

the elevator by a young girl. The young girl demanded money from Christina.

Christina said no and was pushed up against the wall with her walker crammed up

against her. She's 100 years old. She's an old woman, and this young girl is

snatching her purse. That's the kind of thing we don't want in society. That

shouldn't happen to Christina; it shouldn't happen to anybody.

But there

was another victim in that crime. Well, actually, there were two other victims

in that crime. The first was an 11-year-old girl that I know by the name of

Cassie. Cassie happened to be at the Ocean Inn — I think it's the Ocean Inn

— on Denman Street one day, and she and a girlfriend were using the ladies

room. Cassie found a purse that belonged to Christina. She took it home and told

her mother she had found this purse, and she and her mother made efforts to

return the purse to Christina.

Now, what

does it tell an 11-year-old girl when a 100-year-old woman can be mugged in her

elevator? Cassie is a victim too. For all of us that witness these types of

crimes, these are assaults on us. These are assaults on our community, on our

families, on our co-workers. These are attacks that need to be addressed.

The other

victim in this crime is the young girl that committed the crime. I don't know

her life circumstance — I really don't — but dollars to donuts, it was

miserable. It was bad. Maybe she didn't have the kinds of things that we are

building into our government today, like a Minister of State for Early Childhood

Development, like a Ministry of Children and Family Development, like a Minister

of State for Mental Health — the things that provide value to families, the

early interventions that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant speaks so

passionately about.

[1600]

There are

not many things we agree on, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, but I believe in

early intervention, and I believe in protecting our kids. I believe in doing all

we can to protect them, and I also believe in protecting our communities. I

believe in protecting our schoolchildren. I believe in protecting our school

grounds. I believe in protecting our streets. I believe in a safe community for

all British Columbians.

The new

Youth Justice Act will protect public safety. It will mean safer communities by

ensuring that youth face serious consequences for crime. Creating a stand-alone

comprehensive act, written specifically for youth, will provide greater clarity

new act strikes a balance between serious consequences for youth for serious

offences while acknowledging that youth should not necessarily face the same

penalties as adult offenders.

Most

importantly, this act helps me to fulfil a promise to my community that I made

when I was elected in May of 2001.

D. MacKay:

I'm pleased to stand up today and support Bill 63, which was introduced by our

Attorney General. Part of the reason I'm supporting this new legislation is

going to require me to go back to 1962, while I was with the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police. I came out of policing as a young rookie and was stationed in

British Columbia. In those days and for the next 28 years, I saw lots of changes

in society. When I first started policing in this province, we dealt with young

people through the adult court system. They were dealt with in the adult court

system. There was no difference made between young offenders and adults. If you

committed a criminal offence, you were dealt with under the Criminal Code of

Canada, regardless of your age.

Mr.

Speaker, you know what happened over the years. We as a society changed, and we

acknowledged that children are different. They have to be treated differently.

They're going through some tough years when they're growing up and they're

youngsters, and they do some things sometimes for whatever reason. We did, as a

society, make some changes to deal with those people when they broke the laws

that govern us as a society.

I can

recall when the Young Offenders Act first came out. I was still serving with the

RCMP in British Columbia, and I was pleased that we were able to deal with young

people differently. We took them out of the adult court system and dealt with

them differently.

It wasn't

perfect. It wasn't perfect by any means, because society continues to change.

The demands on society change. Young people still continue to grow up. They

won't listen to older people; they have to learn the hard way. Sometimes they

make mistakes — honest mistakes but still mistakes — that we as a society

find offensive, and we have created legislation to penalize people when they do

violate some of those conditions we learn to live under as a group of people.

Today we

are introducing another change. The Young Offenders Act, as we knew it, has been

repealed, and it's now being replaced by Bill 63. This is a

[ Page 7639 ]

companion bill to the federal legislation that was introduced in April of

this year. We want to make sure we don't do anything differently than what the

federal government has imposed through its federal legislation. We want to make

sure that the provincial legislation has a companion piece to deal with it. It

does give the province some different means of dealing with those young

offenders.

Now, one

thing that we have to remember, when we're dealing with young offenders, is that

we're talking about children between the ages of 12 and 18. On your eighteenth

birthday you become an adult and you're dealt with in adult court. Between the

ages of 12 and 18, if you commit a crime, you're going to be dealt with as a

youth. When this bill passes, you're going to be dealt with under this new piece

of legislation. I'm pleased we're doing that.

[1605]

There are

still some challenges as we move forward, and that is dealing with young

children under 12 years of age, because a lot of crime is committed by children

under the age of 12 years. That's a problem we're going to wrestle with for

years. To deal with young people not punitively but effectively…. That problem

is not something new; that's been with us for years. It was with generations

long before we walked on the earth, and it will be with us long after we're

gone: how to deal with young people.

I was

sitting in my office listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talk

about how punitive this new piece of legislation is. She talked about how it was

going to take away the ability of youth to get an education, how we're looking

at punishing children only. I would suggest she probably didn't look at the act,

nor does she understand it, because within the act, this new piece of

legislation…. I keep calling it

an act because I suspect it probably will pass

through this House in due course.

There are

two sections in this new act that deal with young offenders and their education

ability. One of them deals with conditional discharge, and one of the sentencing

provisions in there is that the judge must consider the educational

opportunities for that youth. Even in the case where a youth is sentenced to a

period of incarceration, there's an appeal process available after a period of

time. One of the conditions that the youth can make an application to a court

for a new hearing on is his inability to get an education in the place of

incarceration. When I heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talking

about the inability to get an education as a young person under this act, she

does not understand the act; nor has she taken the time to read the act.

In that act

there are numerous things that will help young offenders deal with the problems

that got them in trouble in the first place. It's difficult to understand why

young offenders do commit crimes. There are a number of reasons why they do it.

One of them is probably peer pressure at school. That's a hard thing for us, as

we get older, to understand, but I can recall a few years ago when I was in

school. I was probably called in, and I probably had a beer because somebody

said that when you get older, when you're 15 or 16, that's what you have to do.

Peer

pressure is a big influence on young children growing up in our school system.

To go in and steal something from a school or from a drugstore: "If you

want to be part of our crowd, you have to do that." That's peer pressure.

Normally, a lot of children wouldn't commit a crime like that, but if they want

to be part of the crowd, be part of the group, the initiation rite says that's

what you have to do. Peer pressure is a big influence.

There's

also the problem of addiction. Some of our young offenders have addictions. They

have alcohol addictions, and they have drug addictions. That's another reason

some of these crimes are committed: to support those habits they have. There are

provisions in this new legislation here to deal with those, if they have

addiction problems or alcohol problems.

There are

social conditions, another reason why young offenders will go out and commit

crimes. The conditions under which those young people are raised send them out

into the world to fend for themselves, and to fend for themselves means they

need money, and money usually comes from the proceeds of crime. We shouldn't

forget that.

Then

there's just the thrill of going out and committing a crime and not getting

caught. How many times have you watched on television lately youngsters

videotaping themselves as they're committing crimes? They're driving around,

they're shooting people with pellet guns, and they're videotaping it. It's the

thrill of the crime. All those conditions have to be looked at when we try to

understand why young people commit crimes in the first place.

When I

heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant say we were going to punish

young people…. Well, living in a society, if you decide to break the laws we

live under, there's got to be some punishment. I want you to stop and think for

a moment about the emotional trauma that victims of crime suffer when they

become victims of crime, when their house is broken into — the emotional

trauma those people go through because their personal effects have now become

public, because somebody broke into their house. How about the store owner going

to work morning after morning and finding a huge store window broken? Eventually

the insurance says, "I'm sorry; it's costing too much for you," and

they cancel the premium, and this continues.

[1610]

There's a

financial cost associated with some of those crimes committed. That

broken-window one is something I experienced so many times. I felt so sorry for

the victims of crime. I saw cars, hundreds of cars on car lots, vandalized by

kids looking for something to do in the evening.

For the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to say that this new legislation is

punitive…. That is part of it. There's got to be some punishment attached to

this. I also got the impression that she doesn't want to

[ Page 7640 ]

see any changes made to the Young Offenders Act or the way we treat young

offenders in this province. As I said, society changes; we change.

I guess if

we followed along the theme of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, when a

young offender committed a crime we would put them in the stockade downtown.

That's what we used to do with young offenders. We used to do that with

criminals. They were put in stockades for people to stare at because they had

committed a crime. We don't do that anymore. We treat our young people

differently. We have all sorts of social programs available for youngsters who

have addiction problems.

What we're

doing, as I've said, is repeal the Young Offenders Act. We're now going to

replace it with some new legislation, and it's a companion to the Youth Criminal

Justice Act. That begs the question: will this be the end-all? Will it bring to

an end the problem of how to deal with young offenders? Well, I suspect it

won't. We will never find the answer to effectively deal with young offenders

because we continue to change as a society.

As I said,

children under 12 can't be charged with a criminal offence, even though they do

commit a great number of offences. But we — perhaps not our generation, but

the next generation — may say: "Enough is enough. If you're under 12

years old and you commit an offence, you might be responsible to the rest of

society for your acts." To say we shouldn't change legislation — I can't

support that. Young people have to be held accountable for the offences, for the

violations of statutes that we have developed and continue to develop so we can

live in a peaceful society.

Our homes.

We shouldn't have to worry about whether we locked the door or locked the

windows. It shouldn't matter; years ago it didn't matter. Times have changed,

and we now have to do that when we leave our homes.

We have to

make them accountable to society, and we do that in a number of ways:

conditional sentences, absolute discharges or incarceration if it's serious

enough. This new legislation actually increases the period of incarceration that

was previously allowed under the old act. For six offences we can now actually

incarcerate young offenders for a period of 90 days, which is up from the

previous allowable period of incarceration of 30 days for offences — for

example, driving while prohibited. I think that's a step in the right direction.

We've heard about and seen the tragedies of young offenders who continue to

drive and ignore the laws, who drive while prohibited. Well, this new

legislation is going to allow for longer periods of incarceration for offences

such as that.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

This act

has provisions in there to help young offenders with their social and addictive

problems and to help them educate themselves so they can be meaningful and

productive people in our society. But they do have to be punished, should they

step out of bounds, because everybody else is. Somewhere along that line we have

to start telling people: "You can't do that." I think this act is a

step in the right direction.

[1615]

As I said,

the provisions in the new legislation, Bill 63, allow for the incarceration for

a number of offences that were not there before. There's some new legislation

coming in, telling people these are a couple more things that we as a society do

not approve of.

You can no

longer trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

Previously, there was no penalty for that. There is under this new act. You

cannot trespass on school property for the purposes of gang activity. Before,

you could go ahead and do that, and the Crown and we as a society were powerless

to prevent that from happening. Under this new legislation there are now

provisions that have a penalty attached for behaviour like that.

You can no

longer bring contraband into a jail or a youth custody centre. If you do, there

are now penalties associated with that type of behaviour. Previously there

weren't. As I said, this act now allows for jail time for six serious provincial

statute offences — jail time. For someone to be sentenced to jail in our

period in this world, you have to commit a pretty serious offence, so I'm

pleased that young offenders who decide they want to step outside the bounds of

normal activity and commit a criminal offence or a serious provincial offence

like driving while prohibited are going to pay a pretty severe penalty. There

are provisions for that now.

Previously

the Young Offenders Act only allowed for probation in a lot of cases. That has

now changed. A good example of one of the changes that has now been made is that

the period of incarceration for driving while prohibited has gone from 30 days'

incarceration to a maximum of 90 days. That's tripling the time a young offender

can now be incarcerated for a serious provincial statute. That's long overdue,

because a lot of these driving offences we're seeing today are being committed

by young people between the ages of 12 and 18.

I certainly

have no problem standing in this House supporting what we're doing and what will

continue to be done in the years ahead — that is, make changes to the way we

deal with young offenders. The Attorney General, the Minister of Children and

Family…. We have great programs to deal with young people who step beyond the

bounds of normal behaviour for whatever reason. The bottom line is that if

you're going to commit a criminal offence or a serious provincial offence as a

young offender in British Columbia, there are going to be some serious

consequences for your behaviour.

I support

fully the provisions in Bill 63 put forward by our Attorney General.

Stewart: I'm pleased to support Bill 63. Having worked in the criminal

justice system for a number of years in a previous life, it was interesting to

see the changes in the act — and, I think, for the better. I go

[ Page 7641 ]

back to the old Juvenile Delinquents Act prior to the Young Offenders Act,

which was brought in, in 1977. We've seen changes in the way we deal with youth

as we see changes in our society, but the two are definitely connected. How our

society operates clearly shows how our youth are going to act and how

responsible they're going to be. Really, crime is a by-product of us as a

society, and it's hard to draw clear lines of distinction between crime and

other social activities.

A person

that's involved in crime…. It can be quite complex. There can be many other

components of their life which cause them to gravitate towards that negative

peer subculture which causes us so much difficulty today and in the past. There

are the components of disabilities, educational deficiencies, abuse in the home,

afflictions that are caused by genetics and poor mentoring. I've seen on other

occasions where we have a child that appears to come from what we would consider

a very stable, good family home, and they end up in crime. There are all kinds

of pressures on youth, but what we have to be clear on in the end is that

somewhere along the way, they're held accountable to the level of responsibility

they can manage.

[1620]

That's why

we see youth under the age of 12 not included in this act. I believe most of us

would concur that a youth at the age of ten or 11 wouldn't have the same level

of maturity as some at the age of 16 or 17, although that varies. We see some

youth who are extremely responsible at ages 13 and 14 and fully accountable and

knowledgable as to what it is they're doing, and they're just doing it because

they believe they can get away with it.

So as

complex as these youths are, we have to be as complex in the amount of different

resources and types of resources we have to deal with that. As in anything in

government and in life, we're not a limitless supply of funding. Our ability to

deal with youth in a criminal activity — as in dealing with youth with social

problems, youth with health problems and seniors with health problems…. There

are limitations to what we can do, so what we have to ensure is that we utilize

the resources available to us to maximize the outcome for that. I believe we're

moving in the right direction for that.

We see an

act here that is now framed with the federal act, so we're working under the

same terminology. We have the same ages we're dealing with. It adds some

stability to the act. We're looking at a situation where we're trying to

integrate the case management of a youth. As I mentioned earlier, quite often a

youth that's involved in crime may be involved with not just a probation

officer. It could be a social worker, a school counsellor, a school tutor or

someone that's involved with a community organization. The case management is

very important.

I think

it's important that we also look at the youth in a holistic approach to deal

with those components of their lives and have the flexibility to deal with the

youths as individuals as they come before the courts by way of an interaction

with a law agency. But again, I certainly don't believe that youth should be

given carte blanche to go out and do whatever they feel because of some immunity

with age, and I believe some of the tightening up from the Young Offenders Act

to the Youth Justice Act accounts for that.

Another

thing I've seen in my trials and tribulations in dealing with youth over the

years is the importance of being consistent. One of the things I think is

important through

an act is how the courts interpret it. That will be the

interesting component that comes out of this: to see how that area deals with

the options that are put forward in this act, how the courts deal with the

intervention programs, how the courts deal with a youth that has a multitude of

different components in their life that are conflicting and how flexible the

courts are going to be in dealing with that youth as an individual. That's the

challenge that I think is before us.

We have

some tools to do that, and I'm pleased that the act supports the usage of that.

There are many good organizations out there in our community — public,

private, non-government organizations — that are prepared to work with the

youth, given the constraints of the act, to try and bring a sense of community

to their lives, a sense of responsibility.

I believe

we've made some bad choices in the past in how we've dealt with youth and

specific types of crimes. I believe that the way breaking and enterings were

dealt with over the years made it commonplace, made it that it wasn't such a big

thing. As a result of allowing those types of actions to be accepted, it just

moves the level up. I don't believe, if we were more consistent in our dealing

with those breaking and enterings during the eighties and early nineties, we

would have seen that escalation in home invasions that we saw. Fortunately, that

seems to be a trend that isn't as high profile as it was previously, and it

seems to be falling off. Hopefully, there's been an equal amount of effort put

in on the crime prevention side to alleviate that.

Car thefts,

too, for years were viewed almost as misdemeanours. I think the significance of

the escalation of that to the more serious carjackings, which fortunately we

haven't seen too much of in British Columbia…. But we have seen a trend

towards that. Hopefully, by the crackdown with the car-theft programs, we're

going to see similar reductions in that and bring it down to a level that

becomes more acceptable.

[1625]

What does

that have to do with the Youth Justice Act? Well, quite a bit. It's the

application of the tools that are there for the court system and the people who

work within the family justice area to implement the appropriate actions that

are needed and the appropriate penalties in cases to get the youth to understand

what it is they've actually done and take responsibility and accountability for

that.

In closing,

I'd just like to say that I believe this is a step in the right direction. It's

not the end-all and be-all, but it's a component that's going to help us move

towards at least the options for the courts to ensure that not only are the

youth who are involved in criminal

[ Page 7642 ]

activities dealt with in a fair and accountable manner, but that the other

considerations in their lives that may be out of their control in some ways be

dealt with in a reasonable way too, so that they can turn their lives around and

become productive citizens that will make us all proud in the future.

S. Orr: First

of all, I represent a riding that has many social issues, and I have youth in my

riding that have lived very challenged lives. It's from no fault of their own,

and unfortunately we've all seen this. They've had bad home environments —

just bad environments. They've had bad parenting and, consequently, bad choices.

That leads them to a life of crime.

Now, I

believe that this really is a small percentage of youth. That particular

percentage of youth are sad souls, and I get quite frustrated when I watch

everybody lump everybody in together. These are indeed a small percentage. I

believe that these kids really need special care. Some kids who get into trouble

do deserve to be accountable for their actions. I have no problem with that at

all. Many responsible parents pull their hair out in frustration when their kids

go off the rails and would probably be pleased to have some kind of support.

When I was

growing up and I did something wrong, my parents punished me, because they were

responsible. I knew the difference between right and wrong because I had been

taught that by my parents, by my grandparents, by my family. For these parents,

being able to say to their children: "Think twice before you make a bad

choice. If you do the crime, you'll do the time, and that's the law…."

You need to be able to do that as a parent. You need to be able to say to the

kid that's going off the rails: "Listen to me. This is going to happen to

you." This piece of legislation will actually help them. You know, it's

wonderful being a parent, but it also can be very, very hard. For those parents