2001 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, AUGUST 22, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 24

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Time

Introductions by Members

Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 3) (Bill 25). Hon. G. Abbott

Introduction and first reading

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust

Company Act, 2001 (Bill Pr403). R. Sultan

Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions

U.S. softwood lumber duty and provincial

bond assistance proposal

J. MacPhail

Tuition fee review

J. Kwan

Compliance of Crown corporations with

local land use and zoning bylaws

P. Bell

WCB workplace smoking ban

J. Kwan

Lillooet land and resource management

plan

D. Chutter

Petitions

Proposed smelter project for Alberni

Valley

Tabling Documents

Forests ministry, annual report,

1999-2000

Forests ministry, annual performance

review, 2000-01

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report,

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill

16)

Second reading

Hon. R. Coleman

J. MacPhail

B. Penner

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

K. Stewart

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Coleman

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 23)

Second reading

Hon. G. Plant

J. MacPhail

Public Service (Merit Employment

Commissioner) Amendment Act, 2001

(Bill 10)

Second reading

Hon. S. Santori

J. MacPhail

R. Stewart

J. Bray

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Santori

Crime Victim Assistance Act (Bill

24)

Second reading

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

S. Orr

Hon. R. Coleman

Private Members' Statements

Land claims. D. MacKay

W. Cobb

Volunteerism. D. Hayer

Hon. G. Abbott

Surrey Senior Games. B. Locke

Hon. G. Cheema

Hon. K. Falcon

The importance of agriculture. B.

Lekstrom

Hon. J. van Dongen

Committee of Supply

Office of the Premier estimates. Hon. G.

Campbell

Vote 9: Office of the

Premier

J. Kwan

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt

[ Page 703 ]

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2001

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like this House to welcome a delegation from Surrey and

Delta. Please welcome the 58 members of the Surrey-Delta Indo-Canadian Seniors

Society. They are led by their president, Maghar Singh Sanghe, and they are

assisted by my constituency assistant, Karnail Nagra, and Mr. Niramal Singh

Nannar.

This group

has a wealth of experience and knowledge which is an asset to our province.

Among these guests is my father, Ajinder Singh Cheema. I assume they have all

come to see if I am working hard or not.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Today in the galleries we have many distinguished jurists from

around the world who are members of the Institut de droits international, or the

Institute of International Law. They're here with their president, the first

Canadian who has been elected to the institute and a former Member of

Parliament, Dr. Ted McWhinney. The institute's resolutions carry persuasive

legal authority within the United Nations and before international tribunals.

The current meeting that is taking place in Vancouver is only the third time in

the 128-year history of the institute that they've met outside of Europe, and we

are delighted to have them here in our capital today. Please join me in

welcoming all the members of the institute and Dr. McWhinney in particular.

P. Bell:

It's my honour today to have my first introduction in the House. It comes from

the beautiful pine beetle–infested community of Prince George North. Joining

me today I have Shane Schepens, who helped me through the campaign as my youth

coordinator, and Carrie Stewart. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Brice: I am pleased this afternoon to introduce my son Jason, who is here

from Vancouver, a young entrepreneur who is here to watch his new era of

government in action. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have two special visitors

from Mexico. The first is Mr. Rodolfo Elizondo, who is the coordinator for the

President of Mexico's liaison office for citizens' alliance. He is a panellist

at the 2001 Civicus World Assembly in Vancouver this week. Mr. Elizondo wanted

to take this opportunity to meet with government. He will be meeting with the

Minister of State for the Community Charter later this afternoon. Mr. Elizondo

is accompanied by Guadalupe Albert, the very busy consul general of Mexico in

Vancouver. Please join me in giving them a warm welcome to the Legislature.

B. Kerr:

I'd like to introduce a gentleman today who was the president of my riding

association for a number of years. He is currently the regional director of the

South Island for the B.C. Liberal Party. He had a heart attack about two months

ago. He's back now, and he says he's fit as a fiddle and ready to run a

20-kilometre run. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Dave Pedley.

Hon. K.

Falcon: It is with great pleasure that I welcome a great family from the

community of Surrey. Brian Watts was the Chair of my sign campaign and did an

excellent job in the last election. Brian's wife is also here today. Dianne

Watts is a councillor, one of the great councillors in the city of Surrey. They

are joined by their two lovely daughters, Elishea and Elora. I would ask the

House to make them welcome today.

Hon. G.

Abbott: It's my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today my wife, who is

accompanied by our good friend from Sicamous, Polly Cowan. I'd ask the House to

make them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I see in the gallery today two of my constituents

from Kamloops, both hard-working members of my committee: Jeff and Kitty

McAllister. Please make them welcome.

[1410]

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING ACT (No. 3)

Hon. G.

Abbott presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3).

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating Act (No. 3). Like the previous two municipalities enabling and

validating acts, this act gives local governments greater flexibility to handle

their own affairs on a case-by-case basis. The regional district of

Okanagan-Similkameen has requested an amendment to the act that would allow it

to recover approximately $3.3 million from Naramata residents related to the

Blackwell arbitration case. To do this, the regional district wants authority to

impose a special equal-share parcel tax, a

[ Page 704 ]

former property tax which is not defined under the local government act. With

this legislation, we're giving the regional district the flexibility it needs to

handle this unique financial challenge and plan for the future with confidence.

As well, on

behalf of the Minister of Health Services, I move, as part of the

amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) that municipal

anti-smoking bylaws approved by the provincial health officer or deputy to the

provincial health officer between April 1, 1996, and August 9, 1996, be

retroactively validated.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill 25

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.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

TRUST COMPANY ACT, 2001

R. Sultan

presented a bill intituled The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 2001.

Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill, of which notice has been given

on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion

approved.

Sultan: This is a private bill which will provide an important service from

two important British Columbia employers: the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. and

the National Trust Co.

Some time

ago the trust arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia acquired National Trust Co., which

it is reorganizing. The trust arm of the Bank of Nova Scotia is assuming all of

the responsibilities for the personal trust affairs of National Trust. To

accomplish this, the Bank of Nova Scotia entity needs to be substituted in place

of the National Trust entity in all personal estates. Many of the affected

persons are deceased or would have to prepare a new will. Because of the large

number of trusts and estates involved, the only practical way to accomplish this

is through legislation in each of the various provinces in Canada.

In the past

year and a half that task has already been accomplished in all of the other

provincial legislatures across Canada, and now it is British Columbia's turn.

This is hardly controversial legislation.

I move that

the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY AND

PROVINCIAL BOND ASSISTANCE PROPOSAL

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, we see today that the federal and provincial

governments are moving toward providing bond assistance to companies in need of

help as a result of the softwood lumber tariff. While it is my belief that the

provincial government could have moved more quickly, I do want to congratulate

the Minister of Finance for now getting behind a bond assistance program.

[1415]

Yesterday

the federal Trade minister said that a bond needs to be structured in such a way

that it's not just seen as a subsidy, and I think that's a fair concern. The

opposition has been pushing for bond assistance since the U.S. imposed its

tariff — that it was announced. We have some constructive ideas about how to

meet the test and design a bond so that it's not perceived as a subsidy.

Communities need help soon. Will the Minister of Forests agree to form a working

group that will consist of the stakeholders, the government and the opposition

to come together and come up with a plan to provide this bond assistance?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Except for the inclusion of the opposition, I'm happy to inform the

House — and I think the House knows — that that's already been done. We

welcome the suggestions. We've invited them from the opposition, and I think

it's timely, in response to the member's question, just to review very quickly the

events of the past few days. We are days away from sitting down with the Americans

in what will undoubtedly be the single most important discussion or negotiation that we can have, from an economic point of view, in B.C.

Very

shortly after speaking with the Premier of British Columbia, the Prime Minister

contacted President Bush and sent that first message about how important this

is. The International Trade minister was here yesterday, as the member knows,

and saw and heard firsthand from the people who are part of that working group

— representatives of communities, companies and employees — about the

devastation that this punitive trade sanction is imposing on British Columbia.

We obtained a commitment from the federal government to provide real dollars to

fund a public campaign in the United States, and we are continuing the

discussions around the question of bonding.

I'm happy

to receive the information and advice from the hon. member. I might say that I

know this member in the past has enjoyed a special link with the federal

International Trade minister. Though I wouldn't pretend to enjoy a similar

telepathic ability, I also hope that we can achieve a meeting of the minds.

MacPhail: I fully understand that that's the kind of bonding that that

minister could never…. [Applause.] Here is a breakthrough

[ Page 705 ]

in question period where there seems to be agreement breaking out

all around.

I do note that the file is moving very quickly on some fronts, and

on other fronts it's stalled. It is again that I ask the minister to provide

some very substantive detail about how the opposition can participate. We have

constructive ideas. We know that in the past, bonds have been structured through

the federal government with commercial rates. They use the Export Development

Corporation to do so. That's a common practice, and it's one that cannot be

challenged by the Americans as well.

I'm pleased

to see that the Minister of Forests will take me up on my idea, and I ask him

only now to provide the meeting place and time.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I will again, happily.

I should

say to the member that we should do this quickly in terms of the exchange of

information. I'm intending to be in Ottawa and Montreal tomorrow and Friday. To

the extent that we can facilitate that exchange today — and otherwise

electronically — then we should do that.

It is a

point of departure for us here in British Columbia. When we can work together,

speak with one voice and have the government, the opposition, Mr. Haggard from

the IWA, all of the various industry agencies, representative agencies and the

community organizations pulling in the same direction, I feel a whole lot better

about our chances to emerge from this thing.

[1420]

TUITION FEE REVIEW

J. Kwan:

It's great to be back and see a different air around the legislative buildings.

I hope that we can get cooperation on all issues.

During and

after the election the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of

Education and other members of the now government bench claimed that it is taking

longer for students to finish their degrees because of the tuition fee freeze.

To the Minister of Advanced Education: is there a single study — not just

anecdotal evidence or hearsay evidence but a study — that shows that the

Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education have been telling

British Columbians the truth about the effects of the tuition fee freeze?

Hon. S.

Bond: As I shared with you in estimates, it is clear to us, particularly….

The most important voice that we're listening to is the voice of students around

this province, who are telling us that there are challenges for them as they

continue to try to complete their degrees in reasonable amounts of time. The

commitment of our government is to begin a dialogue with educators,

administrators and students to talk about the hidden costs that are impacting

students and institutions today.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The students that I've spoken with certainly have not mentioned that the

challenge they face is the tuition fee freeze. In fact, they want the freeze,

and further, they want tuition to be eliminated altogether. The fact is that

there is a study that shows that students at Simon Fraser University are

completing their degrees faster under the freeze.

understand the minister now intends to conduct a review of the tuition fee

freeze, but the only evidence the minister, the government, the now Premier, the

Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education have provided has been false.

This government has a hidden agenda of massive cuts to program spending, and

this government has already secretly axed programs that help young people get an

education. We saw that yesterday in question period.

Again, to

the Minister of Advanced Education: why would young people and their families

today believe that this government's tuition fee review is anything more than a

public relations exercise to justify massive tuition fee increases, when her

government cuts funding to post-secondary education institutions next year?

Hon. S.

Bond: I would assume the reason that the students and other people in the

province of British Columbia would believe that we're going to exercise a

meaningful dialogue is because to date we've done everything we said we were

going to do, and we're going to continue to do that.

In fact, we

look forward to having opportunities to chat with students, educators and

administrators. Do you know what we've told them? We haven't yet made up our

minds about what we're going to do in the future, because we actually want to

listen to them to determine what the issues are and then make up our minds.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would remind all members to please direct their

responses and their questions through the Chair.

COMPLIANCE OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

WITH LOCAL LAND USE

AND ZONING BYLAWS

P. Bell:

Just short of 80 days ago a new era began in British Columbia with the

swearing-in of our first B.C. Liberal cabinet. You know, we made 21 specific

commitments during the election campaign, and we still have two of those left to

fulfil. The one that concerns me today subjects Crown corporations to local

zoning and land use bylaws. I wonder if the Premier would tell us today how he

plans to fulfil that commitment.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Two weeks ago I wrote to the Crown corporations that were

involved. I told them that we expected them to live within land use and zoning

bylaws. The Crown corporations secretariat will be working with them to see if

there are any legislative

[ Page 706 ]

changes required. We don't believe there are, but we're certainly willing to

make those if they're necessary. They've been directed to do it; they will do

it. I think the local governments and communities across the province will

appreciate that.

[1425]

WCB WORKPLACE SMOKING BAN

J. Kwan:

To the minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board: will the WCB

rules to protect workers' health by banning smoking in pubs and restaurants

proceed as planned for September — yes or no?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Welcome back. It's good to have you home.

Today I

have written to the Workers Compensation Board and asked that they implement

their regulations on April 30, 2002, for the purpose of doing several things.

I'm striking a committee under the regulations that I have within the power of

my ministry to come back and report to me on other ways of accomplishing the

smoke-free environment within pubs and hospitality areas — specifically, a

performance-based regulation — and to make sure there are things that

government is doing between the right and left hand — the liquor control

board, the WCB and other agencies — in terms of the implementation of these

regulations that would have a good, commonsense application.

That

committee would report back to me by the end of October, which would then,

if there were any changes to be made or recommendations to be followed through

on, allow the WCB the appropriate time — that would be the months of November,

December and January — to hold hearings if necessary. Those regulations, if

they're changed, would be deposited, and those rules and regulations would be in

effect on April 30, 2002.

I'd like to

add that all of this is on the basis of two tacks: the first and most important

is that the health and safety of all workers in British Columbia is appropriately

looked after. Second is that these regulations are implemented in a manner

that has the least impact on the survival of small businesses throughout British

Columbia.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Then the answer from the minister to my question is clearly no. All of the

consultation work was already done prior to the decision having been made. The

Premier, during the election, said over and over again that he would not

interfere with independent agencies like WCB. The Coalition of B.C. Businesses

and the Council of Construction Associations, with members who donated huge sums

— huge sums — to the B.C. Liberals, think that they can get whatever they

want from the WCB out of this government. The Liberals received tens of

thousands of dollars in political contributions from pub and restaurant owners.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. I would urge the member to please put her question

now.

J. Kwan:

And clearly there were thousands of dollars provided to the Liberals, who wanted

protection on WCB, on worker protection in the health and safety area.

To the

minister, again: did that money buy a promise of political interference with WCB

to water down the rules protecting workers from the harmful effects of

secondhand smoke?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Again I'll say welcome back. [Laughter.]

I'm not

making light of the situation. The consultation process didn't occur. Clearly,

in speaking with those that are going to be most directly affected on the

capital costs of this, there is a will to accomplish clean air within the

facilities.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Bruce: No, that clearly was not done. We were in a situation where, quite

frankly, the regulations were being imposed without consultation. I have since

had conversations with people who are in the business and believe there is very

much a spirit and a will to accomplish this. It's very clear that this is the

direction we are going in. These regulations will be implemented by April 30,

LILLOOET LAND AND RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Chutter: To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. It's my

understanding that this government is reviewing the decision on phase 1 of the

Lillooet land and resource management plan. As I'm sure the minister is aware,

this is an issue of huge concern to the resource-dependent communities of my

riding as well as to those with environmental, recreation and tourist interests.

Can the minister tell the people of my riding what he plans to do in his review

of the Lillooet LRMP?

[1430]

Hon. S.

Hagen: Our government is living up to a commitment that was made during the

last election campaign, and that's with regard to phase 1 of the Lillooet LRMP

process. Local people who live and work in that area are very, very concerned

that the decision that was announced by the previous government one day before

the election was called may not have been made in good faith.

I want to

make it clear to the House that the order-in-council declaring Spruce Lake Park

remains in place. I have met with the groups who have been involved in the

process and who live outside the area, mainly from Vancouver and Victoria.

Tomorrow I'll be going to the Lillooet area to meet with the people who live and

work in those communities.

[ Page 707 ]

[End

of question period.]

Petitions

Trumper: I would like to present a petition from the business community of

the Alberni Valley and the Labour Council concerning the proposed smelter

project for the Alberni Valley.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M.

de Jong: Three reports to table today: the Ministry of Forests annual report

for 1999-2000, the Ministry of Forests 2000-01 annual performance review and the

2000 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 16.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT

(second reading)

Hon. R.

Coleman: On page 31 of the New Era document one of the bullets reads:

"Fight child prostitution and youth crime with legislation aimed at

providing greater protection to children at risk of exploitation and greater

parental responsibility for children who commit property crimes." Bill 16,

the Parental Responsibility Act, is part of that bullet and is part of meeting

our new-era commitment in that

section of our document.

The purpose

of Bill 16 is to hold parents accountable for property loss or damage

intentionally caused by their children. The bill is designed to make it easier

for a person whose property is intentionally taken or damaged by a child to

obtain financial compensation from the child's parents. It allows property

owners and others entitled to possession of the property, such as tenants and

lessees, to sue the child's parents in small claims court where a judge can

order financial compensation of up to $10,000.

Currently,

civil recourse for someone whose property is damaged by children is to sue the

children — which is not usually worthwhile, because children usually do not

have sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment — or to sue the parents. In order

to successfully sue the parents, a claimant must prove that the parents were

negligent in supervising their children or were otherwise responsible under the

law. This can prove to be difficult.

This bill

shifts the burden of proof from the person whose property was taken or damaged

by a child to the child's parents. This means that in order to avoid

responsibility, the parents must prove that they exercised reasonable

supervision over the child and made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage

their children from engaging in the activity that caused the damage.

[1435]

In this

legislation the court may consider any of the following: the age and maturity of

the child; the prior conduct of the child; the likelihood that the activity

would result in property loss; psychological or medical disorders,

psychological, physical or learning disabilities or emotional disturbances of

the child; whether the likelihood of property loss arising from the child's

conduct was reasonably foreseeable by the parent; whether the child was under

the supervision of the parent when the child engaged in the activity that

resulted in the property loss; if the child was not under the supervision of the

parent when the child engaged in the activity that resulted in the property

loss, whether the parent made reasonable arrangements for the supervision of the

child; whether the parent has sought to improve his or her parenting skills by

attending parenting courses or in any other manner; whether the parent has

sought professional assistance for the child, designed to discourage activity of

the kind that resulted in the property loss; psychological or medical disorders,

psychological, physical or learning disabilities or emotional disturbances of

the parent; any other matter that the court considers relevant to the

determination.

In the New

Era document we promised to introduce this legislation to provide for

greater accountability by parents for property loss or damage caused by their

children. With this bill, we are delivering on that promise. I am pleased to

bring this legislation to the House. I am pleased to present it today on second

reading, and I will have closing remarks at the end of the debate.

MacPhail: I am going to take some time on this legislation, the Parental

Responsibility Act. It was legislation I wasn't expecting, so I paid very close

attention, and I spent a lot of time thinking about this. I want to make sure

that we have a fulsome discussion.

I didn't

learn anything new from the minister, the Solicitor General. He certainly had

said all of those things in a very short briefing when he introduced the

legislation. But I also know that the minister is well aware that this

legislation has caused a fair amount of discussion in the community, so I had

hoped that perhaps he would have engaged a little bit more on his thinking

behind bringing forward this legislation. I'm sure he will do that in his

summary remarks.

Most of the

Liberal agenda that's been invoked in this chamber so far — a lot of it —

has been to undo past government actions. A lot of it's been clear that it was

to take away the work that the NDP did and also to deliver on their corporate

agenda. But this bill really is a new bill. It speaks clearly to a Liberal

agenda that is solely of their own making. That's why I want to spend some time

trying to understand this legislation. It's not about undoing past actions. It's

not about solving a problem that was created by the previous government that

this government ideologically differed with. Also, I think it's fair to say that

wasn't discussed much during the election, although it was part of the New

Era document. There's no question about that.

We have to

examine this legislation in the context that this is the first initiative that

the government has

[ Page 708 ]

delivered solely out of its own creation for B.C. families. I want to

know…. I need to understand, I should say, why. What's the thinking

behind this? It's very, very much targeted toward the family unit. It talks

about parental responsibility. It's about our children and our relationship with

our children as parents.

There have

been actions that the government has taken concerning families, as I've said, in

the past weeks. But that was to undo NDP initiatives. They scuttled the

universal child care program of the previous government. They cut new job

programs. Their tax cuts were very heavily weighted toward the wealthiest of

families.

[1440]

But this is

the first initiative that isn't undoing the work of the past. I must say that

while I was reading the legislation — and I talked to many people about it —

and while I was considering what position I should take on this legislation, I

have come up with more questions that need to be asked than have been answered

so far.

I know

there is a mixed reaction from the public. The Solicitor General himself can see

that from the debate that's going on. It's clear, I think it's safe to say, that

editors of our newspapers and political pundits generally say it's a good step.

They say this legislation that the Liberals are delivering is good. But I'm also

surprised by that editorial support, because the editorial support for this

legislation flies in the face of many of the demands that those same editorial

page editors have asked of governments in the past.

Somehow I

wonder if the editorial page editors sitting in their offices are thinking in a

way that's really from a generation past. I also wonder how many women editorial page

editors had input to the support for this bill. Probably those editorial page

editors…. It was virtually unanimous in the newspapers that cover my living

area — the Vancouver Sun , the Vancouver Province , the Times

Colonist. I've read some of the regional clippings. There's actually a more

thoughtful approach to this matter in the regional newspapers.

The

editorial page comment has come from this premise: the bill is good because it's

a path to proper parenting. That sums it up, across the board. I think that kind

of thinking — that somehow this is a path to proper parenting, and thank God

this legislation was introduced — really has echoes of a chasm, of

civilization's old generation gap. Those people supporting this bill are of a

generation past. I can actually picture the editorial page editors. They push

back their desk chairs, and they probably say: "In my day this kind of

thing wouldn't have been allowed to happen." Or they're saying: "Why

can't parents just control their kids?" From that thought, they wrote that

this legislation makes good sense on a path to good parenting.

I suspect

that perhaps that's what some British Columbians are saying about the

legislation as well. Without looking at the underpinnings of what this bill is

supposed to do and is going to do, they think it's going to be the quick fix for

good parenting.

But let's

look at what today's reality is and what problem the Liberal government is

trying to solve with the Parental Responsibility Act. I'm not clear. It would

seem incredibly arrogant for a Liberal government to say that they have the

answer to good parenting. It would be wrong for them to say that as well. So

what is the problem they're trying to solve? Property crime is not on the rise.

The Solicitor General gave no information to suggest otherwise. He didn't say:

"We have such a problem with property crime, particularly amongst youth,

that this bill is essential."

So what is

it? For what possible reason could this legislation exist? There are already

safeguards in place to have property owners make their rightful assertion for

recompense. The common law as it stands today allows any property owner to

pursue action against a parent. That goes on all the time.

[1445]

The common

law deals with this matter each and every month. It already says that if somehow

the property owner can prove negligence on the part of the parent, that parent

has to be held accountable for the actions of the child. Those cases are ruled

on each and every month, and often there's recompense given to the property

owner.

This

legislation isn't trying to solve the problem of a gap in the way our courts

operate. Our courts operate with the assistance of common law to solve the

problem of grossly negligent parents not holding their children accountable for

the damage that they do. This legislation wasn't needed to achieve that; it

wasn't needed to achieve that at all.

What about

vandalism around our schools? That is an area where children congregate, thank

goodness. Our schools have playing fields attached to them. Many of our schools

stay open in the evening. Well, they do now; I worry about that being available.

Our community schools stay open in the evenings and provide a place for youth to

play basketball and volleyball, for youth to do evening activities of a

recreational nature that keep them off the street. So sometimes, just by virtue

of the concentration of activities at schools, there's vandalism committed

against schools. So do we need this legislation to give extra protection to

those areas?

Interjections.

MacPhail: Well, in fact the School Act already provides for recompense

against parents who are negligent. In fact, I'll read this. The School Act says,

section 10: "If property of a board or a francophone education authority

is destroyed, damaged, lost or converted by the intentional or negligent act of

a student or a francophone student…."

Section 10 goes on to provide a

statutory cause of action against parents, jointly and severally with students,

for the student damage to the school board property. That exists; that's in

place right now.

Of course,

this School Act doesn't need to be in place with the Parental Responsibility

Act. In fact, the Parental Responsibility Act acknowledges that this already

exists. So the Parental Responsibility Act isn't

[ Page 709 ]

solving a problem that exists on our school sites. There's already a

legislative solution in place.

I think

also that those who deal each and every day with youth in the community and

youth that are in trouble with the law have universally come out and said this

bill is unnecessary. They scratch their heads in bewilderment about what the

legislation is trying to solve.

Richard

Schwartz, who is a Victoria lawyer that actually chairs the youth

section of the

Canadian Bar Association, said that the B.C. law targeting parents is unlikely

to yield compensation to people whose property has been vandalized by children,

because their parents are often in no position to pay. It would be far better,

he said, to try and help families earlier, when kids are young, by giving them

the support they need. Schwartz also said the new law doesn't offer much of an

advantage to aggrieved property owners, because there's nothing stopping them

from going to small claims court to take such action now.

He did

note, though, that there is a shift in the onus of proof. Rather than requiring

— the way it is in every other case in court — that the victim proves the

claim, this new law requires that parents have to rebut a claim. Parents are

guilty until proven innocent; that's what this law does. That's what this law

says right now: we're going to change the test of proof so that the parents have

to rebut the claim. So it's not a matter of anybody coming forward and saying to

the parents: "Here's what we allege, and here's our proof." The parents have to use their resources to fight back before the proof is

actually given.

[1450]

I think

that others have also come out against this by saying that it's flawed, perhaps

the very people that the Solicitor General thought he was catering to. Ben

Doyle, the Chairman of CAVEAT B.C., a very well respected victims-of-crime

group, is concerned that the law lets older teenagers off the hook by shifting

responsibility for their actions to their parents. To quote Ben Doyle:

"Many parents are doing everything they can, but they just can't control

their kids." He said that he would have preferred to see the law limited to

younger children.

University

of British Columbia law professor Peter Burns said that the whole concept of

reasonable control on the part of parents is a difficult one when you're dealing

with teenagers, especially in an urban setting. While its objectives are

laudable, "I'm not sure the legislation will be very effective," he

said.

There's

many more that have commented on the value of this legislation. There we have it

— the debate about those who are in favour of it, the editorial page editors,

and those who work every day with youth who find themselves in positions of

vandalism. And they're saying this won't work. Is this act creating or solving a

problem? I spent a lot of time reading it to say: what exactly is the balance

there? I have come to the conclusion that this act is creating a problem for

many families in British Columbia.

During the

Health Services estimates, I said something extemporaneously that came from my

heart, as I was wishing the Minister of Health Services well in his job. I said

that he had a very difficult, complex job and that I wished him well, but that

there was one ministry that was tougher to administer and to provide direction

for British Columbians. That was the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. I surprised myself that I said that. I certainly hadn't been

prepared to say that, but I was thinking about the time when I was in his shoes

and the Minister of Health Planning's shoes and the challenges that they face.

What I couldn't help but remember were the very difficult challenges I faced

when I was Minister of Social Services, which is now the Minister of

Children and Family Development. At that time, the ministry was an amalgamation

of two ministries: the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry for Children

and Families.

My family

background didn't prepare me for what I would have to deal with as what I'll

call the minister of children and families, because that's what people think

about now. It didn't prepare me for that. I had not been faced with personal

circumstances and am thankful for not having to face those circumstances.

Nevertheless, there are thousands and thousands of families in this province who

face situations of violence, abuse and socioeconomic circumstances that don't

allow them all of the great avenues to be the best parent possible.

[1455]

I remember

one situation I faced as the minister responsible that broke my heart. Children

in foster care were provided by the state with a clothing allowance that allowed

them, with good management from foster parents, to get clothing that matched

those of students who weren't in care, and yet parents on income assistance

couldn't afford to provide that clothing. They felt the pain of their children

for not being able to have the resources to match the resources of a child in

care. Some income assistance families said to me: "What's to stop me from

getting the best possible circumstances for my child? And the way to do that is

to put my child in care." They just asked that question. It was a

heartbreaking question, because I didn't have a good answer for it. But it does

bear fully on the impact of this legislation.

Perhaps

there are peer pressures children face that a parent can't withstand. Perhaps

there are peer pressures about how one behaves in public, how teenagers behave

or what teenagers need in order to be accepted by their peers. Perhaps there are

peer pressures that parents simply cannot — they don't have the resources

available — resist.

There were

other situations I had to deal with as the minister of children and families

that reduced me to tears each and every day. I thought, how about the people in

the field who deal with those situations on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis?

How do they cope? And the social workers — I'm talking about social workers

and family support workers — had great skill in assisting families with

parenting. They had great skill with assisting young parents. Children having

children is what we used to call them. I'm sure that is what we still call them:

young teenage moms and young teenage dads having children so that by the time a par

[ Page 710 ]

ent is barely turning 30, they're raising a teenager. The social workers

faced very difficult circumstances in those situations in trying to support the

parents.

Sometimes

the consequences were devastating; the consequences for both the parents and the

child in those circumstances were devastating. Nevertheless, social workers each

and every day tried to assist those parents. Social workers always tried to

assist those parents so that the child could stay in the family unit and not

have to go into care. Those are the kinds of families that this legislation is

targeting.

Are the economic circumstances becoming better in our

low-income areas so that parents have greater resources to deal with the

pressures of parenting? Well, I just read this

article in the Vancouver Sun

yesterday. It's for the area of Surrey. Surrey is a burgeoning community. I

think it's the fastest-growing community in British Columbia now, and it's a

community that takes great pride in its socioeconomic mix. But it has a

socioeconomic mix. It's not West Vancouver; it's not North Vancouver; it's not

Port Alberni. It has a range of families. The two north Surrey communities are

facing many of the social problems that have existed for decades in Vancouver's

downtown east side. The community has just received a study that shows they

don't have the community resources to deal with those pressures.

The

pressures that they can't deal with are having enough community resources to

support families. They're also facing huge pressures between non-immigrant and

immigrant communities, reports the study. That's just one example. That's where

our families are able to afford to live and raise their children, from a housing

perspective, in the lower mainland. So the issue with Surrey isn't about bad

parenting. The issue that Surrey faces is about not enough community resources

to support their families and the pressures that the community faces.

Does this

legislation help families? Does this legislation build on the experience that

we've had as holders of public office over the last decades?

Well, the

social workers, the B.C. Association of Social Workers, had discussed this exact

kind of thing. The B.C. Association of Social Workers has views. They're one

group of views. Clearly, the minister seems to think there's something exciting

about me talking about the B.C. Association of Social Workers. All I'm doing

here is adding to the discussion about areas that I've heard from; that's all.

[1500]

So the B.C.

Association of Social Workers has said that a more considered review shows that

the legislation will, at best, have mixed effects and, at worse, will have dire

consequences for the children and women of the province. Anyone with even a

cursory understanding of the issues related to abuse knows that family abusers

can and will exploit legislation such as this to justify and even intensify

tyrannical and violent treatment of their families.

Unwittingly

or carelessly, this legislation creates a loophole as large as, and for, a fist

— a loophole that will encourage and be used to rationalize (1) the

discipline of spouses by an abusive partner for not keeping the kids on a tight

leash or (2) the righteous punishment, including extreme, vengeful corporal

or emotional abuse, of children who expose their families to these legislated

penalties.

The B.C.

Association of Social Workers deserves to have their opinion considered in this

matter. I've had many discussions with the B.C. Association of Social Workers

over the years. There have been times when I have agreed with their views,

and there have been times when we've agreed to disagree. But the B.C.

Association of Social Workers are on the front line each and every day.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that this is the kind of situation where

the members opposite feel that heckling is appropriate. I really am. I'm

actually trying to make a case for a legitimate discussion here. The members are

heckling in a way that's just unbelievable. It would be far more appropriate for

them to join in the discussion and state their strongly held views for the

chamber.

The B.C.

Association of Social Workers comprises social workers who work on the front

line each and every day. And whether or not the Solicitor General feels that

their opinion needs to be discounted.... Perhaps all he needs to do is explain why

their opinion needs to be discounted and why their opinion perhaps wasn't

solicited before he brought in the legislation. It's a very interesting letter,

and I think it needs to be given the full light of day. If indeed the government

says that the B.C. Association of Social Workers, in their assertion that this

legislation will cause more problems than it creates…. They need to explain

that. That's all they need to do. They need to meet and explain that.

There's

another aspect of this legislation that I'm not sure the government has thought

about. If they have, then we need to hear about how that consultation was

taken into consideration for the development of this legislation. That's about

the impact that this legislation will have on families new to Canada.

There are

wide cultural differences in family rearing. I, again, learned this by living in

one of the most culturally diverse communities in Canada. It's a wonderfully

diverse community that Vancouver-Hastings represents: Italians, Portuguese,

Germans, Chinese. The Indo-Canadian population in my neighbourhood is small but

is there. I always noted with great interest, when I was a new parent, the

different parenting styles amongst the different and diverse communities. I was

often envious, actually, of the different parenting styles because the only

child that ever seemed to cry in public was mine. I used to discuss parenting

techniques with parents of different backgrounds. They reassured me that I was

not alone in the world and that all parents go through some very difficult times

at all points of child-rearing.

[1505]

Nevertheless,

there were cultural differences, and the government of the day saw that those

cultural dif-

[ Page 711 ]

ferences needed to be recognized and parents needed to be assisted in their

parenting as they integrated into the Canadian community.

There was a

program — I hope it's still in existence — called Nobody's Perfect. When I

was the minister responsible for children and families, I met regularly with

parents who were taking the Nobody's Perfect parenting course. That was a

course, just as it says, that acknowledged the fact that nobody was perfect, and

it really helped families new to Canada to adjust to the demands of parenting as

they existed here in British Columbia. In fact, the parenting courses were a

two-way exchange about parenting rules and parenting norms of other countries

— cultural norms for parenting that existed outside of Canada — and how

those parenting norms could be integrated into Canada. There was always an

explanation of…. If there were issues of different cultural styles that butted

up against the law in Canada, then how the law works was explained to the

parents.

One of the

issues that used to come up amongst parents in these groups was that many

immigrant parents were having the role and responsibility of the Ministry for

Children and Families explained to them for the first time. That service, that

government support agency, sometimes didn't exist in their communities. When it

was explained to them that the Ministry for Children and Families had to take

into account the interests of the child as paramount, that sometimes parents

failed to put the interests of the child first and that children would then be

taken into the care of the government, immigrant families were horrified. They

were horrified for this reason: they were worried that they would not be able to

meet the standards of the community and that their children would be taken into

care.

It was from

such a point of love for their children that they were worried about that and

that they went through a series of questions with me and with the teachers of

the program. They said: "Am I allowed to spank my child? Grandma looks

after my children all day, and grandma has very strongly held views about how

the child should be reared. Am I allowed to discipline my child in any way?

What's my relationship with the school and the teacher in terms of the

discipline of my child?"

All of

those questions were asked because they were new to Canada and new to the

parenting and discipline norms that exist here in our community. This bill

probably doesn't alleviate the concerns of parents new to Canada at all. Here's

what they're faced with: parents new to Canada now have the threat of a $10,000

fine if their children aren't parented properly or if their children misbehave

in the community.

[1510]

colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant regales me with many stories of her

upbringing. She comes from an extremely loving family. It's a very big family.

But she faced times in her upbringing where there were differences in

understanding between her parents and herself about what was the norm in

society. There are children living in my community who face those differences

every day. They go to school, and they're surrounded by children of a culture

different from theirs. They see the demands that society sometimes puts on

children about what they need to wear, what they need to do, what they need to

with the young mind of a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old or a 14-year-old, have to

explain those differences to their parents. Sometimes they fail to explain the

differences. Sometimes the parents have no understanding of what pressures that

child may be under at school or have any understanding or capability, because of

their newness to Canada, to help the child properly integrate into society.

Our schools

have excellent programs helping with this — absolutely excellent programs for

helping children to stop violence, to prevent bullying and to properly integrate

into the school community. Those programs are working; they're working extremely

well. So it's not that kind of problem that this legislation is trying to

resolve.

I also

think that there are many aspects of life in a society for a 12- or 13- or 14-

or 15-year-old that parents struggle to deal with each and every day. It is the

norm in British Columbia that where there are two parents, both parents work.

That's not every case. We know that there are stay-at-home parents working

inside the home. But if there are two parents, the norm is for both parents to

work. Not every family in British Columbia can afford a nanny. In fact, I

think it would be the rarity where two-parent families or one-parent families

who work can afford a nanny.

Working

parents have to rely on other resources. Parents provide well for their children

through child care, yet this government is cutting the child care programs for

families. This government is saying: "Not only are we going to hold you

responsible, but we're going to hold you responsible while we're taking away the

underpinning supports for you to make sure that your kids are safe and healthy

and law-abiding." I can't understand the mixed message that this government

is sending to parents.

I also know

that parents rely heavily on community programs for teens. I'm sure that every

other member will be able to stand up and brag about their community programs. I

know that many communities throughout British Columbia have been extremely

innovative in their community programs for youth. Kamloops is one example of a

city that takes very seriously its youth community programs. Victoria is

another, but my community is as well.

At Hastings

School, an inner-city school in my riding, a third of the school are French

inner-city school, and it's funded as an inner-city school. There are teachers

there, educators there, who work day and night, and have worked day and night,

to get evening programs, weekend programs and summer programs for their

rambunctious students. They've put in evening basketball programs. They've put

in just a wealth of community programs to make

[ Page 712 ]

sure that teens and pre-teens are not on the streets creating trouble.

All right,

that was kind of a judgment thing there. But I'll admit to it that I'm an aging

parent as well. These programs have worked very well in keeping children not

only off the street but in a very healthy and safe environment. The business

community has noted that. The business community around Hastings School has

said: "Wow, things are different now that those community programs are in

place."

[1515]

I can't for

the life of me understand why the government wants to take such a punitive

approach to parenting, when indeed there's no problem that they're trying to

solve here. There are avenues available for property owners right now under the

School Act or common law, the small claims court, to have recompense paid.

There's no balance to the Liberal agenda for parents. It's not like they're

saying: "After we give you all of these supports, parents, and help you

best through the very difficult time there is in raising children, only then if

you fail will we impose the penalty of $10,000." So I have sadly come to

the conclusion that the legislation creates more difficulty for the community

and more problems for our society than it solves.

I suspect

that this legislation will pass, although I will not be supporting it. I hope

that the haste with which this legislation was introduced will also temper its

effects. We've seen that in other jurisdictions, the legislation upon which this

is modelled was so flawed that it's virtually not used. The only thing I can

hope for is that this legislation will be tested in the same way and have the

same fate. I think this is one area where the Legislature should have a very

thorough and thoughtful debate so that members of the legislative chamber can

vote properly, based on what's best for their community.

Penner: I intend to keep my remarks brief, but I would like to address a few

of the comments made by the NDP member for Vancouver-Hastings. I think the

member eviscerated her own opposition to the bill by pointing with approval to

the School Act provisions imposing parental liability, because in some ways the

School Act provisions which impose parental liability offer far fewer defences

to parents than does the proposed Parental Responsibility Act. If the member had

spent any time taking a look at it and thinking about it in a thoughtful way,

she would have discovered that in a matter of moments.

For the

benefit of those, like the member opposite, who have not had the opportunity to

read the School Act provision, I'll do it now.

Section 10 states: "If

property of a board or a francophone education authority is destroyed, damaged,

lost or converted by the intentional or negligent act of a student or a

francophone student, that student and that student's parents are jointly and

severally liable to the board or francophone education authority in respect of

the act of that student."

Now, the

School Act imposes no limitation on the maximum award that can be registered

against a parent whose child is responsible for the damage. In contrast, the

Parental Responsibility Act does provide a maximum amount of $10,000, thereby

offering additional protection to parents of wayward children.

addition, the Parental Responsibility Act sets out two specific defences that

the court must make available to parents who are on the receiving end of a court

action. They are whether or not the parent was exercising reasonable supervision

over the child at the time the child engaged in an activity that caused the

property loss and also whether they made reasonable efforts to prevent or discourage the

child from engaging in the kind of activity that caused the property loss. Those

are two specific defences that are not contained within the School Act, and so

they are additional protection to parents under the Parental Responsibility Act.

Yet the NDP

member, who says she is against the Parental Responsibility Act, has no problem

with the sweeping provisions in the School Act. Certainly, if she did, her

government had ten years during their reign of terror in the province to change

the School Act provision, and they did not see fit to do so. By their inaction

they indicated their support for the general concept of holding parents

responsible.

[1520]

What I

believe the intent of the Parental Responsibility Act is, is to move that

responsibility a little bit further — it's not a giant leap, but it's a modest

leap — while ensuring there are additional protections provided to parents and

additional safeguards and measures that the court must consider before imposing

liability on parents for the actions of their children. It is hardly a giant

leap, because again, as indicated, the principle is clearly articulated in

section 10 of the School Act without allowing for any maximum threshold.

I'd like to

touch briefly on her remarks about young offenders and talking about the

challenges of dealing with people of a tender age who get into trouble with the

law. For a few years I practised law in Chilliwack, and a good part of my

practice was composed of dealing with alleged young offenders. I can tell you

that as a member of the bar doing my utmost to, first of all, provide good

service for my clients but also, hopefully, to send them properly on their way

so they would not encounter the court system again in the future, I was

considerably frustrated by some parents — not all, but some — who clearly

were in a position to exercise a greater involvement in their children's lives

and chose not to.

I'm

thinking today, after listening to the NDP member's remarks, of one specific

family which, on the surface, was a picture-perfect family. The father, I

believe, worked in the hospital. The mother was a teacher. Yet neither could

bring themselves to show any interest in their young daughter's affairs nor

bring themselves to attend court, even though the judge specifically directed

that those parents be contacted and requested to attend. Eventually a warrant

had to be issued to secure the attendance of those parents. Clearly, they were

in a position to exercise much more involvement and interest in their young

daughter's life

[ Page 713 ]

than they chose to do. For whatever reason, they did not.

I suspect

that this bill is really aimed at parents such as those, who can't be bothered

in their busy lives, for whatever reason, to focus on their children. If this

bill helps any children, then I think it's well worth doing.

The member

opposite kept saying that this is something that hasn't been done in B.C. Maybe

it's time that we try. Clearly, there are children in British Columbia who are

in need of additional help, and I would like to think that the Legislature would

be willing to take a chance to try and help children by encouraging greater

interest on the part of their parents in those children's lives.

That's all

I have to say. Again, I think the member from the NDP completely eviscerated her

opposition to the Parental Responsibility Act by endorsing the principle

contained within the School Act, which in some ways goes much further.

J. Kwan:

When I looked at the legislation, it brought forward a lot of concerns for

me. It made me ask questions as to the effectiveness that I think the government

hopes to achieve with this legislation. It brought up the question: if the

attempt is to assist young people, particularly those who may come into conflict with

the law in the area of property crimes, then is the avenue to address that issue

with legislation that says that when a young person comes into conflict with the

law in that instance, we've got to look to the parents and say: "It's your

fault"?

If that's

the approach behind this legislation, which it appears to be, then you've got to

ask the question: how would it be helpful in actually helping the young person

and the family in preventing that act to begin with? Would it not be more

prudent for government to look for programs and initiatives that are

more preventative in nature as opposed to reactive? Would you not look for

interventions that would help the family address some of these issues?

[1525]

Often, when

a person comes into conflict with the law, it's not just about parental

negligence. There are a lot of issues at hand that may be the source. I think

that has to be explored, as opposed to simply looking for a quick fix somehow. If a

young person in this instance comes into conflict with the law in the property

crime area, are we just going to turn around and say: "You, parents — or

parent or the guardian of the young person — are now responsible"? It

does raise, I think, an important question in terms of an approach to addressing

a problem that the minister from the government side suggests he wants to

address — that is, to create healthier communities and healthier young people.

You know,

where similar legislation to this — the parental responsibility law — has

been brought in, in other jurisdictions, it has been proven that it has not

been successful. In one instance particularly, in Manitoba, where a similar law

was brought in, when you review the effectiveness of this law, it shows

that since 1997 only 14 files were claimed and only one was successful in its

prosecution in all this time.

It also

raises the question: are you creating an atmosphere which gives the impression

that there's an alternative means of pursuing a property crime, which would

actually not yield the result that one might be hoping for? Why would you do

that and invest in a piece of legislation that has not been proven in other

jurisdictions and think that somehow this would solve a complex issue, a complex

problem with young people who sometimes do come in conflict with the law?

Legislation does exist for parents who are negligent with their children,

with young people. There is already existing legislation to address that

issue — on the basis of parental negligence. That has been proven to be effective, and therefore

it already exists. Why, then, would

you bring forward a piece of legislation that has not been proven and which I

don't think actually addresses the core of the issue?

When a

young person commits crime, there may be many, many reasons. Sometimes it may be

insufficient supervision by their parents, but often that is not the entire

picture. Often it is not the fault of the parents. A lot of times parents work

very hard. I believe parents generally work very hard to raise their children,

and they put in their best efforts, but there are many influencing factors. Peer

pressure certainly is one of them, in terms of having young people coming into

conflict with the law.

There are

many, many factors. Would it not perhaps be wiser for government to investigate

the complex issue of why young people sometimes do come into conflict

with the law and to address those issues and invest in preventive activities, in

programs that may help support parents in their effort to raise children, as

opposed to penalizing them with a piece of legislation that says: "If your

children should come into conflict with the law, we will then put over your head

a potential fine of $10,000"?

I think it

also sends the wrong message to young people themselves. I should also preface

by saying that generally speaking, young people in British Columbia are very,

very productive. From time to time, yes, there are some that do come into conflict with the law, but by and large…. We don't actually ever

hear about the successes of young people, how they contribute to our

communities, how they contribute to their families in every sense. They are very

undermined, I think, in that way, because the media chooses to sensationalize

the incidences where there has been misbehaviour or misconduct.

[1530]

I think

this piece of legislation also serves to send mixed messages to young people.

What you're saying to them is that on the one hand, you're accountable for your

actions, but then again you're really not, because your parents are accountable for

your actions. It takes away completely, I think, the essence of accountability

for young people as they're growing up, as they're learning. Their own

personhood no longer exists. Your action is now, under this piece of

legislation, the re-

[ Page 714 ]

sponsibility of your parents. I think that's the wrong message to send. It's

an inconsistent message to send to young people.

In some

cases they may even be young people who are rebelling against their parents.

They may well be engaging in misbehaviour or misconduct, if you will, or come

into conflict with the law because they are rebelling against their parents in

some way. Would this piece of legislation not actually encourage them, promote

them further on this path? I really don't think that the logic behind this

piece of legislation has been thought through.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Maybe the

government should actually create a panel, as it often does — you know, with

WCB on the smoking ban issue, where all of the conclusive work has been done by

experts, by an independent panel. All of that work's been done, and the evidence clearly says that secondhand smoke is bad for workers in the work

environment. Therefore the WCB has brought forward a piece of law with

recommendations to say that we should actually ban smoking in the work

environment, in restaurants and in pubs. Yet government decided that they would

create another panel to go and do all of the work that has already been done by

experts.

But in this

unproven area there is no indication by government to say: "Hey, you know

what? There is an issue with youth crime, so let's put together a group of

people, a panel, to review what could be done, how we could be constructive in

addressing the issue and not just be punitive in our approach and perhaps look

and see how we can better address the issue." Instead, government has

decided to come forward with a piece of legislation that is unproven — a piece

of legislation that may well have the opposite effect to the goals that it's

trying to achieve. It may even propel young people into conflict with

the law, because they are rebelling against their parents, for whatever reason, in

those instances. Therefore, I fear that this piece of legislation would actually

backfire in those instances.

In the

cases of parents who are already struggling to get by without enough resources,

it threatens them, I think, with a fine that they can't possibly pay. This

government is taking away resources from parents at the same time as it is

eliminating the Child Care B.C. program, which provides good child care to

parents to ensure that they do have the best opportunity to grow up in a healthy

and professional environment. That is being threatened, with every single social

program under its core review and some of them even before the core review.

government wants to support young people and their families in the parenting

role, then you would think that the government would not take away child

care programs. There have been numerous studies, time and time and time again,

that say that early childhood prevention is the best method of ensuring that

young people have the best opportunities to succeed in life, to

finish school, to advance to post-secondary education, to not come into conflict

with the law.

We have a

proven program of child care for young people. Government decided to cut its

funding for the program. How does that make sense? The government says, on

the one hand, here's the goal they want to achieve, and when proven solutions

have been found, they decide to cut funding for those areas and embark on a path

that is unproven and punitive and potentially could have a very devastating

impact on young people and their families in the long term.

[1535]

Even the

board of trade, the mentors, the group of people that I know this government

looks up to and worships, has said universal child care is needed, is important

and should be supported. Even the board of trade, the business community, have

come forward and advocated for universal child care. Yet this government has

stepped back, turned back the clock, to cut funding for child care programs.

situations where a family's income level is low, they may have no real

opportunity, as victims of the crime, to pursue a claim. The family simply doesn't

have the resources to pay for a claim being pursued.

As was

mentioned in the letter from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the

front-line workers in the field, who are dealing with young people and families,

have great fears that this piece of legislation will perhaps simply escalate

abuse in the family for the children and for the spouse. That is also, I think,

a very serious issue, not one to be belittled and to be mocked by the minister

and other members of the government who heckled my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings when she spoke on this issue. The B.C. Association of Social

Workers, I know, care about their work and the people. That's why they chose the

field of social work. And they have tremendous fears of what this piece of

legislation may do to provoke a negative reaction and more harm to the young

person and to the family.

This issue

is serious. The minister just says: "Well, do you agree with it? Do you

support it?" It's not an issue of whether we agree with it or support

it. The fact is that we have front-line workers who are faced with these issues

every single day, experts out in the field, the rank-and-file people who have

written to every member in this House a four-page letter raising legitimate

concerns and fears about what this legislation could do. All the minister can do

is say: "Well, it's not legitimate." He just wants to belittle it as

though somehow the B.C. Association of Social Workers is not valid or that

their opinion doesn't count just because they differ from that of the

government. Guess what, hon. Speaker. There are people in British Columbia who

care very much about British Columbians and about young people and their

families and who actually may have something to offer that may differ from

government's opinion. And you know what? Those opinions are worthy of

consideration. They are worthy of the government taking some moments to review

and to perhaps speak with them and consult with them.

The

government talks about being an open and accountable government. Yet the minute

there is some-

[ Page 715 ]

body who has a different opinion than theirs, it is discounted. Consultation

is limited only to the people that they think, I suspect, agree with them, but

not with people who have varying opinions — which is, of course, what a

democracy is about. So it's disturbing for me to see this when I come back to

the Legislature from my honeymoon. I see the attitude of the government, the

minister who has introduced this bill and who just mocks the people who have

raised legitimate concerns around this piece of legislation.

The

minister may want to actually apply the government's own core review tests to

this piece of legislation and save himself the trouble of having to junk it

later. A much broader approach needs to be taken to make sure that our kids are

healthy, raised properly and take responsibility for their actions and to create a

broader, healthier community on the whole.

[1540]

Hon.

Speaker, I have grave concerns around this piece of legislation. I don't think

it would be effective. I would much rather see the government invest its

resources in preventative actions, in proven solutions that we know exist

already, such as universal child care programs and initiatives, as opposed to

embarking on perhaps what they think would be a quick fix to a very complex

issue, which would be there on a case-by-case basis, existing for case-by-case

individuals with varying circumstances.

It troubles

me, as well, that custodians of young people would somehow also be responsible

according to this piece of legislation. The individual may not be a parent but

may be responsible as a custodian of the child. What about the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, which has responsibility for children of the

state? Would they then be held responsible for children who come into conflict

with the law in this instance? Would the government itself be held accountable

in that instance?

This

legislation does not address that. It says: "Oh no, government is exempt,

because we understand the complexity of the issues impacting what actions young

people may take." But for individual children in their own respective

families, there's a different story. There's a different application of

standards being applied here, and that, too, causes me grave concern.

Hon.

Speaker, I come from a community, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where we have a

lot of challenges but also a lot of strengths. There are a lot of very low

income families, and a lot of the children sometimes do come into conflict

with the law. But there are a variety of reasons why they do that. Sometimes it

is because they live in a poverty-stricken environment, and they're trying to

survive on a day-by-day basis. As they struggle to survive, they may come into

conflict with the law. I would think that in that instance, instead of coming

forward with a piece of legislation that says, "You're responsible, so

therefore we're going to fine you $10,000," as opposed to programs that

would actually help assist a young person to move forward….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Hon. Speaker, the members all of sudden have risen up and said that the $10,000

fine…. The piece of legislation actually talks about small claims court, an

approach to go to small claims court in claiming damages in the amount of up to

$10,000. In many respects it's equivalent to a fine for a family, if they are

faced with that. The point is that…

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members.

Carry on,

member.

J. Kwan:

…the approach and the premise behind the approach here are flawed. That's the

point I'm trying to make, which I know the government side is having grave

difficulties with because when anyone disagrees with them, somehow their opinion

is not valid in a democratic society. They feel that. I sense it in this room.

Every time I or my colleague speak, they have an issue. When the B.C.

Association of Social Workers raised their concerns, their concerns were

belittled as though somehow they didn't count and ought not to count. Hon.

Speaker, that is very disturbing.

This

chamber is a place where every elected official is entitled to provide their

opinion. It's not a caucus meeting for the Liberal government but rather a place

for all opinions to be offered, heard and considered. That's what I and my

colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings are attempting to do with respect to

this piece of legislation.

[1545]

I'd like to also add a point that was made by the executive director of

the lower mainland John Howard Society. She has pointed out that this is a

financial quick fix that ignores the mitigating factors that lead to crime and

abuse. She also asks the question of how hitting people with a financial bill is

going to make them better parents. This doesn't help the already embattled

parents. How does it serve the property owners if there's no way to pursue the

claim?

I have to

ask why this government has taken this kind of action. It seems fairly clear

that this government was perhaps just shopping around for some right-wing

boilerplate legislation which they thought might strike a chord with the more

extreme elements of their party and could keep them happy. This legislation

got its start in the United States. The funny thing is the only places in Canada

that have brought it in are very right-wing governments, with the same

willingness to pander to the extreme law-and-order constituency that is widely

unsuccessful.

When a

piece of legislation has been brought in, in other jurisdictions and, since 1997,

only 14 cases have been filed and only one has been successful, you've got to

ask the question: why would you pursue it? It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't

make any sense when proven programs have been shown to work. Perhaps the

investment of the government's attention should be placed there.

I will join

my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings in voting against this legislation, and

when committee stage arises, I will certainly have questions for the min-

[ Page 716 ]

ister with respect to this piece of legislation. I look forward to actual

debate in the House by all members. I look forward to hearing other members who

may have some thoughts on this issue. Perhaps some of them may even offer a

different opinion than that of the government's bill and of the ministers. That,

too, will be welcomed. I hope they feel they could do that in this House, because

I know that sometimes it can be stifling with their own members preventing them

from voicing their true thoughts and opinions.

Thank you

for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to asking questions in

committee stage.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm glad to have the chance to take the member up on her invitation

to hear more comments, but I should tell her that I rise to support the bill. I

must say that it's going to be hard for me to improve upon the remarks that have

already been made about the bill from this side of the House, but I wanted to

try and add a few comments from my own perspective.

The first

thing I want to say is this: I know it's a bill that's called the Parental

Responsibility Act, and I know it is concerned with damage caused by the

children of parents. In the speeches from the members of the opposition, I did

hear a lot of reference to parents and to children. I listened closely to two

quite detailed, comprehensive and lengthy speeches from the members opposite,

and I listened in vain for a single reference to the word "victim." I

did not hear, at any point in their exposition of their concerns around this

bill, the slightest expression of any concern on the part of the members of the

opposition for the victims of crime.

[1550]

This bill

in

part is also about the victims of crime. It's a bill that will give to the

victims of crime, in some circumstances, a remedy to recover the loss that they

have sustained — damage to their property — and that they can recover to the

value of the amount of the damage sustained in circumstances where they can

bring themselves within this act. So, yeah, this bill is about parents; it's

about children. But it is also about giving a right of action to people who are

victims of crime.

I think

it's important to pause for a little bit longer on that thought. Oftentimes,

when we look at criminal activity by young people, we are rightly concerned

about doing what we can — or causing the institutions in society that are there for

that purpose to do what they can — to try to get the young offender back onto a

path of becoming a constructive member of society. When we are dealing with

young offenders, we are often pretty focused on the young offender and

sometimes, perhaps, not as focused on the victim of the crime that the young

offender has committed.

Whenever we

talk about crime, even if we're talking about property loss, there are victims.

There are people who have invested their savings or worked hard for months or

years to acquire property which, in a moment of wanton, irresponsible

maliciousness, is destroyed or damaged by someone. The question that is also a

legitimate part of the discussion around this issue on the floor of this

Legislature is: what are we doing to help the people who are the victims of

crime?

This bill

does, in a small but I believe meaningful way, speak to that question. It says

that in some circumstances, the people who are the victims of crime deserve an

opportunity to be assisted by this legislation to recover the damage they have

sustained.

The

question then is, if you will, an appropriation or allocation of loss, as

between the victim of the crime and a parent who was in a position to exercise reasonable supervision but chose not to do so — someone who, as a

parent, was in a position to make a difference in their kids' lives but chose

not to do so for no good reason.

Who should

bear the responsibility for the loss caused? Should it be the innocent victim

who simply walked out of their front door one day and, through no action or

fault of their own, looked into their driveway and saw that every window in

their car had been smashed in? Or should it be the mom and dad across the street

who've got a bank account as big as you can imagine but who don't care enough

about their kids to pay the slightest attention to how they're spending their

time?

I'm

prepared to stand here and suggest that, as between those two opposites in that

context, it's a reasonable thing to argue that the parents in that case should

be the people who have to compensate for the loss sustained by the victim. I

think that victims are an important part of this debate.

[1555]

The next

thing that I think is an important part of this debate is to talk a little bit

about the larger context of young offender criminal activity or offences

committed by young people. I have noticed in the media coverage that surrounded

the introduction of this bill…. I must say it was a feature of the

comments offered by members of the opposition here this afternoon to talk a lot

about things that this bill manifestly does not attempt to address.

For

example, there is talk about how restorative justice may be a better tool for

dealing with first-time property offences by young offenders. It may well be. I

know from my experience as an opposition critic that there are in fact, across

this province, many good restorative justice programs. As a result of the

implementation of this rather modest legislation that we're looking at today,

not one single restorative justice program that existed in British Columbia

yesterday will cease to exist tomorrow. All of the restorative justice programs

— the community accountability programs, the diversion activities undertaken

by the law enforcement officials and by Crown counsel…. All of those parts of

our criminal justice system that are there to try to respond to the phenomenon

of youth crime will be there again tomorrow, as they are there today.

You know,

as time and circumstances permit, I'm pretty sure the Solicitor General is

committed to the project of ensuring that where we can, we will improve the

availability of those services. Nothing in this legislation compromises or

qualifies or expresses the slight-

[ Page 717 ]

est bit of limitation on our commitment to those larger goals.

The Young

Offenders Act is about to be reformed and renamed by the federal government.

There are going to be new processes and new procedures instituted that we're

going to have to cope with in the courts of British Columbia in the months and

years to come. All of the services that exist around young offenders in the

context of what was the Young Offenders Act and what will become the youth

justice act…. All of those programs and services and projects that are an

attempt to respond to the phenomenon of youth crime will continue to play a

vital

part in that response.

We're not

introducing this bill so that we can say this is the only answer to the problem

of youth crime. I apologize to those who feel that is the only way they can

conduct a debate on complex public policy issues. I apologize that for me, the

world is as complex as it appears to be. Those who seek to oversimplify it

are dealing with the wrong guy when they take me on. We will continue to treat

the problem of youth crime in a comprehensive and principled and broad-based

way. I believe that one useful, thoughtful, creative, balanced and measured

additional tool in the toolkit is this bill.

Let me give

you a specific example of how it might come into play. Restorative justice is

often about bringing together the victims of

an act of vandalism with the

perpetrator — sometimes with the parents and sometimes not. Restorative

justice is usually voluntary — that is, as I have observed it. Most programs

say they give the young offender the option: "We could put you through the

criminal justice system, the youth offender justice system, or, if you want, we

could try this restorative process where you may appear in front of a community

accountability panel, and there may be some measures suggested by mutual

agreement that will involve you doing community service or making reparations or

paying restitution."

[1600]

Sometimes,

and maybe more often than should be the case, the parents or the young offender

don't agree to participate in that process. For some reason or other, a

restitution remedy may not be available in the criminal system. So in that

context, is it useful to say to the victim of the crime that you have this

additional tool to use to go to small claims court to recover what is, frankly,

in the scheme of things for many, many British Columbians, a relatively modest,

not enormous…? We're not talking about hundreds of thousands or millions of

dollars here. We're talking about the price of a few broken windows or a

smashed-in car roof — those sorts of things. We're saying to the victims:

"You can go to court and sue to recover your losses."

If you see

this bill in the context of the overall system of our response to the problem or

the phenomenon of young offenders, and you see it as merely one element in that

overall response, then it starts to take on its proper perspective. In that

light I think it can be seen as a useful tool. Let me be clear about one aspect

of that. It doesn't have to be used 25,000 times a year for it to be,

nonetheless, a useful tool on the occasions when it is invoked. I don't have the

aspiration for this act that it will be used 25,000 times a year. That is

because I see it only as one relatively modest tool in a toolkit that has a

variety of tools in it and that, goodness knows, probably could use a few more

tools.

Let me move

to a third general point. This is to respond in part to some of the comments

made by the opposition leader. The opposition leader is partly right when she

says that some forms of laws are already open to victims to seek to recover the

damages they have sustained from the parents of the child who caused the loss.

I'm going to say some more about that in a moment, but let's be clear about the

implications of that observation. What she is saying, in effect, is that the

basic principle underlying this act is already present in the law. Now, I have

never heard her attack that basic principle in the law. One of two things, I

suppose, flows from that. Well, it doesn't really matter. It's clear

to me from the position she's in that most of the rest of her argument is

fatally flawed and undermined by the first point she makes. That is, if the

first point she makes is true, then most of the rest of her argument is false.

If it is in fact already part of our legal fabric that, in some circumstances,

parents can be made civilly liable for damage caused by their children, then

most of the complaints out there in the world around this act are, with great

respect, misplaced because they don't speak to that issue. They don't become

arguments for changing the basic principles of vicarious liability in respect of

actions and damage caused by children.

The members

opposite had ten years in government to take that principle on, and they never

did. As my colleague the member from Chilliwack points out, these principles of

common law are also given effect in the School Act, which I think came into

force some years before the last government took office but certainly remained

in force throughout the term of the previous government. I must say this: in one

or two cases, the application of those principles exposed people to liability in

the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for schools being burned

down. In that context — and they were quite highly publicized situations — I

don't recall ever hearing from the government a suggestion that there was

something wrong with the notion of vicarious liability in the School Act. I

think we can draw some conclusions from that.

[1605]

What this

bill does is make some changes to those principles of vicarious liability in

what I think is a principled and relatively modest and balanced way. It takes

some elements of the common law that the opposition leader talked about and puts

them in what I think is a pretty clear statutory framework that says: "Here

are the circumstances in which you have this additional right to go to small

claims court to recover these types of losses to the

extent that you can prove them, subject to a range of defences."

I don't see

anything in this bill, with respect, that reverses onus. What I do see in this

bill is an opportunity for a plaintiff who has experienced loss to recover that

loss, to prove their cause of action and then to listen to the defendant make

defences. I must say that

[ Page 718 ]

when you read the defences available under this act and you read the host of

considerations that a judge is entitled to take into account in determining

whether or not to grant liability under the act, the very least you could say

about it is that it is a fair and balanced list in terms of accommodating all

the concerns I have heard out there about problem kids, kids who can't be

supervised, kids who are too old to be meaningfully supervised, parents who are

not in a position to exercise reasonable supervision, and the like.

You know, I think that

if reasonable people were to sit around the table and ask, "What are the

situations where it would be appropriate to ensure that victims of property

crime could recover damages for the loss they have sustained from the parents

of the child who caused the loss, and what are the circumstances where it would

not be reasonable for that to happen?" people who are prepared

to be reasonable and objective about things, sitting around the table, would

come up with a list that's pretty similar to the relevant factors contained in

this bill. I think they would come up with something that's pretty close to —

in fact, exactly — what this bill says. That's why I have argued before and I

argue today that it's a pretty reasonably balanced bill.

The

argument made by some people is that it will affect those who can least afford

it. Clearly, there are many parents who experience economic hardship or distress

in their lives who are also having a challenge raising their kids. Clearly,

government has an obligation within the limits of the fiscal resources available

to it to try to come up with programs that will help parents meet those

challenges and that will also help the kids who sometimes get into trouble with

the law. If you harken back to the situation we began with, there are also going

to be situations where the interests of the victim who has suffered a loss

through no fault of their own are also a legitimate part of this equation.

In my

experience there are very few people who will commence a lawsuit against someone

that they know cannot pay. I mean, people are apt to do the darndest things.

That's the great part about life in a free and democratic society:

people are entitled to do the darndest things. On rare occasions I have accepted

instructions from clients in my past life as a lawyer where people were

determined to sue, notwithstanding the fact there was no prospect of recovering

anything. I can tell you that in every single one of those instances, the client

afterwards regretted the fact that they had paid me a lot of money to

achieve absolutely nothing.

[1610]

Although I personally enjoyed the experience, I

suppose, but that might not be accurate either. I even think that the vast

majority of lawyers want to participate in constructive dispute resolution

processes. So when you take this act out for a walk in the community that is

British Columbia, I don't think you're going to find very many occasions where

someone exercises the claim that they have the right to make under this act

against someone who has no ability to pay. But I suppose it could also be said:

"All right, so what happens if someone does that?"

Well,

that's an interesting thought. Remember that the parent who is brought to court

as a defendant under this act and is sued successfully will be, by definition, a

parent who has not exercised a reasonable degree of supervision over their

child. They'll be a parent that by definition cannot look at any of the itemized

defences and get comfort from them. Is it a bad thing that that parent be

brought to account in a court of law to listen to someone say to them:

"Your child damaged my property. Your child injured me; your child caused

me a loss. Don't you feel some sense of obligation around that? You brought this

child into the world; I didn't. It was your child who damaged my property; I

didn't. Don't you feel some sense of obligation around that?"

Is it a bad

thing that that sort of accountability should take place from time to time? I

don't think so. I think that maybe on the rare occasion where that's likely to

occur, it might not be a bad thing at all.

I don't

think this bill is the complete answer to the problem of youth criminal activity

in the province of British Columbia. I don't make that claim for this piece of

legislation. Therefore, people who say in response to this legislation, "It

fails because it is not the complete answer to the problem of youth

justice," are engaging in a dialogue that makes no sense to me.

I do not

say that this bill is anything more than a modest part of a large and

complicated puzzle, and I do not say anything other than that we as a government

are committed to continue the programs that are also part of that puzzle and to

continue to do our job as administrators of a justice system to ensure that the

justice system is there to do the best it can in a variety of ways for young

offenders. I think all of those things will continue as they ought to continue,

and I think this bill is a useful addition to that entire spectrum of programs,

rights, responsibilities and obligations.

I recognize

in saying that that the challenge we all face as legislators is not to claim too much

for what we do but to be measured in our claim about what we do and to defend, on

the basis of principle, the things we do but to ensure that people understand the

limits on what we're seeking to do. In that context I think this bill is worth

supporting, and I am pleased to join with the government and, I hope, all

members of the House in supporting this bill in second reading.

Stewart: I'd first like to thank the Attorney General for all of his

comments earlier. His eloquent defence of the victims' rights will allow me to

limit my comments to what I originally planned.

In an

earlier career I worked in the youth justice field. In those ten years

I worked with hundreds of youths and many families. The bill that's before us

today would, in my opinion, give us another avenue in which to add to the

ability to deal with youth and crime in our society. There are many good

programs for youth today, and our goal should be to use the most appropriate

program and activities in dealing with our situation.

[ Page 719 ]

[1615]

The purpose

of this legislation, from my perspective, is not to be targeting low-income

families. It's not to be aimed at taking youth from families. This was suggested

in some of the earlier comments. Obviously, the purpose of any bill that comes

before the House should be to enhance society and to enhance our ability to

govern ourselves. There are many families that I came across in the ten years of

working with youth where this exertion of an ability to deal with property

damage within the family and to engage the family in the activities of that

youth would have been very productive. That opportunity wasn't always available

to us. There were other means suggested whereby families that were victims could

pursue this, but this gives a broader range and, in many cases, is a more specific

piece of legislation available to them to do that.

I would

also like to talk a little bit about the parental involvement in this. If a

youth goes out and commits some property crime — in many cases, property crime

is the first type of activity that the police and the authorities are involved

in with the youth — at that early intervention stage the family can be brought

into that instead of being isolated from the youth. In many cases, the isolation

is simply because the courts and the youth workers, the probation officers, take

on that role to deal with the youth instead of engaging the family in a more

fully participatory method. Somehow the family does get cut out, and they are

not drawn into it. If the family is part of the action and not just the parent

of a youth involved in the action, I think there's more family involvement

within that. There's more justification for the family to take note and become

involved, because they are part of that action.

So again, I

do appreciate the earlier comments of my colleagues talking about the

involvement of the officers of the court and looking at the perspective of the

victims and how that impacts this legislation. I won't go over that, but I do

want to say that from the practical experience of ten years of working with

youth and their families, I see that there is a real need for this type of

legislation. It will fit a certain group that has been left out in the past.

MacKay: In my previous life I spent 28 years with the RCMP. I attended a

large number of complaints dealing with issues such as we are discussing in this

House today. When a crime was committed against a victim — whether it was a

break-in on an automobile where the window was smashed or a window was smashed

in a home — and we would respond to those complaints and investigate, the

victims always asked what recourse they had. As police officers, we never had

any suggestions for them, other than to suggest that maybe they should talk to

their insurance company, to compensate for the loss that they suffered at the

hands of a young offender.

The bill

that's before us today deals exactly with the concerns I had as a police officer

for my 28 years. I can recall going to court and listening to the victims of

those crimes asking the courts: "What can we do? Why are we out of pocket

for a crime that was committed against us? We aren't the person who committed

the crime; we are the victim of the crime." And quite often the courts

would say: "Go to your insurance company for compensation." Well, a

lot of times those victims of crimes didn't have insurance, and they had to pay

for that out of their own pocket.

Invariably,

the justice system spent countless sums of money on the young offenders, trying

to rehabilitate them so they would not reoffend. The victims of crimes were

always left out.

The

Attorney General spoke about a complex issue when we're dealing with social

behaviour such as young offenders committing crimes where

property damage is concerned. It's a social behaviour. It's like a car; it's a

very complex issue. It's a complex issue when a car breaks down and you have to

fix it. When you have to fix the car, you have to open up the toolbox. In the

toolbox there's a variety of tools you can use to fix the car. One of those

tools is before us today.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's time — it's long overdue — that legislation such as we

have before the House today has some recourse for victims of crime down the

road. I obviously speak in support of the bill.

[1620]

Deputy

Speaker: Solicitor General, closing second reading debate on Bill 16.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I would like to thank the members opposite from Bulkley

Valley–Stikine and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows for putting their personal lives

and histories on the line relative to discussions around this particular bill.

I want to

just speak for a few more minutes, before I close debate, about some of the

comments that were made by members of the opposition relative to this piece of

legislation, because I think there are some points that should be cleared up. In

addition to that, I want to just touch briefly on the letter that both members

opposite chose to quote from in their debate relative to some comments on that.

First of

all, the members opposite said they've had comments from the community, and I

would like to tell them both: so have I. I have not had negative comments from

the community, but I have certainly had a lot of positive comments from

communities all across this province. They talked about the editorial support of

the newspapers relative to this particular initiative, the Parental

Responsibility Act. Now remember, that's what the title of this act is: Parental

Responsibility Act. They're right about that editorial support. They should also

be aware of the other support from both men and women and also from councillors,

mayors and other community leaders who see this as a positive step for their

communities and a positive message back to their communities. They see it as one

more tool we can give them to assist them in building better communities.

One member

opposite talked about the School Act. I know my colleague from Chilliwack

mentioned this, but it bears saying again that the statutory cause against a

parent and the burden of proof under the

[ Page 720 ]

School Act are much more difficult for parents than what this bill actually gives

parents. They support the position in the School Act, and they support

the measures of measurement for parents in the School Act, but they don't

support this one, which is even better for parents.

This

legislation does not have a history, in the two jurisdictions where it's been

introduced in Canada — in one case since 1998 and in another case more

recently, both in Ontario and in Manitoba — of creating other problems. It's

kind of interesting. I have to say that, because I think it's important that if

you are going to draw a comparison from one jurisdiction to the other, you also

draw a comparison with other correspondence that you receive relative to this

issue. It's not been seen as a financial quick fix, because that's not what the

legislation was ever intended to do in either of those jurisdictions nor in this

one, in spite of what the John Howard Society may have to say about it. I think

that after they've listened to the debates and the discussion around this

legislation, that society will come to a different view relative to this

legislation.

The

disturbing one was the quote relative to a particular letter from the B.C.

Association of Social Workers. It should be noted that this letter was written

by Robert F. Kissner, who is the president of that association. Thankfully, both

members of the opposition chose not to go to some of the more inflammatory

language that was contained in that letter. Frankly, that's not the type

of language or comments or accusations that this House should ever have to deal

with. In reality, I can only surmise that the writer of this piece of

correspondence was not having a particularly good day. I will leave it at that,

except to say that to make these kinds of comments to people who are in public

office, on behalf of an association such as this, is improper.

[1625]

I actually

showed the contents of that letter to some social workers I know. They were

absolutely appalled and upset that representatives of their association would

write anything relative to this to someone like ourselves. The fact of the

matter is that if you've ever been there on the front line, like my colleague from Bulkley

Valley–Stikine was for 28 years or like I was for eight years, and you've seen some form of abuse in a situation, you would know

that a bill like this would have no impact whatsoever in causing or increasing

that in our society. To have been there and seen the hurt and seen the

difficulty of people.... I find it insulting that somebody would

even want to try and draw that parallel with anything that we would do in this House.

The other

thing was that both members opposite referred to immigrant parents or other

people being threatened with fines. For goodness' sake, folks, get it right.

This is a small claims action. If you break a $100 window, it's $100; it's not a

fine. The reason it's in small claims is because you don't need a lawyer to go

through small claims court. It's an easy system for them to deal with. It is

much less cumbersome and a lot less expensive than other actions one might take

to recover loss relative to property crime.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant also mused about assisting young people. This is

the Parental Responsibility Act. There is a Young Offenders Act. There is

restorative justice. There are other ways to deal with youth who commit crimes

and to assist them with counselling. This is just another piece, another tool,

to get people together to help solve problems. This is about one more vehicle.

This isn't about drawing unnecessary parallels, no matter what organization you

represent. This is about one more tool for communities and for people who are

victims of property crime. And remember, it's about victims and it's about

parental responsibility. We all believe in parental responsibility, and we all

believe in caring about victims. That's what this bill's about.

I look

forward to the committee stage of debate on this bill, because maybe at that

point the opposition will finally get what this really is instead of the

rhetoric that they put forward in second reading.

I move

second reading.

Second

reading of Bill 16 approved on the following division:

[1630]

YEAS

— 72

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Campbell

Collins

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Bill 16,

Parental Responsibility Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

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

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 23.

[ Page 721 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2001

(second reading)

[1635]

Hon. G.

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

I am

pleased to speak today about the amendments that Bill 23 makes to several pieces

of legislation. In my remarks today I hope to elaborate on the very brief

overview that I provided during the first reading speech. This is a

miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It's an omnibus collection of a variety of

legislative initiatives, and I anticipate the possibility that there will be a

spirited debate about some of these initiatives in the committee stage debate,

as is often the practice with miscellaneous statutes amendment acts.

Let me

provide the overview that I just spoke about. This bill amends the Budget

Measures Implementation Act by repealing

section 99 of that act, which allows

new hydro rate freeze legislation to be included in this bill. The hydro rate

freeze included in this bill extends the B.C. Hydro electricity rate freeze to March 31, 2003. The extension will allow government to complete its core

services review and to develop a new energy policy before the B.C. Utilities

Commission conducts a rate hearing. The amendment also contains an option for

the early termination of the freeze before March 31, 2003, if the core review

and the energy policy are complete before that date. The way the provisions

work, March 31, 2003, is the maximum date of the freeze, with the provision for

the possibility of shortening it by regulation in the event that both the core

review and the energy policy task force work are completed earlier than March

31, 2003.

This bill

also amends the Constitution Act and the Financial Administration Act. These

amendments will bring the law into line with the longstanding practice of

allowing ministers limited personal use of government vehicles. Ministers are

required to make personal use of a government-provided vehicle at times — for

example, when they drive between their Victoria accommodation and the

Legislature, even when, as was reported in a media outlet this morning, they

have to stop off and buy a couple of litres of milk on the way between the

Legislature and their Victoria accommodation.

A legal

review undertaken by the new government, by our government, has indicated

that there is no statutory provision to authorize any personal use by ministers

of government-provided vehicles. Accordingly, this bill will provide that

missing statutory authorization. These changes are retroactive to April 1, 2001, the start of the current fiscal year.

[1640]

This bill

also amends the Industrial Development Incentive Act as part of the government's

plan and commitment to end subsidies to business. The amendment clarifies that

no new commitments shall be made under the act after the date the amendment

comes into force. It also caps the total amount for loans and investments at a

number lower than the current statutory maximum. The current statutory maximum

is $600 million. At present the actual loans, or loans and investments — that

is, the actual current commitments — of the industrial development incentive

fund are $496,785,857. Accordingly, the amendments to this act cap the

industrial development incentive fund to that precise figure. I may say that for

the precision of that figure we are all indebted to the Minister of Competition,

Science and Enterprise. He did not want to be able to loan a single dollar more.

Now, if that isn't commitment to ending business subsidies, I don't know what

is.

The bill contains an amendment to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act

to respond to an area of urgent concern raised by the conflict-of-interest

commissioner. The change made is to the trust arrangements in the act. The

commission approved a blind trust agreement under the act. The act actually

contains provisions that say that members who wish to entrust their businesses

to trustees may only do so on the terms of a trust that meets the approval of

the commissioner. However, under the present act the trust is not blind, because

there is a requirement in the act for the trustees to report changes in the

trust to the member.

It makes no

sense to talk about a blind trust when the trustees are under a statutory

obligation to report all changes in the assets and liabilities in the financial

interests in the trusts to the member immediately upon those changes occurring.

So this amendment changes the act to make the trust truly blind so that the

disclosure obligation lies upon the trustee but is an obligation to disclose to

the commissioner, not to the member.

Bill 23

also amends the Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act. These amendments

change the management structure of the PNE by removing the representational

requirements for the board and reducing the board from 15 to not more than five

members to allow the board to be more flexible and to focus on the core review.

The Pacific National Exhibition incorporation is, like other Crown corporations,

agencies and boards, subject to the core review of government. The provisions in

this bill will remove the agricultural advisory committee, and they include

transitional provisions necessary to give immediate effect to these changes.

Bill 23

amends the Provincial Court Act relating to the tabling of the report of the

Judicial Compensation Committee. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that we did that

some days ago — on August 2, I believe. The act, as it is currently written,

requires that the report be placed before the Legislative Assembly for 21

sitting days to await the possibility of a resolution from the Legislative

Assembly to reject or amend the report. Under the statutory scheme, if no

resolution is made within 21 days, the report takes effect. Twenty-one sitting days,

which is the current formula, has been found to be too long for the efficient

administration of the report in the statutory process.

This

amendment will shorten that time from 21 sitting days to 21 calendar days. For

the information of

[ Page 722 ]

members, I should make it clear that under the new statutory formula, the time

within which the Legislative Assembly may pass a resolution to accept or amend

the report will expire as of August 23. The government, of course, has already

indicated that it takes no issue with the Judicial Compensation Committee

report.

[1645]

Bill 23

also repeals the Regulatory Impact Statement Act, which required the government

to prepare regulatory impact statements. This government does not need

legislation to require it to have a policy to make sure that it understands the

implications of regulation.

This

government has promised to cut red tape and the regulatory burden in British

Columbia by one-third over three years. It has already adopted new criteria and

standards for new regulation and has launched a systematic and rigorous review

of existing regulation. The commitment to cut red tape and the regulatory burden

in British Columbia by one-third over three years is a shared commitment of all

the ministers of the Crown, and it will be honoured and respected by all of the

ministers in this government.

I know I

speak for some of my colleagues who were here in the years after the Regulatory

Impact Statement Act came into force. It was difficult to keep track of the

number of times we asked the questions, "Had the act been applied? Where

was the regulatory impact statement?" only to be told: "Oops, we

forgot," or "Oh well, it's coming," or whatever.

MacPhail: That is not true.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: That is true.

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm glad to see I've excited the attention of the opposition leader.

Bill 23

also amends the Regulations Act as a consequential amendment to the repeal of

the Regulatory Impact Statement Act. The amendment allows the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to prescribe criteria in addition to the required

review by legislative counsel which must be met before a regulation can be

deposited and become law.

Bill 23

amends the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act with a number of

amendments, including some housekeeping amendments and, as well, amendments

which will fulfil new-era commitments. The first is to increase the account

balance of the First Citizens Fund by $36 million over four years. The second

will increase the account balance of the physical fitness and amateur sports

fund by $22 million over four years. Those are both new-era commitments. The

third will establish an Olympic arts fund with an account balance that will be

established at $20 million over four years to support this government's

commitment to aggressively promote British Columbia as the destination for the

2010 Winter Olympics.

This bill

also contains a series of housekeeping amendments to correct grammatical and

typographical errors in the Revised Statutes of British Columbia . First

is to the Health Act to replace the word "therein" with the words

"in those." I'm sure that you're gripped by this part of the

presentation, Mr. Speaker.

Second is a

change to the Livestock Act to replace the word "changeable" with the

word "chargeable" in the

section dealing with the fees that are

chargeable by a pound keeper. Many, many citizens of British Columbia will be

gratified to know that that change is, at last, forthcoming.

To the

Wildlife Act to replace a Latin name. Actually, I think it's to change the

spelling of it in the definition of "fish."

A change to

the Motor Carrier Act to remove the word "shall" from a sentence which

illogically reads, in part, "Nothing in this act shall has the effect

of…" and to bring that amendment into force by regulation — to deem it

to have come into force on April 21, 1997.

amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act to reflect an

organizational change to the name of the public affairs bureau.

Finally,

the bill will confirm and validate regulation 81 of 2001, which made several

corrections to statutes under the Statute Revision Act.

Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to the comments of other members before closing debate

on Bill 23.

MacPhail: The debate will occur at committee stage on a clause-by-clause

basis. I look forward to vigorous participation during that time.

[1650]

Hon. G.

Plant: I also look forward to that debate. With those remarks, I move second

reading.

Motion

approved.

Bill 23,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, 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.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 10.

PUBLIC SERVICE

(MERIT EMPLOYMENT COMMISSIONER)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2001

(second reading)

Hon. S.

Santori: Merit has been a foundation value of the public service for over

100 years. A strong and professional public service is essential for the

government to successfully serve the people of Bri