Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, March 7, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 218

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Witness Security Act

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

Hon. J. Sims

R. Coleman

M. Dean

B. Stewart

J. Brar

S. Cadieux

R. Singh

A. Weaver

G. Begg

Hon. H. Bains

Hon. M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Hon. S. Robinson

L. Throness

J. Sturdy

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 2019

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training

Hon. M. Mark

S. Gibson

R. Sultan

S. Bond

A. Weaver

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2019

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 4, Witness Security Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Children and Family and, when that finishes, the Ministry of

Advanced Education, Skills and Training estimates.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — WITNESS SECURITY ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that Bill 4 now be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 4,

the Witness Security Act. This proposed legislation will provide an

important tool to police and Crown as we work to address gang and gun

violence in the province of British Columbia.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Based on 2017 numbers for Canada, British Columbia recorded the

largest provincial increase and the highest proportion of gang-related

homicides in 2017 and is the only province in which gang-related

homicides represented a third or more of total homicides two years

running — in 2016 and 2017. Such violence is used to establish and

maintain drug supply chains. An increase in dial-a-dope operations also

encourages the violence. Proactive and preventative approaches are

needed.

Witness evidence is the key to obtaining successful convictions in

criminal cases. This legislation is aimed at securing and retaining

cooperating witnesses to provide essential evidence in order to support

the prosecution of organized crime here in British Columbia. This

legislation establishes the witness security program. The program will

supplement the federal witness protection program. The Witness Security

Act is modelled on legislation in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba but

in many ways is a made-in-B.C. and cutting-edge approach.

[1:35 p.m.]

The legislation prioritizes not only the safety of the protected

individual but also their health, which are vital to them attending and

providing testimony at trial and helping to secure successful

convictions. Successful prosecutions will send a message to those

involved in organized crime that the province is taking firm action on

gang violence and will increase overall public safety. The legislation

empowers law enforcement agencies to apply to the program on behalf of a

witness or a person associated with the witness, such as a family member

who is also under threat. The program will be voluntary and require the

cooperation of the participant. Participants may withdraw from the

program at any time.

The legislation establishes a director of witness security within

the provincial government who will receive applications to the program

and complete an initial eligibility assessment. A law enforcement agency

with expertise in witness protection will be designated to provide

security and arrange for services to program participants. The director

of witness security is empowered to seek information and require

cooperation from public bodies and agencies within British Columbia in

order to assess someone’s suitability for the program.

Sponsoring law enforcement agencies will provide the director with

information on the individual’s legal obligations; medical records,

including mental health; family circumstances and cultural support

needs; and any other information the director requires to facilitate

success in the program. In order to be eligible for the program, the

witness’s testimony must be of a substantial value to a B.C.

prosecution, and the individual’s health or security must be at risk in

a way that is not being met through other means.

Once the director has determined that someone is eligible, they

will refer the application to a committee of subject-matter experts. The

committee chairperson will then convene a panel made up of three to five

members from the committee to make the final decision on accepting

someone into the program. Panels will ultimately determine eligibility

for the program, duration of program participation and nature and scope

of program services in a service plan, such as health and addictions

support, temporary financial support and/or housing, assistance

complying with legal obligations, transportation of people and

possessions to and from a secure location and change of identity. A

protected individual must sign a statement of obligations setting out

the nature, scope and duration of the program services and any other

conditions.

The director will have the authority to authorize temporary

program services in urgent cases. This ensures flexibility and a quick

response time that is lacking at the federal level. If an applicant is

rejected, then the sponsoring law enforcement agency may apply for

reconsideration or submit another application with new information. In

order to ensure program entrance, the individual sponsoring law

enforcement agency must enter into payment arrangements with a

designated operational agency. The province may pay for program services

for up to ten days in urgent cases while a payment arrangement is

created to ensure that an individual is secure.

The panel may terminate a participant from the program or service

plan when and how it may end. Former program participants may continue

to receive some program services, such as transportation to and from a

secure location, as necessary.

Confidentiality is essential to program effectiveness. The

legislation provides for a comprehensive list of offences with

significant penalties. A key example of an offence is the prohibition on

improperly disclosing sensitive information pertaining to a protected

individual. The penalties are high, as they are intended to have a

significant deterrent value. They include up to $50,000 or two years in

jail, or both, for individuals and up to $100,000 for

corporations.

The Witness Security Act is exempt from disclosure of sensitive

information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act and the public information disclosure act in order to ensure that

the program participants are kept safe. The Witness Security Act should

be seen as one of many tools that we are putting in place for the public

safety sector to address gang violence.

[1:40 p.m.]

This piece of legislation will allow us to have a witness security

act that is designed to meet the needs of this province, its unique

circumstances, the ability to deal in a way that the federal legislation

does not allow us to do. That is something that we have been lacking for

some time.

It has been a priority for police agencies in this province. It is

one that has been developed not only in consultation with police

agencies but with agencies outside of government — judiciary, legal

advice and experts. This is an important advancement to build on the

work that has been done in previous years in terms of combating gang

violence. That is why I’m pleased to have this legislation for the

House, and I ask for its support from all members.

M. Morris: From the outset, as well, I just want to say that we do support

this. There are some concerns that we’ll bring up in committee stage, as

with any new legislation. But anything we can do to provide the tools

and the support for our law enforcement officers, for our prosecution

and for the judiciary in the prosecution of these criminals in British

Columbia, I think we should be doing, and this is a step in the right

direction.

I go back in time — a little bit of history, of course, from my

previous life. Up until the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in British

Columbia, the police had the ability to keep confidential the names of

those vulnerable witnesses that would testify in support of gang

activity or homicides or a myriad of criminal activity across the

province here. Of course, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the

complexities of police changed. The increase in the resources required

to investigate these offences changed and multiplied

extensively.

The most significant piece of legislation that came along that

affected disclosure and how we do business today was the Stinchcombe

decision from the early ’90s — 1991, I believe. That’s a case that went

to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada basically

said that the collection of evidence is not for the prosecution of an

individual — I’m paraphrasing here — but it is to ensure that justice is

done. That opened up a wide variety of problems and issues for policing

and for prosecution.

There were a number of cases that had to be stayed at that

particular time — very serious cases, as well — because it would have

revealed the names of informants and undercover operations and sources

and agents and whatnot. The police forces right across Canada had to

change how they did business as a result of that particular decision. As

the cases progressed over the years, we have now morphed into the

systems that we have here today.

It was also identified at that particular time that even if the

information was relevant to the particular case, the judge also had the

opportunity to determine whether or not the information was critical to

the accused in his or her trial. So a lot of closed-door sessions would

take place to determine whether or not the information from a source or

an informant was critical to the case, and the judge would make a

determination.

Sometimes the courts would make a determination, that: “Yes,

police, you need to reveal your sources.” The various police departments

across the country would pull the plug on the investigation and the

prosecution because it would ultimately have meant a serious risk to the

safety or life of some of the individuals that would be testifying on

that particular case. So again, the world has morphed and proceeded, and

the complexities of these cases have become so significant that we are

now seeing cases that don’t meet charge approval.

We’ve seen evidence of that in this province and right across

Canada. We’ve seen evidence where a case will go to court and, somewhere

along the process, the investigation hit a road block or probably

contravened some

section of law or jurisprudence but is not identified

until it goes through the actual trial process itself, and it’s pitched

out. Again, we see that.

[1:45 p.m.]

I think this will help us get to the point where we have

technically elegant prosecutions, where we have technically elegant

investigations relying on the testimony of some of these witnesses that

are in these very complex, complicated positions.

We talk about guns and gangs in the Lower Mainland of British

Columbia. It was a topic, of course, when I was sitting in the chair of

the Solicitor General. You’re banging your head against the wall trying

to find solutions to what we have out there and providing the police

forces with the tools that they need.

One of the stats that I found very problematic when I was being

debriefed on a number of these operations, and perhaps the minister’s

received similar information…. The police force — the Combined Forces

Special Enforcement Unit is one of them — would apply for a

part 6

application.

Part 6 is a privacy act application under the Criminal

Code, where they work diligently to gather enough information to go

before a justice and get the authority to put a wiretap on a phone. The

police finally get this wiretap. That only comes after days and weeks

and sometimes months of surveillance and solid on-the-ground police work

to collect enough evidence to convince the judge that this

part 6

application is a necessary tool that the police need.

part 6 application is granted — you know, wiretap evidence. We

have monitors monitoring these phones 24 hours a day, seven days a week,

for as long as the investigation takes. During the course of listening

to those lines, they will hear a contract being taken out on another

target — another bad guy, another gang member. There’s a duty to

disclose to that gang member, saying: “Your life is in imminent danger

because of information that we’ve received. We can’t disclose where we

got the information from, but your life is in imminent danger.” In one

year, I think that happened well over 100 times.

You can tell the level of danger that our witnesses have out there

in trying to even think about providing source information to an RCMP or

to a police investigation. There may be individuals out there…. I know

CFSEU and the police in Surrey and other areas have the gang exit

strategy. They’ve got a number of things out there that they’re looking

at to try and keep people out of gang activity or remove people from

gang activity.

They’re under tremendous pressure from these thugs, from these

people that take advantage of the vulnerable people. Most of these

people get involved in that because they are vulnerable in the first

place. The pressure that is on these people…. We do see a number of

homicides that have been related to gang activity in British Columbia

here. The pressure on them is enormous.

We do need a tool that we can act quickly, is nimble enough — and

I think that this does approach that — in order to effectively remove

these people from harm’s way and aid in their investigations. This bill

before the House, I think, will move us in that direction, but coupled

with that, though, are some concerns.

Up until this point in time in British Columbia, there’s been the

federal witness protection program that’s been administered by the RCMP.

I guess over the years…. I was introduced to it years ago when I was an

operations officer. I oversaw a lot of the undercover operations and

high-profile, sensitive investigations in my area of responsibility, and

we did have to provide a new life for some individuals there.

The complexities associated with that, as a result of

jurisprudence and policy changes and privacy act situations, caused an

enormous burden on the administration of the witness protection program

and magnified the costs of administering that program substantially. Of

course, it slows down. As a result of it slowing down, people in British

Columbia and other provinces that rely on that program for assistance

oftentimes aren’t afforded that assistance, because they don’t have the

capacity to deal with it.

Just about everything to do with policing, I think, is underfunded

right across this country. That’s one area where it would be nice to see

the federal government step up to the plate and provide the level of

protection and the level of resourcing in the witness protection program

that should be there in the first place. I’m sure the minister has

probably had conversations with the federal government and the federal

minister on that as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

The security that’s required varies. I think some of the minor

issues this legislation addresses very well, where we have a witness who

needs immediate protection because of the sensitivity of his or her

information that she has to give. But once the trial is over, that level

of security might disappear. The individual will be provided a safe

environment, of course. But during that process…. Maybe the individual

suffers from some addictions or medical issues that this program can

help address and put that person in a better position, moving forward,

once the particular trial is over.

Then there are the more complex ones that show up. These are the

ones where we have an individual who has intimate knowledge of the main

players of a crime organization, who has perhaps witnessed homicides,

who has perhaps witnessed shakedowns of legitimate people, who has

witnessed the distribution of fentanyl and other drugs in the province

that have been such a scourge on the vulnerable people we have

here.

Those are the people that are key. They’re kept very close. If

there’s any kind of a suspicion that they are going to break away from

the organization and provide information to the police, their life is in

imminent threat, and they require a different level of security. They

require total secrecy around the fact that they are being looked after

under a witness protection program like this.

Oftentimes they require a new identity. Oftentimes they have to be

relocated out of the province or the community that they live in. It

doesn’t happen very often, but at times we have to find another country

for these individuals to live in under an assumed name and a brand-new

identity for the rest of their life. That’s where the expense of

maintaining a witness protection program becomes quite expensive. It’s

not just a one-year deal; it’s a multi-year deal. It’s a lifetime deal

for many of these people.

For that, they’re required to ensure that they abide by all the

rules: that they don’t try to make contact with any of their loved ones

or family members or anybody that they’ve left behind, that they

maintain a criminal-free lifestyle as they move forward. There are a

number of factors there. If they don’t abide by that, then the deal is

over, they’re on their own, and the government will no longer have the

obligation to fund those particular programs.

Most of these people make sure that they stay on the straight and

narrow because they know that organized crime is relentless in tracking

these people down wherever they may go in the world. They put a lot of

money and effort into it. They don’t have to worry about budgets like we

have to worry about in British Columbia and Canada. They just pour

whatever money is necessary in there to track those individuals down and

cause harm to them, either in retribution for the information that they

provided or to prevent them from testifying at an upcoming

trial.

That’s why we see, a lot of times…. We saw it with the prosecution

of some UN gang members in the past while, where we have fortified

courthouses to prevent harm to some of these witnesses when they’re

brought in from their locations. They have armed guards around them all

the time — RCMP members, city police members — in order to protect these

people, because the threat level against them is so significantly high

that we can’t afford to take those risks.

When I first looked through this, a lot of things, I was happy to

see. They were things that I’ve talked about with my ex-colleagues in

the police forces across the province here before. But in government, I

also have a look at it and think: there’s a dollar attached to this.

There’s a dollar attached to this, and we really don’t know what that

amount is. So I’m hoping that when we get to the committee stage, the

minister will be able to tell me what this magic formula might look like

and how we can recoup the losses — or not the losses. That’s a bad word

to say, because it’s not a loss. It’s a gain for society when we can

successfully prosecute these individuals.

What it is, is a significant dollar burden on the sponsoring

agency. The way I read this is, if we have a community that says, “Yes,

we need to do this in order to get a successful prosecution and remove

these gangsters from our community,” they have to cough up the money. Is

this going to be a short term, like a one-year program? Is this going to

be a five-year program? Is this going to be a lifetime program at the

end of the day? Do we have to provide him or her with a new identity? Do

we have to include other family members in the relocation? There are a

number of factors that have to be taken into consideration

here.

[1:55 p.m.]

In essence, I think what we’re doing is asking a community to give

us a blank cheque in order to provide the security for that individual.

We might know up front that the majority of cases might be a six-month

term, a one-year term. They might be short term. But there are going to

be these cases where we don’t know. Hopefully we’ll overcome the hurdles

for that particular issue when we do see it.

The metrics that I think we need to have in place and that I’m

going to be watching, once we implement this program, are the number of

successful charge approvals — hopefully we’re going to see them

skyrocket — and the number of successful prosecutions. To spend $1

million on a homicide investigation…. Just anecdotally, off the top of

my head, I would say that that would be the average cost of

investigating a homicide today. It might be a little higher.

To spend that kind of money on a homicide or a gang-related

investigation, to try and extricate those people out of that community,

only to be thwarted at the end of the day by some error that was made in

the investigation or some witness who refused to testify at the last

minute because of fear for their safety — we throw $1 million out the

door. So we’ll be spending money, but maybe we’ll be making better use

of the money that we spend on the investigations and the prosecutions at

the end of the day.

Like I said, some of my colleagues will be speaking on this as

well. But I think this is a great initiative. I thank you, Minister, for

bringing this to the House. But I’ll be watching with some trepidation

as to how we’re going to convince municipalities or different agencies

to help fund this program as we move forward here. I wish you luck in

lobbying the federal government to throw a little bit more resources

into the federal program.

Hon. J. Sims: I’m proud to stand here today as the MLA for Surrey-Panorama and

speak to Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. I want to thank and

acknowledge the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General for

introducing this important legislation. I thank him for the very, very

focused way he has been taking on this very, very complex issue of

getting a handle on gang-related gun violence.

We all know that there is no sweet pill or simple solution for

this problem. We know that it requires a multi-pronged approach, with

education, early intervention, law enforcement, rehabilitation and then

reintegration back into the community. I’m pleased to say that under

this Solicitor General…. He has been paying attention to every aspect of

what we need to be doing as a government to get a handle on the growing

gun violence related to gangs.

We all know that Surrey is a vibrant and growing community. But

Surrey is also a city that has been significantly affected by gun and

gang violence over the last number of years. I have to make a point here

that Surrey is not the only city. It’s Abbotsford, Vancouver, Burnaby —

you name it. It is the Lower Mainland, and it is a very serious

issue.

I know, talking to my colleagues on both sides of the House, that

this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue every single member in

this House wants to see addressed and resolved. I have been working on

this issue of violence, guns and gangs for most of my career, starting

as a teacher. I know that you teach students how to resolve differences

through dialogue, putting programs in place, counselling, dealing with

communication skills and self-esteem, and looking at some of the factors

that lead to students making choices or being forced into a certain way

of life.

As a Member of Parliament for Surrey-Newton and North Delta, I was

absolutely aware of the impact that gun violence was having on families

in my community, and now as an MLA.

[2:00 p.m.]

I would say that of those who live in Surrey, especially in my

riding, many will tell you that one way or another, through friendship

circles or relatives or neighbourhoods, they have been impacted by gun

violence and gang violence, and if they haven’t been, they live in fear.

They live in fear that they could be, that their children could

be.

I hear from many parents. We dread it when our children go out,

and then we’re on tenterhooks because we want them to come home safe.

That, I think, is something every one of us can appreciate — whether

you’re a mother, a sister, a grandmother, an aunt, an uncle, a next-door

neighbour, a friend. All of us have had those feelings at different

times.

We also know it’s an issue that…. Pointing fingers at others is

not going to solve the problem. Every time there is a shooting, it is

very, very easy to get into that blame mode, to point fingers. If only

you had done more. If only the police had done more. If only the parents

had done more. If only the community…. It’s very easy to point fingers,

but it’s very difficult and challenging to work as a community to get a

handle on this and to address this issue.

I think that we, as a community, right across the board, have to

take a look at — in Surrey, in Vancouver, wherever it is happening — how

do we handle this? Instead of pointing fingers, let’s find a way to

engage and give tools to those who need the tools and put resources in

place so we can tackle this issue, instead of waiting for the next

homicide and then everybody pointing fingers again. That does not get us

to the solutions we need to.

That is why I am so pleased with the approach of the Solicitor

General. One of the first things he heard, once, of course, he was sworn

in and was meeting with the agencies, was…. They pointed out that there

was a real need to have a B.C.-based witness security program. Actually,

from what the minister has told us, it was one of the first suggestions

that RCMP E division commanding officer Brenda Butterworth-Carr made

when Minister Farnworth first met with her and asked: what would make a

difference?

That’s a very important question to ask. What would make a

difference? And the response was absolutely clear that one of the tools

that would go a long way to having witnesses feel safe enough to give

testimony, to bear witness, would be to have a B.C.-based witness

security program. It is because of that reason — the need to give the

enforcement agencies the tools they needed — that this legislation is

before you.

We are keeping our commitment to take action on gang and gun

violence and to increase support for initiatives proven to prevent and

reduce crime. This particular piece of legislation will help communities

like Surrey because (1) it will complement the federal program — it’s

not meant to replace; it’s meant to complement — and (2) it will

facilitate the access to difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized

crime groups.

J. Thornthwaite: Apologies to the speaker.

I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have some special guests here in the Legislature that just walked

in. There are some students from Argyle School in my riding, with their

teachers Milan Boljuncic, Tom Inkster, Jolie Lambkin and Mike

Fox.

The students that are here — I’m going to try to go through: Tyson

Bergot, Anya Blajkevitch, Isabella Byrne, Karla Carmona, Elise Commodore,

Mia Cornish, Mikayla Duey, Brenaugh Gatzke, Mary Godin, Olivia Green, Talia

Harasym, Evan Mitchell-Gash, Riley Navratil-Lee, Amani Powell Santos,

Jackson Proud, Lilia Sedlmaier, Alana Spurging, Avi Topiwala, Jonathan

Ash-Roberts, Ethan Brauner, Kathryn Brennan, Amanda Day, Gabriel Figueroa,

John Kleparchuk, Mackenzie Lake, Evelyn McCammon, Armin Mastour, Callum

Mentiply, Poppy Taylor, Adrian Aghazadeh.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’m almost done: Nikita Amini, Kate Carson, Jackson Cochrane, Isaac

Dharamsi, Logan Edmonds, Tori Edmonds, Amirhossein Ghaffari, Keane Lighvani,

Fraya Lindqvist, Sourena Rezaei, Solana Strandebo, Natasha Uganec, Jonathan

Jang, Bjorn Backstrom, Tristan Baigent, Sarah Hrabinsky, Carter Kwan, Drew

Schieman and Sam Lee.

Could the House please make them welcome, and apologies for the long

list.

Debate Continued

Hon. J. Sims: As I was saying, I’m very proud of this piece of legislation that

has been brought forward to take action on gang and gun violence and

increase support for initiatives proven to prevent and reduce

crime.

As I was saying earlier, this legislation will help communities

like Surrey because it will complement the federal program — just to be

clear, it’s not meant to replace; it’s meant to augment — and facilitate

the access to difficult-to-obtain evidence against organized crime

groups.

It will also help advance prosecutions of gang and organized crime

members, because we know that fear is often prevalent. Often members of

the community who know exactly what happened are very reluctant to come

forward because they are scared. They fear for their lives and the lives

of their loved ones. Members who might have been witnesses and might

actually be able to help to solve a crime are so scared for the safety

of their own families that they remain mum.

As I was saying, this particular piece of legislation will

actually help to support the work of our enforcement agencies to be able

to provide protection to those who will bear witness.

This program, as you know, will be administered by an agency. It

will be voluntary. The evidence that’s going to be given has to be

substantial. Health and safety have to be proven to be at risk. So it’s

not going to be given to just anybody. There are going to be criteria

that are going to be quite strict.

At this stage, I do want to acknowledge all the constituents that

have met with me over the last number of years on this issue, whether it

has been in my office or whether it has been at town hall meetings or

whether it has been at yet another funeral that we’ve all attended as a

community because of the loss of a life taken too soon and taken under

such tragic circumstances.

What we have to remember, whether the person was known to the

police or not known to the police, the impact on family and community is

absolutely earth-shattering. For a mother, for a father, for

grandparents, for brothers, sisters, kids, neighbours — there is nothing

more devastating than getting one of those phone calls to say that your

loved one has been killed, shot, in an encounter related to gangs and

drugs.

It’s a heartbreaking topic. I have so many stories I could share

with you: so many families I have cried with, so many families who are

crying out for help — families who’ve been impacted, families who know

that their children are maybe going down the wrong path and they want to

get them back on the right path, but they just don’t know

how.

Once again, I want to acknowledge the work done by our Solicitor

General to make sure that resources are being put into cities like

Surrey to make sure that for those kids who want to leave gangs, there

is support. For those with early signs that they are going in the wrong

direction, the programs are put into place — programs like the Wrap

program in Surrey, which I call sort of a total service program that

wraps itself around the kids to make sure they get the supports they

need.

[2:10 p.m.]

And yes, this program will cost. It will cost. But we’re proud to

support it because it’s here, because the savings that will result from

lives saved or from convictions we will get for gang and gun-related

activities will be priceless. I don’t see how we can put a price on a

life that is taken by guns, by violence and through gang

warfare.

I’m proud to be a member of this government. I’m so proud of the

work of Public Safety and our Solicitor General, the Premier and all

MLAs from Surrey and everywhere else, who know that one of our primary

roles here is to look after the safety and security of

citizens.

This particular program is not just about getting a conviction. It

is about getting people off the streets. It is about making sure that

people do not, that another parent does not, receive a phone call that

their child has been shot. It is a program that is only one small part

of a very comprehensive plan put forward by the Solicitor General to

tackle guns and violence head-on. Being in a witness protection program

— as my colleague across the way pointed out earlier — will also ensure,

for those who need additional help, whether it’s in the area of

addictions or mental health, that that support is also

provided.

I know, and I will say again, this is not a partisan issue. This

is an issue about our kids and about keeping our communities

safe.

R. Coleman: I’m glad to rise and speak to the Witness Security Act today and

take us down a conversation with regard to what some of the other

members have already talked about. I think the challenge, when you talk

about this particular program and how important it is, is that there is

a program in Canada. If you can make it faster and you can still keep it

safe and secure, do so, because it actually helps investigations. It

protects investigations.

The context often is…. I’ll give you some of the context that some

people may talk about, given their community. The context is that in

2017 — most recent data — B.C. had its highest number of homicides since

2009, at 118. Nearly half of Metro Vancouver victims were killed with

firearms. Of those 118 total homicides, 58 were in Metro Vancouver; 44

of those 118 were gang-related. Ontario had 48 gang-related homicides in

2007, we had 44, Quebec had 15, and Alberta had 32.

Most organized crime cases in B.C. hinge on testimony from an

accused person’s former accomplices and informants, and a federal

witness security program already exists. But, as the NDP say, a

multi-pronged approach is needed, and I agree. A B.C. RCMP spokesman, in

a government news release, said: “The Witness Security Act will be one

more tool that will help us to destabilize gangs and support

prosecutions.” This will encourage more people with knowledge of

murders, drug trafficking or other gang-related crimes to share details

with police and, hopefully, help us do investigations.

It’s not just about gang violence. It’s also about us as

legislators having to make sure that we are protectors of information.

It’s about making sure the confidentiality of police investigations is

protected. It’s about making sure that nobody leaks out something that

is going to break the confidence of an informant or a witness to the

extent that you could put their names at risk, their lives at risk, or

that you could actually kill an investigation because of information

that you happen to have spoken about publicly.

That’s an important nuance. I was Solicitor General for four years

and often, a couple of times, when I had to step in. I was very

fortunate to have a very, very good relationship with law enforcement at

all levels, particularly on organized crime and other files. I was

briefed on investigations that were going on, briefed at the highest

level of detail, yet not once could I answer a question about an

investigation.

[2:15 p.m.]

I couldn’t say I knew about that particular investigation of money

laundering or that particular investigation about gang-related or

something else. When I was interviewed, it was one comment — and one

comment it should always be at the mouth of an Attorney General, a

Solicitor General, a Premier, any other member of executive council or

any member of this House: “I will not comment on an ongoing police

investigation.”

The media sometimes think that that’s a copout. But woe be the

person that’s elected, or anybody briefed on an investigation — whether

it be senior officers, a member of an investigation or another agency of

government that touches an investigation — that actually goes beyond

that, other than being authorized to do so, and says something that puts

someone’s life at risk or actually puts an investigation at risk. I

lived this on a number of files. I was always accused of not doing

anything on money laundering. I knew about investigations — I still do —

and knew what was going on, but I could never, ever, ever comment on

it.

So you get demonized as a cabinet minister, sometimes, because of

that. That’s part of the job, and don’t get the temptation to say you

should do it any differently, because you may hurt someone. When you

have investigations that are so complex that they involve organized

crime groups from outside our country connected inside our country and

that you have cross-jurisdictional — as far as culture and otherwise —

investigations, there are people who are unknown heroes on those

investigations, who actually come forward or work with police or go

undercover and give information that will take care of an investigation

on any seizure crime connected or interconnected with organized

crime.

Those people, when they do that — believe you me, the rules from

organized crime guys aren’t Marquess of Queensberry — are putting their

lives at risk. They’re taking a risk that something could happen to them

because they want to do something right for society by actually helping

to fight crime. Sometimes, they get so far in that the only way you can

probably save them, as you go towards trial or to finish the decision

and make a prosecution, is that they need to be protected — sometimes

completely protected: a whole new identity in the witness protection

program, as you might want to call it, where they actually disappear

from society and start afresh.

If you can’t do that — if you can’t protect them or give them that

sense of security — your investigation falls apart. Your information

falls apart. Your stream of evidence falls apart, and then you see

millions of dollars spent on an investigation, like you recently saw one

federally, on a multi-million-dollar investigation, and hundreds of

millions of dollars of money laundering and other activity and organized

crime. They had a stay of proceedings.

Sometimes it just takes too long, and people start to figure out

who’s there. Sometimes it could be something that somebody just says,

and it makes the prosecutor nervous about the fact that he may not be

able to hold the lives of those people and protect them. So the reality

is, as we do these complex investigations, we need a tool that says:

“Joe, there is a contract out on you, and we need to actually protect

you and your family and protect your evidentiary stuff. So we need you

to agree to come in.” Imagine having to make a voluntary decision to

change your identity and move from your community to protect your

family. You’re there to try and help the community or solve

crime.

It happens, and people have had to do that. As I looked at the

act, the first thing that concerned me was a bit of the bureaucracy

around a piece of legislation where there is a security committee and a

number of people are in a room that would be presented the decision to

let this person voluntarily go into witness protection — having been

told when their life is at risk — that they get to make the

decision.

The first reaction I had was: “We’d better find five absolutely

strong-minded, honest people who would never leak a word about any

discussion about somebody that came before them and was being looked at”

— for someone that might want to go or need to go into some form of

witness protection. If we can’t do that, we can’t solve the crime. If we

can’t do that, we lose the community support for us to be able to do

things, and we really destroy the opportunity for police to do their

jobs.

[2:20 p.m.]

The member opposite mentioned, a few minutes ago, gangs and the

gang stuff and issues in and around. I talked about them with regard to

a number of homicides, but it is important, particularly in some of the

gang activity that takes place, to be able to get into the community and

get a better understanding of circumstances, information and evidence

that may get you to where you’ll be able to solve a gang-related

killing.

It’s tough for the police, because they need information from

within the community. If the gang is strong in a community, they’ll be

concerned that if they’re actually seen to be cooperating in any way

whatsoever, they will become a victim of the gang and will not have any

protection for themselves and their family should they be found out as

someone that’s actually working with police. So it’s important that you

have a program like this, but it’s important that you understand just

how difficult this is, how dicey it can be but, more importantly, how

important it is that everybody understands their role.

I’ve been on both sides of this House. On one side of this House,

I could criticize a government, back in the 1990s, about something they

weren’t doing on a particular investigation. When I became the Solicitor

General, I realized the reason they didn’t say anything, because I

couldn’t now. I also had an understanding that I would never put

someone’s life at risk, as a minister.

The new government is finding out the same thing. There were

comments with regard to different investigations that they thought

should be going on or that the government wasn’t doing enough. Probably

they got briefed early on — or not. But they found out that there were

things being done other than what they’d said in public were being done,

because the actual investigations were more critical than the public

image of the police or anybody, or of any other official.

Police are in a tough job. They have major investigations on the

go. They have serious integrated criminal enforcement and organized

crime enforcement investigations going on. They’re dealing with complex,

complex files, and they also deal with other aspects of crime, including

civil forfeiture and things like that.

We saw, in the courts today, somebody wondering whether the person

who heads up civil forfeiture had a bias in pushing too hard to go after

a Hells Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo. In the article, it was intimated

that they’re really just a motorcycle gang. Well, to anybody who

believes that for a second, I’ve got a whole bunch of swampland

somewhere that I can sell you. They are organized crime. They are an

integrated organization. They may have clubhouses, and they may ride

Harleys, but other than that, they’re integrated, organized crime. It’s

been determined by many, many court cases that that is the

case.

Imagine if you’re getting briefed as a minister, and somebody

comes in and says, “With this particular organized crime group, we think

we have enough to go after a major investigation. What we need is access

to, let’s say, $4 million in contingencies to really go nail this one,”

and they give you a briefing on the background of what they know. Then

you have to go into your Finance Minister and Treasury Board and say: “I

need access to contingencies for an investigation with regard to

organized crime, and that’s all I’m going to tell you. I’m not putting

anybody at risk in this room or any other room, because I know that this

is the only way to go about it.”

You do that, and it goes on going, and somewhere down the road you

see the results of that decision. You might get briefed once in a while

along the way, but the reality is that you’ll see the results of that

decision at the outcome of some pretty complicated investigations. All

have to protected, at all costs — by not giving out information about

them or making any comment publicly — by anybody that might know about

the file or that might comment on the file. It’s important, because the

people we’re talking about today need to know, as those investigations

are ongoing, and they need to be protected.

Someone’s not going to leak out that so-and-so moved from Langley

to some place in Saskatchewan or some place in Alberta or B.C. and that

they have a different name, a new identity for their family and

children, and a job. That’s because the guys that want to shut them up

before it ever gets to trial want to find out that information. They

want to make sure that they can get to them and intimidate them so that

their case won’t go ahead.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s tough, because we tend to judge investigative things with

police and organized crime and complex investigations as inaction,

because they’re not telling you what is going on. They won’t tell you

that there’s a wiretap and there’s information that came off a wiretap

where someone else would be informed that their life was in danger as a

result of information they picked up. They have to do that completely

confidentially, because their first job is to protect life and then to

protect the integrity of an investigation.

Sometimes it requires that certain people, to protect them and

their families, also be put into a program where they’re safe while

they’re waiting to help with a significant investigation or conviction —

but also to know that they are not being put in danger because they’ve

actually stepped up and helped society. That’s what I see this tool as

being — another tool with regard to not having the blame game, with not

having the issue which is the biggest issue when you’re dealing with

informants, undercover people and witnesses. That is the issue of fear.

The member from Surrey mentioned that in her remarks a few minutes

ago.

If you cannot protect your witness or your informant or the people

you have undercover from the fear of what’s going to happen to them if

they’re found out, then that fear permeates into every investigation,

and you get no help. You get this cone of silence that the police have a

terrible time trying to break through. You can’t always do it just with

forensic evidence, in spite of what the TV shows might tell you. The

reality is that this is complex stuff, and this tool is important so we

have that complexity be able to be handled in a way that’s really very

important for society.

As we go through this and you take time to think about it, if you

get a chance to speak or not, think about the people that are out there

somewhere in all kinds of investigations today — they could be

undercover police officers — whose lives and information about them

needs to be protected. If you ever have a conversation, if you think

you’ve ever even met somebody that might be undercover on an

investigation in a social aspect, they won’t tell you. But if you blab

about it to somebody in some other area, it gets so you can actually put

a person’s life at risk.

An informant is a person that’s coming forward to police to give

them critical information on a significant investigation, most of the

time. If it’s a significant organized crime investigation, that means

they’re putting themselves at risk. They have to be completely

protected. There cannot be any breakdown in disclosure. If there is, and

they’re put in danger, you need a tool like this, and you need it to be

quick. The only thing I will probably do in committee stage with the

minister is make sure this thing is actually nimble enough to do the job

for people that need it when they need it the most.

In addition to that, I’ve also been exposed to some other

significant types of investigations: organized crime, obviously;

homicides; gang-related things. I’ll never forget the day — it’s now

been through the courts and convictions are there — that I got the call

that I needed to go get some money from Treasury Board. They thought

they had the person, but they needed the money to be able to do it with

the warrants, that had killed a number of women missing from the

Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

It was that conversation — I had to take it into a cabinet

situation and convince them to fund it — that led to the arrest and

conviction and closure for families of women on the Pickton

investigation.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

At no time through that, even though I was briefed and toured the

site, did I ever discuss one ounce of anything to do with that

investigation. That is what’s tough for the Solicitor General; the

Attorney General, particularly; and the Premier, usually, if they get

briefed. Because they will get public criticism on something, but they

can’t say anything. We should always keep that in mind as we go through

this, because it’s important that they don’t. They need to protect the

integrity of the investigations, the integrity of what’s going

on.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s something like money laundering

connected to organized crime, whether it’s a homicide, gang-related or

whatever the case may be. The police always are trying to do their best,

but while they’re trying to do their best, they have to take the public

criticism that they’re not doing enough. They can’t say, “Let’s go

convince them that we’re doing enough” when actually, they’re doing

everything they can do. They cannot disclose because they cannot destroy

an investigation or destroy someone’s life. In the cases where it gets

to the point where the person is really helping in an investigation, you

need this tool.

[2:30 p.m.]

So as you make comment, think about those people, because I can’t

imagine…. I did drug cover, which is basically covering people who are

doing the buys and collecting the evidence while they were undercover in

places on different strips in Alberta and cities. I thought that was

pretty hairy work for those guys, but somebody that’s an informant on a

major crime investigation, organized crime…. It’s pretty hairy

stuff.

I think we have to recognize that and make sure we have tools for

those people. They really are pretty special citizens in our society who

often step up, in spite of the fact that they have fear, to help police

in investigations that could actually save more lives.

I support this piece of legislation, I support the Witness

Security Act, and I hope we keep in mind just those people that are

silent out there that are actually trying to help us solve major crime

in British Columbia.

M. Dean: I’m very proud to stand here today as the MLA for

Esquimalt-Metchosin and to speak in favour of Bill 4, the Witness

Security Act. I really appreciate the work of the Solicitor General, not

only in this area, in working on this particular bill, but also in

taking a multi-pronged approach to this issue.

I’ve been working with youth at risk of gang involvement for many,

many years — youth in our community who have been traumatized or abused,

youth who are targeted for exploitation in any way. So I welcome

initiatives that will destabilize gangs and the whole system of gang

culture and prevent short- and long-term harm to people in my

constituency and across British Columbia.

This is going to be a stronger witness security program that will

help destabilize the gang way of life. It will encourage more people

with knowledge of crimes — crimes like murder, drug trafficking,

gang-led crimes — to share their information with police.

It’s going to build on the federal program, but it’s needed

because the federal program can lead to delays. It can also create a low

retention rate of witnesses, and that thwarts the processes in British

Columbia. That means that here in our province, we don’t get the justice

that we need.

This is going to be an important tool in tackling gang-related

crime. We all know that gang-related violence is increasing, and it’s

related to other crimes, such as drug trafficking and drug

use.

Here we are living in the current fentanyl crisis. We have to do

something about this. We need this multi-pronged approach and a range of

tools. The best tool for tackling these crimes is through the evidence

of people who know those who are responsible. Successful convictions

using this new tool will send a really strong message to those involved

in gang culture, and that will have a massive impact on public safety,

not just for individuals and families but for the whole of our

communities.

Now, the program is voluntary. Anybody in it can exit at any time,

and there will be services and programs provided to people who are

participants. Once referred into the program, they’re assessed for their

suitability and eligibility. To be eligible, the testimony has to be

very valuable. It has to be significant testimony. Their health or

security also has to be at risk.

Once approved, then the whole scope of the program is designed —

it has to be — around that individual and around the risks that they’re

facing. That’s going to include their housing. It might include

transportation to and from safe places. It’s going to include their

identity and then also support services as well. That might be

rehabilitation counselling, recovering from drug addiction.

Of course, confidentiality is really critical to the success of

this program, and confidentiality is protected. It’s protected in many

means and under many acts. That way, we make sure that we keep the

participants safe, and we can reassure them that they’re going to be

kept safe as well.

What this system does is it reinforces the notion that there can

be a successful way for people who choose to exit from the gang

lifestyle. They can do this. This offers a road map. It offers a

pathway. It offers support and stability and structure to be able to get

out of that lifestyle and to rebuild their lives.

[2:35 p.m.]

Back to the point that we will actually be more successful if we

help these people who have the knowledge and they can share the

knowledge with us so that we can actually break down the gangs. We need

a very robust strategy against gangs. We need it to support existing

services and enhance our strategy around gang culture.

We know about, we’ve heard about and we’ve been talking about how,

in Surrey, we have the Wraparound service, a comprehensive service that

includes prevention strategies and exit strategies. But I’ll tell you

that here on south Vancouver Island, we also have a gang issue. Youth in

my community and across greater Victoria are recruited deliberately into

gangs.

On the south Island, we have only one part-time position in the

community of an active outreach counsellor to work with youth to prevent

them from being recruited into gangs. That is a fantastic counsellor

called Mia Golden who works for the CRED program at Pacific Centre

Family Services Association, a local non-profit in my constituency. We

know, from her work, that youth as young as 11 are being targeted in our

region.

Youth across our region have had such a lack of community services

for such a long time. Many, many youth have ended up falling through the

cracks in our community. These youth are targeted. They’re offered a

tribe, a sense of belonging. They’re offered something valuable,

something for free, something they might not otherwise have access to.

It might be drugs. It might be some kind of gear. It may be a new

gadget, just cash.

They’re building a dependent relationship. These youth are made

dependent, and then they’re taken advantage of. They’re made to run

errands. They’re made to become even more absorbed into the gang

culture, to take some responsibilities, to witness and observe and

experience other crimes being committed, to compromise them.

The youth, once in the gangs, are made to do the dirty work.

They’re made to go out and deal in drugs or maybe in weapons, maybe get

involved in trafficking. They’re sent out to collect the debts. How are

they going to do that? It involves assaults. It involves violence. It

involves risks of physical harm.

Over the past six years, the CRED program has seen the number of

youth in the CRD at risk of gang involvement increase from 30 to 73.

That’s over double, and there are more out there who aren’t even seeking

support.

There was one gang with over 20 members known to be active in my

constituency that was responsible for more than 200 police files in

2013. There are actually several gangs on south Vancouver Island. The

names of them I can’t even mention in chambers here because of rules of

language — rightly so.

The youth who want to escape these gangs are punished. I’ve seen

youth come into our centre with broken fingers. Youth have had their

cell phones just taken away from them forever. They’ve had any money or

anything valuable on them just taken away from them. They’ve been

threatened, and their families have been threatened. They are severely

punished if they want to try and escape, and their long-term outlook is

harmed and compromised.

We need to dismantle the system that targets these youth, and this

new security program offers more success in doing that. Exit is

possible. There was a young man on reserve locally who wanted to exit

from a local gang. He had support from the CRED program. It took months,

but eventually, he was helped with a lifetime deal to leave south

Vancouver Island. Now, I can’t say more than that — obviously, these are

really high-risk situations — except to say it helped to build local

intelligence and helped him rebuild his life.

Thanks again to Mia Golden at CRED and the team at Pacific Centre

Family Services Association for all of your work in the community — and

with the authorities, the collaborative work that is done locally to

prevent youth from getting lured into a gang lifestyle.

[2:40 p.m.]

To summarize, this new witness security program is designed to

meet B.C.’s needs that the federal system is unable to do. This is a

system that police agencies, judiciary, legal advice and experts have

all asked for and all been consulted on. A B.C.-based witness security

program was one of the first suggestions the RCMP “E” division

commanding officer Brenda Butterworth-Carr made when the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General first met with her and asked what

would make a difference.

The legislation will establish the witness security program, which

will be administered by the province in the Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General through a director of witness security and an

assessment panel. It will be run by a designated agency. It will

complement the federal program. It will facilitate difficult-to-obtain

evidence against organized crime groups. And it will help advance

prosecutions of gang and organized crime members. Ultimately, it will

enhance our Solicitor General’s gang suppression action plan. That will

make the lives of all communities and all British Columbians

safer.

B. Stewart: It gives me great honour to be here in the House speaking about

Bill 4. I think it’s certainly one of these things that everybody

embraces — the whole idea of: how do we end gangs and what they do in

our communities, whether it’s the opioid epidemic and how that is

fuelling the crime that seems to be taking place in British Columbia,

perhaps maybe more noticeably in and around the Lower

Mainland?

I want to commend the Solicitor General for his work in terms of

bringing this forward. I think that, as the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie suggested earlier, this is a tough file. It’s not easy.

I know that in his time, we invested an extra $30 million in guns and

gangs. That brings us up to about $80 million per year that the

government has committed to trying to make certain that we find ways

forward to making this happen. There’s also another program called exit

gangs. That’s also being funded by the government.

I’m sure that this piece of legislation is going to bring

additional costs and budget pressures to the government. That does raise

a point that I want to raise a little bit later. But I want to talk

about…. We don’t really hear about — and I didn’t hear the Solicitor

General talking as much about — how we were trying to work with the

federal government to make their witness security program work better.

We understand that it isn’t working in other provinces like Alberta,

Saskatchewan and Ontario and the city of Montreal. They’ve gone ahead

and instigated their own programs where they’re actually doing

this.

I think that one of the things that I would like to ask…. I

welcome the Solicitor General back to the chamber. I look forward to, in

committee, asking some of these questions. But I do want to make certain

that….

The concern that we have is: is the federal government paying for

its fair share in terms of this issue? I understand that it is a

national program. It exists. This is an enhancement to what has already

been proposed or is being proposed. I think that that’s one of the

things that we do feel: that they control the borders, they control a

lot of these items that are causing the access.

Whether it’s Immigration Canada or Border Services, they have an

ultimate responsibility to making certain that a province like British

Columbia, a coastal province that has more air flights than any other

city in North America coming into Vancouver…. Of course it’s going to be

under pressure because of access to some of these obvious gang-related

activities with many of the Asian areas where these people have come

from.

[2:45 p.m.]

I think one of the things that I do specifically have some

concerns about in the legislation is the risk of the money that we are

spending and how we protect the privacy of the individuals that we are

trying to keep under this witness security program. I think that it’s

robust in the description in here, but I just know that with this many

people…. Whether it’s people helping to reintroduce or whether it’s

health care, addictions services, mental health — all of those

touchpoints are an added risk in terms of trying to make certain that

the people that we want to keep successfully in this program are people

that are not…. There are no compromises.

I realize that it’s almost an impossible task. You know how

difficult, sometimes, it is to keep a secret. I don’t know how witness

protection programs work, but I think that we want to highlight that we

want to make certain, as the minister did say earlier, that this is

going to be excluded from the disclosure act. But more importantly, what

it is…. It’s the people in the background. I’m sure we have no problem

with the police services that are involved. It’s the people that are not

necessarily part of that.

I would hope that that’s something that the new organization

that’s being contemplated or being organized here would address, and I’m

sure they will. But I do want to raise that because, of course…. I mean,

in government, we have privacy breaches that are unintended, not because

we want to. We have all sorts of rules and regulations. This is going to

take an extra-special amount of effort to make certain that those are

protected so that we can get the convictions and put gangs out of

business.

I don’t know how you define success in that, in terms of the act,

in terms of…. I look at the number of homicides in British Columbia.

Certainly the number, compared to the rest of the country, and certainly

they are…. It is a high number, and we hear about it most days or weeks

in the news, etc. We do want to make certain that people who are

regular, everyday British Columbians are protected.

That doesn’t mean that the communities that they come from have an

unlimited amount of resources to be able to fund and pay for this. As

Bill 4 suggests, the level of cost is unknown — how long it goes on for.

And the communities that subscribe to whether the RCMP — or whether they

have individual policing in their communities — are going to be the ones

that bring this forward when a known informant or somebody that requires

this type of service comes forward….

The financial obligation goes on to…. Many small communities…. I

wouldn’t say that the community that I represent, both the cities of

West Kelowna and the city of Kelowna… Their policing budget is just over

$30 million. It’s my understanding, in just a brief discussion with some

of the people that serve or have served in this area, that this witness

protection program could run into, for an individual witness, the

neighbourhood of $1 million or more, depending on where they’re

relocated to, the costs, the services that are provided. To have that

put onto the backs of….

Take a small community next door to where I live — Peachland. It’s

got just under 6,000 residents. They’re now paying their percentage of

policing in terms of their community, but the reality is that if the

RCMP that covers that area was to decide that that was the

responsibility of that municipality, which is incorporated, it would be

a completely unfair situation and literally bankrupt a small

municipality.

I think that that isn’t addressed in terms of…. It does say who is

going to be responsible in the bill, and I think that the question

really is: how do we protect the communities that are not Vancouvers or

other large cities from this burden in terms of…? Not necessarily

through any fault of their own, they’re all of a sudden where gangs have

congregated. The members are there.

The situation is that these people have now taken on that

responsibility, and I think that the province, as well as the federal

government, have an obligation. If we’re going to put something like

this in place, then I think that the federal government should be

expected to contribute to this as well. Maybe that’s something that the

Solicitor General has in mind to ask for.

[2:50 p.m.]

I think that the important thing I’d just like to highlight is

that, clearly, we need to know if this is working. If we’re going to

spend whatever the amount is…. It’s undefined. But let’s use the

number…. It’s millions or tens of millions of dollars to run the

protection program. We’ve got the numbers. Obviously, we’re not

satisfied with the federal program.

There needs to be some sort of metric as to what is considered to

be success. Is it prosecutions? Successful prosecutions? I don’t know. I

think that probably it’s important for government to be able to have

some certainty or a review of this at some point in time so that the

people in Surrey feel like they’re getting some benefit from the

millions that are going to be spent on this.

I mentioned, also, the security issue. I think that we need to

ensure that we don’t spend all of that money and then have it

compromised because of somebody that’s providing a service that’s

contemplated in here. So we provide the wraparound services to make

certain that we rehabilitate and get these people that are informants

out of the system or where they’ve been in the past, not just move them

along to some other country with a name change.

The last

part is that the individual communities need protection.

They can’t just have a blank cheque in terms of taking on the

responsibility. What consultation has happened with communities or UBCM

to help address this concern? I think that that would be an interesting

conversation, maybe after this bill is finished being debated and going

through committee stage. I think it is important, certainly, that it is

up for discussion with municipalities, perhaps this year at UBCM,

because they do all need to be informed that this is coming down the

pipe.

With that, I just want to thank, again, the Solicitor General for

taking what is a very tough file and trying to make a difference. I’d

like to see…. If it is possible to find it within all of the resources

that are being dedicated to fighting crime in the province, perhaps we

could do more in terms of some of the on-the-ground supports for other

detachments and the municipalities across the province to help fight

this in their front yards and to make certain that it doesn’t get to the

stage where we have to have an expensive program like this in place

that’s going to add an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers in those

communities.

J. Brar: I’m really pleased to stand up in this House to support this bill,

the Witness Security Act, introduced in this House by our government to

help take down gangs and make our communities a safe place for

everyone.

I support this bill because people in Surrey — I’m going to talk

about Surrey — are really concerned with the ongoing gang-led crimes

taking place almost on a daily basis. I must say here that this is not a

Surrey problem. It’s a problem of the people of the province of British

Columbia. I know there are some focus points, whether it’s Abbotsford,

Vancouver or some other communities. But this is a problem faced by the

people of the province everywhere.

Sometimes it seems like this is unstoppable. The gang crimes, the

way it’s going on — it looks like it’s unstoppable. That’s one of the

questions we hear when we go out in public among the people.

Let me tell you that a friend of mine has lost two sons. He lost

two sons — a decent human being, very well educated, who came to this

country to make life better for his kids. He did everything possible, as

any parent does, to help support the kids. But he lost, at the end of

the day, two of his sons. He knocked on every door, I know, to find help

so he could pull his sons out of gang life.

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s almost impossible. It’s almost impossible, the way it is

going on at this point in time. One of the reasons that it’s impossible

is exactly because we don’t have witnesses to come forward to actually

have successful prosecutions.

I also have a relative who is right now struggling to deal with

his kids who have become part of the gangs. He has said to me and many

other people that he knocked on every door at all levels of government

to find support to bring his kids out of gang life but was unsuccessful,

and it happened.

The impact on the community is huge. It’s big. Young men, for

right or wrong reasons…. Many of them don’t know what they’re going to

enter when they enter into gang life. What they don’t know at that time

is that once you are in, you are in. There’s no exit. The reason, again,

behind that is that the witness program is not working at this point in

time.

Many of these crimes, to the best of my knowledge, take place

during the daylight in the presence of not one person but many people —

gang members. A murder takes place during the day, but nobody — the

people who were there that witnessed that murder taking place — is ready

to become a witness. That’s the challenge.

That’s a big challenge in the system. The key reason for that is

that the people are really scared to come forward and to provide the

witness, because they’re scared. They’re scared of the gang members

because they can eliminate not only them; they can eliminate their whole

family.

People feel that the system has failed to successfully prosecute

the gang members. That’s the feeling among the people out there. That

was the reason that the public safety issue became the number one issue

during the last civic election in Surrey. It would not be an

understatement that crime, particularly gang-led crime, was the number

one issue during the last civic election, and it still remains the

number one issue in the city of Surrey and some other parts of the

province as well.

People have the right to feel safe. We must take action to take

down the gangs. One of the key questions that people raise when I go in

the community is: why is it so difficult to successfully prosecute the

gang members? That’s the key question people ask. People think there is

something wrong with this system. There’s something that’s not

working.

People are right. There is something wrong with this system. One

of the challenges police face is to find credible witnesses — that’s

what we know — for a successful prosecution, because people, as I said

earlier, are scared to come forward to provide witness against a gang

member. That’s a big threat when you come forward. That’s the issue that

we face, and that’s the issue this particular act actually

addresses.

We need to fix that. This bill, in my view, is an action in the

right direction. We are proposing this strong witness security

management and support program to encourage more people with knowledge

of murders, drug trafficking and other gang-led crimes to share details

with police.

That’s the purpose of this bill. The majority of the organized

crime in B.C. depends on evidence of former friends, informants, and

it’s challenging to manage criminally involved witnesses. The proposed

legislation will establish the witness security program that will, in

fact, encourage witnesses to come forward without any fear. That’s the

purpose of the program.

[3:00 p.m.]

This program will be managed by the province in the Ministry of

Public Safety and Solicitor General, through a director of witness

security and assessment panel. It will be run by a designated agency to

make sure that it is effective and its working, and it will complement

the federal program.

The member made a kind of a point there that there’s a federal

program. Yes, there’s a federal program. This particular act will

complement that federal program to make it better and to give police

more tools so that they can make good, successful

prosecutions.

It will also facilitate difficult-to-obtain evidence against

organized crime groups. That’s what it will do. It will help advance

prosecutions of gangs and organized crime members. The Witness Security

Act will be one more tool that will help us destabilize gangs and

support prosecutions. That’s the key purpose of this bill, and that’s

why I’m here to support this bill.

I understand and the members probably on both sides of this

House…. I see some consensus there. This is a very deep, difficult and

complex problem. This particular program is not a full-package solution

to the whole thing, but this is another tool. This is another very

important tool, at least when it comes to the successful prosecutions of

gangs. This will certainly strengthen the police making the right case

in the justice system.

This is also a volunteer program. People who have the information

can come forward themselves, and they can volunteer that information.

This program provides full privacy when it comes to privacy and

confidentiality. There will be complete confidentiality provided under

the program. So that’s there. Without confidentiality, it would be hard

for people to come forward and support this program.

I hope — probably we all, members from both sides — hope that

there will be a day that B.C. will be gang-free. We are trying our best

to move forward into that situation. This particular bill is one good

step, in my view, that will make B.C. a safer place.

With that, I support the bill, and I will take my seat.

S. Cadieux: I’m here today to speak to Bill 4, the Witness Security Act. I am

in favour of doing everything we can to combat gang crime and criminal

activity in our province. And the way that I understand witness security

has worked in this province has presented our police services with some

real challenges, especially in the fight against gang violence and

organized crime. Currently the only option in British Columbia is the

federally-run witness security program. That program has been slow and

underfunded. That situation puts lives at risk.

Every day that there’s another delay, there’s another day that

criminal members, gang members, are on the streets, and that creates a

risk to public safety. You don’t have to be a police officer to know

that. The lives of potential witnesses are also often at risk during the

delays that exist with the federal witness system.

The fact of the matter is that most of the cases targeting

organized crime in B.C. can only move forward and go to trial when

they’ve had the opportunity to rely on testimony from former accomplices

of the accused. The reliance on informants makes witness security

critical. Who’s going to come forward if they don’t feel they’re going

to be safe?

The impact of gang violence can’t be underestimated. Certainly,

some communities feel that more deeply than others. Certainly, in the

Lower Mainland, our communities feel it deeply. Of the 118 homicides in

British Columbia in 2017, more than a third were gang

related.

[3:05 p.m.]

Of those 44 gang-related homicides, as we know, a great number

were in Surrey. So I can see how the Witness Security Act can be a

useful tool for police in our province to tackle gang violence and

organized crime.

On its surface, the provincial Witness Security Act promises to be

more nimble and easier and quicker to apply properly so that we can move

these things forward, and that would be a good thing. As well, I think

there are good approaches in this bill — helping witnesses transition to

a new life, facilitating treatment for mental health or addictions or

helping with the more significant name or identity changes where

necessary, and certainly helping with access to job training.

I think it’s about taking public safety beyond prosecuting the

criminals and toward helping criminals leave their old life behind,

which I believe is what we would all hope they would do. That’s very

supportable. That said, I do have some concerns with the bill, but

really, only as the concern relates to potential costs. Not that those

costs aren’t something we should bear, but in the legislation, as I read

it, it’s expected that law enforcement will be applying to the program

on behalf of the witness and that law enforcement agency will pay for

the services. That is concerning, given the real financial challenges

that police forces all over B.C. are facing right now.

We know, and we just saw a week or so ago, that right here in

Victoria, the city council was unable to provide, in its budget, new

funds for police — now, mostly because that went to paying new costs

imposed by government. But the reality in Surrey is similar. The council

didn’t approve the hiring of additional police officers for this year,

although we all know, and certainly all of the members of this House

from Surrey know, the need for additional officers is very

real.

Also, we know with the proposed move now by the mayor and council

to move to a new city police force, away from the RCMP, the city will

also be challenged and the police service challenged, financially, with

the cost of that transition.

While I believe that there’s a need for this act and this service,

I am concerned about approving this without understanding what those

costs are likely to be and how the agencies will cover those costs. If

we make a choice to suggest that here, this great new service is

available, and it will help us to combat gang violence…. If, then, the

agencies don’t use the service because they can’t afford to pay for it,

that is also going to be a problem. If that service, then, is used, but

the costs of paying for that take away from existing services like

police officers on the ground, that, too, would not be a welcome

outcome.

The reality is that we all, I believe, support the idea of

tackling gang violence and doing everything we can. I do believe that

our government took all the steps we could and made good efforts. I

believe this government is taking good steps and making best efforts. We

all care about the safety of our families, our communities and our

streets. None of us want to see young people enter a life of crime.

There are huge costs associated with dealing with that after the fact as

well.

[3:10 p.m.]

We know that in order to prosecute crime, in order to get at the

root of this gang violence, we need for people to step forward. We need

them to know that they’re going to be safe when they do that, and we

need them to know that we have their backs in doing so. If they have the

strength to come forward, we need to provide services to them to make

sure that they’re safe. That’s important.

Certainly, I will be in support of the act, and I hope that the

questions around the costs and how those will be managed by the province

and the agencies will be forthcoming in the committee stage of the

bill.

R. Singh: It gives me pleasure to stand in support of this Bill 4 and the

stronger witness security program. I really want to thank our Minister

of Public Safety for his commitment to deal with this issue. Being a

member from Surrey, where we are experiencing a high number of deaths

related to gang violence, I am really pleased that we have a minister

who’s committed.

I remember that when we formed the government, one of the first

meetings that the Minister of Public Safety had was a meeting with the

stakeholders in Surrey, talking about this issue. Being a mother myself,

and having a teenage child, I’m always very disturbed whenever I hear

any such news as when a young life is taken just so soon. I totally

understand that this is a very, very complex matter. It’s non-partisan.

It is not something that can be dealt with, with just one single

recipe.

There are all kinds of collaborative approaches that we need to

resolve this issue. One of the first announcements that the minister

made — he made it in Surrey also — was in the field of prevention, like

the funding that he committed to the Wraparound program. That was one

step to prevent our kids who are vulnerable, kids who are prone to

getting into this kind of life, from getting into gang violence. That’s

because there’s nothing like prevention. I believe that.

Also, we were hearing from a lot of families and also from the

stakeholders that once charges are laid after a crime has occurred, then

there is definitely more need for a stronger witness security program.

I’m very glad with this tailored-to-B.C. approach that the minister is

bringing with Bill 4. That will help more people to come forward and to

testify.

I know it is so hard to lose a loved one, but once the person is

gone, the family needs the support, and we as a society have to give it

to them. I am really hoping that with this bill coming into force, more

and more people will feel faith in one thing: it will make the process

less cumbersome and easier to navigate but also give the most vulnerable

people who are affected by these crimes more security so that they can

testify without any fear or any threat.

I think this will be one step that will curtail the gang violence,

because the whole purpose of these things is that we don’t want these

young lives to be lost. We want to put a stop to this. With a more

strict or more rigid program coming in, I think that when we get more

results out of it, it will hinder it, and our youth can see the results.

That is something. If they are into this kind of life, there is an end

to it, and there are consequences related to that. That’s very important

to emphasize.

[3:15 p.m.]

I’m really thankful to the Minister of Public Safety and to our

government for taking this matter so seriously, and with compassion

also. I really want to thank them. I would like to close, but I totally

stand in support of this bill.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of Bill 4,

the Witness Security Act, 2019. This bill takes the important and

necessary step of establishing a provincial witness security

program.

As you know, hon. Speaker, witnesses are essential to justice in

our province. They come forward, often at great personal risk, to help

us ensure a safe and a just society. The least we can do is to protect

them in return. Although the federal witness program does its best to

protect these individuals, delays and strict program requirements have

resulted in low witness retention. This, in turn, has hampered the

administration of justice in British Columbia. By establishing a

provincial program now, we are following the same path that other

provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, at least temporarily, as

well as Manitoba have followed.

As members are aware, public trust in British Columbia’s

government has been rather shaken of late. Money-laundering and its

connection to the crises involving real estate and opioids have abounded

in the newspapers. There have been serious allegations made in our own

Legislature that point to a culture of entitlement and abuse of power.

In light of these events, it’s more important than ever that we restore

the public trust by improving our justice system. British Columbians

must trust our judicial system, not only to hold people accountable for

their actions but to protect the people who do an immense public service

by coming forward as witnesses.

I’m pleased to see this legislation before us today, as it, in my

view and the view of my caucus colleagues, marks another step forward in

restoring public trust in British Columbia.

With that, I thank you for your attention and take my place in the

debate.

G. Begg: It is my pleasure today, too, to rise in support of this

much-needed legislation which, at its base, is another tool in the

toolbox of law enforcement. It’s designed to encourage more people with

knowledge of murders, drug trafficking and other gang-involved crimes to

share the information that they have with the police.

The world we live in today is constantly changing. Advancements

are made every day. We read daily of advancements in medical science, in

space exploration and climate change, in the very way that we live our

lives. What we don’t hear about often are the advancements that are

being made and have been made in criminal activity, particularly

organized criminal activity involving highly motivated, highly educated

and sophisticated young men and women who, for whatever reason, find

themselves involved in crime.

Most of what we know about crime has been glorified and magnified

by what we see on television and in the movies and read in the paper.

But the days of what we used to refer to as traditional organized

crime…. It is and has for many years now been obsolete. The mobster of

yesterday and yesteryear is long gone. Cell phones, clone phones,

international syndicates, online banking, money laundering and offshore

banks are now the new face of what we face in combatting crime in

British Columbia.

As a young person growing up in Ontario, organized crime was what

was then referred to as “traditional organized crime,” largely related

around ethnic groups and very silent. You very rarely heard of the

criminal activity that they were involved in. Today, of course,

organized crime and gang violence has reached a level that we would not

have thought about 20 years ago.

[3:20 p.m.]

I was around in this province as a policeman for the birth of the

UN gang, the United Nations gang. It was formed in Abbotsford in the

late 1990s by a group of high school friends from across the Fraser

Valley. Yes, you heard that right: a group of high school friends from

across the Fraser Valley. They began as a loose-knit group of Abbotsford

young people linked to Asian organized crime, and they grew very

quickly.

I can remember attending briefings as a police officer of many

years’ experience at that time and being amazed at the sophistication of

this group. As we watched and observed, they began a profitable

drug-running enterprise involving helicopters flying across the

U.S.-Canada border, trading what was then much-sought-after British

Columbia cannabis and bringing back cocaine to be sold in

Canada.

As a new criminal organization, the UN gang fought a number of

turf wars against other gangs — most notably in this province, the Red

Scorpions. They also led a turf war against the Independent Soldiers

gang, as it sought to establish itself. Always lurking in the background

was one of the biggest rival gangs in this province, the Hell’s

Angels.

As one might suspect, what began as a war became an agreement to

work together for the common good — not the common good that you and I

expect, but the common no good. They realized, as part of their tactical

operations, that they could be more effective in their trade if they

worked together. So alliances were formed all across this province.

Former enemies became friends and compatriots. They were no longer

rivals in the drug trade; they facilitated the activities of each other.

That, I think, was the start in this province. That organizational

shift, that change in the way they do business, began the gang

wars.

Persons with information became threatened by those who feared

that the release of that information could lead to the interruption of

their illegal commerce. These young high school kids from the Fraser

Valley began to see that their lives could be in danger, that the

information they had, if revealed, could threaten their lives. As a

result of that, I think, today we have found ourselves in the midst of

unprecedented murders here in British Columbia.

I think it’s nice to have a historical perspective on how we got

to where we are. It’s also helpful, I think, to think of these issues in

non-partisan terms. I believe that every member of this Legislature

should do as I do, which is to embrace this new legislation, which will

help the police to deal, at its core, with the cause of this

crime.

Although this crime issue is new and in an unprecedented form

today, the witness protection program in this country is not new. It is

something that was proclaimed, probably, in 1996. I remember then

Governor General Roméo LeBlanc proclaiming it as the law of the land. It

was, at that time, a program that was totally administered by the RCMP.

I, of course, was part of the RCMP. The process that was involved then,

under certain circumstances, allowed witnesses who were in a position to

help police in combatting organized crime to be given a new name. That

was the new start. They could be relocated anywhere in the country after

they had given information to the police.

[3:25 p.m.]

In today’s world, those persons with information that could help

the police find themselves in danger. Those people who have been

witnesses to crime find themselves in potential danger. That danger

starts, usually, when they’re called as witnesses in criminal

proceedings.

We have courthouses in British Columbia today, as a result of all

of this activity, that are called high-security courtrooms. They are

designed to thwart an attempt on the life of witnesses to criminal

proceedings. So if you are involved in today’s crime, if you’re involved

in a gang and you fear for your life, what is the opportunity that you

have to share that information with the police? Chances are that you

will share that information with no one, because you will have witnessed

violence in your group or outside your group that causes you to

fear.

What has happened in British Columbia is that our criminal justice

system has become paralyzed by the lack of our ability to properly

insulate individuals from repercussions as a result of gang activity.

The steps that are being taken today are bold. There are other provinces

in Canada who have made this step and, as a result, have decreased, in

measurable terms, the number of gang-related incidents and increased the

number of convictions — as a result of their ability to protect

witnesses.

The program that is being contemplated here today by the

legislation that we are advancing will do much to encourage more people

with knowledge of crime. When we talk of crime, we’re not talking of

petty crime. We’re talking of major crime. We’re talking of murders;

we’re talking about other gang-related activity. There must be an

incentive for those people with that knowledge to share it with the

police, to share it with the Crown, with the assurance that the police

and other enforcement agencies will do whatever is required to ensure

that no harm comes to them as a result of their involvement in the

judicial system.

Think of that for a moment. What kind of country would countenance

an arrangement whereby if you gave witness to a crime in a court, your

life could be in danger? Certainly not an advanced civilization in the

21st century. Certainly not British Columbia, with an unprecedented rate

of violent crime. There are people with intimate details of very serious

crime who, today, are forced to not acknowledge their knowledge for that

fear. The legislation that is being contemplated today is a major step

forward in reducing the overall crime rate in this province. It is a

major step forward in ensuring that, without fear, persons can step

forward and say: “I saw” or “I did” or “I heard” or “I was

there.”

I spent many years policing in Surrey — now, unfortunately, the

locale of many crimes. Too often I was frustrated by the lack of

witnesses. I knew they were witnesses, but they would not speak of what

they had seen for legitimate fear of what would happen to them if they

did.

This legislation allows us to protect, with integrity, those

people who bravely step forward and offer to help the police. That is

the responsibility of every citizen. We always say: “If you see

something, say something.” If you don’t, our society is degraded, and

all of us are in danger. That is not a society that I would choose to

live in. That is not a society that we should choose to live

in.

[3:30 p.m.]

This is, I know, a non-partisan issue. I know that everyone in

this House will support this legislation, and I commend the Solicitor

General for being brave enough to make this an important item for us. We

will be the beneficiaries. British Columbia will be safer. Crime will be

decreased as a result of this legislation.

I welcome the chance to speak to it, and I urge everyone in this

House to support it.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand again and speak on legislation that is

very, very close to me. I know many people in this House who would look

at improving our system, where we could have a successful prosecution of

those who are involved in gangs and gun violence. Too many families have

been left with their loved ones taken away from them. The success of

prosecution isn’t what it should be, especially here in British

Columbia.

Safety and security of one’s family and one’s self is the basic

foundation of who we are as a society. If we don’t feel safe in our own

homes, if we don’t feel safe walking our children in our neighbourhoods

and neighbourhood parks or using public facilities, nothing else

matters. Nothing else matters.

That’s why there are key pillars in solving crime. I’m not an

expert, but I have listened to many experts such as the speaker before

me, who spent all of his life dealing with crime and preventing crime

and prosecuting those who were involved in crime — the member for

Surrey-Guildford. But I know what some of the key pillars are.

Prevention is number one where we need to be spending a lot of our

resources, then enforcement and then deterrence. We can look at each one

of them. How are we going to do this?

This bill, Bill 4, Witness Security Act, goes a long way towards

that. If witnesses who have seen the crime — who would like to come out

and help police and help our society to put those people behind bars —

don’t fear for their life or their loved ones, chances are they will

come forward. That’s where the prevention could also come. If they know

something is about to happen, if they know there are people who they

know are involved or are planning to harm somebody, then they could come

forward and prevent that from happening.

Then again, if the crime has occurred and they know they have the

information and they know that they will be protected, that their

families will be protected, chances are they will come forward and

provide that expert advice and witness to what they have seen so that we

are successful in putting those people behind bars who are causing harm

in our neighbourhoods. Once we do that, once we are successful in

putting those people behind bars, then you know that is a strong

deterrent as well.

I think it goes a long way to deal with solving crime — first of

all, preventing and then solving crime, if it happens. I want to thank

our Solicitor General for coming forward and putting this legislation in

place.

We have seen that in British Columbia, in 2017, the numbers are

staggering. We have seen the largest provincial increase and highest

proportion of gang-related homicides in 2017 in all of Canada, and it’s

the only province in which gang-related homicides represent a third or

more of the total homicides two years running, in 2016 and

[3:35 p.m.]

There are other studies out there. Our current Speaker of the

House, the member for Abbotsford South, was involved in a study that

looked at all of the different jurisdictions in the country. That report

is about two years old now. At that particular time, that report told us

and the research was clear that for solving homicide crime in British

Columbia compared to the rest of the country, we had the lowest solving

ratio of all the provinces. They reported a number of reasons behind

that.

They also talked about not only just the gang-related or the gun

violence, but they also related non-gang-related. They made a

comparison. In each of those categories, our success rate was not even

in the middle of where our country is, compared to the rest of the

jurisdictions. We were one of the lowest.

I think these are the steps that are needed to take. These maybe

look like small steps, but without witnesses, you know that the success

of prosecution usually isn’t as we would like it to be when it comes to

the success of putting those people behind bars.

The issue is…. What we’re trying to achieve here is that

successful prosecution will send a clear message to those involved in

organized crime that the province is taking firm and strong actions to

deal with gang violence and that our overall goal is to increase our

public safety.

This legislation empowers enforcement agencies to apply to a

program on behalf of a witness or a person associated with a witness,

such as a family member who is also under threat. It is going a ways to

tell those who have information about crime that if they come forward,

they will be protected. Right now that is not the case. That’s why this

bill is timely, and it is very, very important, I think.

Police have a number of different methods — using surveillance,

using wiretap, undercover. Many of those can be quite dangerous for the

police force themselves, especially being undercover, if you are to go

and work with those who are really dangerous people. If we have

witnesses who also worry about their safety and the safety of their

families, chances are they will be reluctant to come forward.

I think we owe it to all those families who have lost their loved

ones and no one is held accountable. We owe it to those who maybe were

innocent bystanders. They were taken away from their families. We owe it

to those who were simply doing their work, their job, and a stray bullet

hit them. Many people may have information about the people behind that

gun, but they don’t want to come forward because they are worried about

their safety.

This legislation is to deal with that. My understanding is that

British Columbia lags way behind in this area. Other jurisdictions are

way ahead of us. That’s why we are not only just catching up but sending

a clear message that we mean business, that we are coming after you if

you are to pick up a gun and cause harm to anybody.

I’m really proud to stand here to support this bill. We were

involved in Surrey even when we were on the opposition benches, because

crime had become a real issue for people in that region.

I want to make it clear here that criminals have no boundaries.

They don’t have any different area or one particular area where they

want to commit crime. You see people. They’re living in Surrey, but

they’re committing crime in Vancouver, or vice versa. Those who are

living in Delta are committing crime in Abbotsford. Those living in

Abbotsford commit a crime in Kelowna.

[3:40 p.m.]

They are moving to do their business wherever their business takes

them. They’re creating havoc in the neighbourhoods, in the communities

and especially for those families who are worried, when their children

are out, whether their children are going to come home or

not.

Many people take the attitude that these gang members are killing

each other, so who cares. But that’s not who we are as a society, number

one. Number two, we have had incidences with people sitting in their own

homes where the bullet came flying through the window, and they were

very lucky to survive. Other times you’ve seen the bullets flying

through and hitting the schools in different areas. I think those people

who are bad people have bad intentions. They don’t really care as long

as they get their target. Who else is getting hit is not their

worry.

I think the issue is that we have allowed crime to get out of

hand, especially south of the Fraser and in Abbotsford. It started in

Vancouver. Like I said, every community has its share. We need to take

an overall approach, and this bill goes towards that. It’s not just

area-specific. It’s not to deal with one particular kind of crime. It is

about encouraging those who may have information about a crime to come

forward, and they will be looked after.

I think that’s the only way we could ask witnesses to come

forward. You cannot put witnesses at risk of losing their life or

putting their family in harm’s way. I think this is the least we can do.

It is not just for those families who have lost their loved ones. As a

society, I think we need to send a clear message that we mean business.

We’re serious about cutting crime and dealing with crime in this

province.

I want to thank the minister responsible, who has taken this issue

very seriously. He has come out to Surrey and met with many

stakeholders. He has provided resources that are needed on the

prevention side, for example. When I was talking to Rob Rai, who runs

the Wraparound program in our high schools, before we were elected,

even, I said: “Rob, what is going on? How do we help you?” He said:

“Look, we have a very successful program. It is so successful that we

have 40 to 50 youth always on the waiting list.”

I said: “There’s something wrong with that.” That child is coming,

that youth is coming for help because he’s moving in the wrong

direction. He’s pushed into a wrong direction. Finally, he or she made a

decision. “I need help. I want to get away. I want to get back on the

right track.” And we’re saying: “We can’t help you. Just get in the

lineup.” Something’s wrong with that. How are we going to help the

children? That youth is going to go away, because there are other forces

pushing and pulling him.

I checked with the minister after we got elected. He told me that

he needed about $500,000 to eliminate the wait-list. I spoke to our

minister. The minister said that that made sense. Before I knew it, he

was in Surrey making an announcement that they will get $500,000 on an

ongoing basis. Not just ad hoc, the way the program was funded before.

It will be on an ongoing basis. Every year they will get $500,000. Rob

Rai is very, very happy that he’s now able to help those youth who need

help at that particular time rather than telling them to go and

wait.

Those are the types of steps we are taking. I’m so happy and proud

to be part of a government which is taking these issues that are so

important to our community, so important to our families, and that we

are moving in the right direction. This bill, the Witness Security Act,

is one of the areas that I think was long overdue, and we are moving in

that direction. I hope that we will get the support from both sides of

the House, all three parties.

[3:45 p.m.]

I can tell you that when I go out there and door-knock…. I do it

between elections just to see where my constituents are and what their

issues are so that I understand, when I stand up here, that the issues

I’m speaking about here are the issues that they gave to me.

One of the things that they would tell you all the time…. They’ve

got jobs. They live in a nice neighbourhood. Then I ask them: “What are

the issues in this neighbourhood? Are there any issues or concerns that

you want to share with me?” At first, they are shocked to see that

somebody is there, talking to them, asking about their

issues.

When I ask about different issues — about education, health care,

crime — then they just open up. They say: “Well, we can hardly take our

children to school without walking by someone who is selling drugs on

our street.” And I say: “Why don’t you call the police?” “We try. We

call them, but we have given up because the police say they don’t have

enough resources.” They don’t come, and these drug dealers know that as

well — that they are going to get away with it.

One of the neighbours told me…. When I asked, “Why are you doing

it in our neighbourhood?” this drug dealer said, “Well, call the police

if you don’t like it,” knowing that the police are not going to show

up.

I think we owe it to our families. We owe it to our

neighbourhoods. We owe it to our communities. They must feel safe when

they are walking in their neighbourhood. They must have confidence that

their children are safe when they are walking by that kind of an

environment in their neighbourhood.

They must feel safe inside their homes — that stray bullets aren’t

going to fly through the window and hit someone in that house. They

should feel confident that when their children are in school, they are

safe, that bullets aren’t flying through the windows of the school. That

has happened. We have seen innocent bystanders getting killed. We have

seen mistaken identities and somebody getting killed.

Where is the accountability? I think that’s, basically, what we

are talking about here. How many of them have been thrown behind bars,

who have committed a crime in our neighbourhoods?

I think the report by our Speaker is very clear — that our success

rate in solving homicides, especially gang-related, is the lowest in the

country. There has to be a reason behind it. They’re comparing apples to

apples, not just gang-related versus non-gang-related. They have divided

up those two areas all across the country. When B.C. fell way behind….

I’m talking about this study that was conducted about two years

ago.

I think action was needed many years ago. Nonetheless, we are here

now. I’m so happy that our minister has taken this thing seriously. This

bill goes a long way in dealing with the area of solving crime by

encouraging witnesses to come forward with the information that they may

have and be a Crown witness so that we can put those people behind bars

and end gang violence and gun violence.

I’m happy to share my views on that. I have a lot more to say. I

think, for now, I would say that those are my comments on this issue.

I’m happy to stand here and support Bill 4.

Deputy Speaker: When the minister rises, it shall close debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise to close debate and to take a little bit

of time to respond to the thoughtful comments from both sides of the

House on this important piece of legislation.

I’ve listened with great care. I know that when we get to

committee stage, there will be an opportunity to address questions that

I know members of the opposition have put forward. My critic from Prince

George–Mackenzie has raised issues around costs again, very important

questions. We will have that ability to explore those issues during the

stage-by-stage debate, during committee stage.

I want to talk a little bit about why I think this bill is

important and to give some comfort to members that it’s not a piece of

legislation that has been developed in isolation.

[3:50 p.m.]

As all of us know, the issue of gang crime and gang violence in

this province has been one that has been evolving. It has been evolving

for a number of reasons. My colleague the former RCMP inspector who has

had more experience with this matter than, I think, the rest of us

combined in this House, has outlined changes — societal changes, changes

in technology — that have made it easier for non-traditional organized

crime to develop and to take hold in a way that law enforcement probably

never imagined or that society or the general public ever

imagined.

For many years, organized crime, as has been pointed out, was very

much often family based, in major urban centres that were dominated by

some very traditional organized crime structures, which all of us know

were quite often the basis for films or TV shows. Every once in a while,

there would be an eruption of violence. The details would be splashed

across the papers, quite often south of the border, and they would make

their way up here. You would have TV shows that were developed on that

kind of approach. The Eliot Ness one in the late ’50s and early ’60s was

very much the public’s view of organized crime. It was carried out in

secret, behind closed doors. I guess a more recent show would be The

Sopranos . But that’s often very much the public’s

view.

The world has changed because of the changes in technology,

because of the changes in communications, because of the changes in cell

phones. The ability to get a cell phone and to dispose of it, because it

is so inexpensive and so cheap…. It is, in essence, the cost of doing

business.

Whereas before, being able to tap a land line, getting the

authorization to do that, allowed the police to be able to build and

develop a case, using Revenue Canada and their ability to use tax

records. In terms of the fight against organized crime, often the first

breakthroughs in the traditional, sort of, structures were to follow the

money. You know, follow the money, and that’s how those successes were

taking place.

Witness protection programs were a part of that. They were done at

the national level, at the federal level. But what we have seen,

especially in this province, has been a complete change over the last

few decades of how the development has taken place in organized crime.

We saw it in small groups that were starting out, the drug lines, the

links to offshore emerging markets in emerging countries.

Quite often, in terms of the drug trade, initially it was coming

out of South America, and it was coming out of Mexico, for example, and

the drug cartels down there. What we’ve seen is the growth coming out of

Asia, in particular, China, when it comes to fentanyl and the challenges

that that places on our national authorities, on our border agencies, on

our federal resources to be able to deal with organized

crime.

On top of that were changes that were made at the federal level in

terms of priorities. We’ve seen that in terms of the rise of terrorism

over the last 20 years and how that has impacted even here, and the

changing and the reallocation of resources at the federal level, from

organized crime to dealing with terrorism issues.

All of these things, and the challenges that government faces….

And the fact that government, and rightly so, is governed by laws, our

Charter of Rights, court decisions. All of those things that are the

underpinnings of a democratic society — that rule of law that we abide

by — organized criminals and those engaged in that kind of criminal

activity don’t care about. That’s not part of who they are. It’s not

part of how they operate. So they are constantly evolving.

[3:55 p.m.]

than ever before, using apps that are meant to assist people to engage

with each other, but have a dark side, a flip side which allows that

disposability, that ability to use technology to create very silent ways

of communicating, very silent ways of transferring money. The emergence

of cryptocurrencies, for example.

I mean, one of the biggest…. It gets a lot of press, and you see

the things. You know, “If you’d invested this much, you’d be worth this

much,” and then two weeks later, it’s down, and people go: “Wow, isn’t

this neat?” It is fascinating. But at the same time, who is paying

attention to that? Who is looking at those kinds of things? Organized

crime. Criminals. Gangs. All of those things are a way to hide assets,

to continue to do what they do in a way that was never dreamt

of.

We have seen that, and that structure, come down to people who are

younger than ever before — getting involved because they see some sort

of glamour. They see some sort of easy money. They see some sort of fast

approach to a lifestyle that we all know has only two outcomes: behind

bars or a toe tag.

One of the things that we need to do and one of the things that

government has recognized and that parents have recognized and that

educators have recognized is the need and importance to have a

multi-pronged approach when it comes to dealing with crime. The

education

part is critical. The resources to school systems, to

communities such as Surrey, to communities such as Abbotsford, to

communities such as Williams Lake, to have programs in place, to educate

kids at a very early age to be able to start to get them if they’re

showing signs of the wrong kind of behavior, if they’re showing signs

that could lead them down into a gang lifestyle or that wrong criminal

track, to be able to put them back onto the right track.

It means the family supports. It means the educational supports.

All of those things are important, and all of those are things that

government has been doing and will continue to do.

At the same time, on the consequence side, there is the need to be

able to say and the need to be able to put in place that you know what?

You will get caught. You will go to jail, if you don’t get killed. And

you will lose those things. So we have seen the development of

legislation, which has seen, for example, civil forfeiture, which has

allowed us to confiscate assets. To be able to say: “You know what? That

Lamborghini that was obtained with the proceeds of criminal activity —

sorry, it’s not yours anymore. You can walk, if you’re not going to

jail. But you’re losing it.” And that fancy house obtained with criminal

proceeds? That’s gone too.

We have a number of court cases underway with criminal

organizations, the Hell’s Angels being one, where civil forfeiture is

currently being used. That’s one aspect that government has put in

place. There’s other legislation that has been introduced that will

assist in that. But again, it’s an example of that multi-pronged

approach that has to be taken.

Then there is the challenge of getting the evidence, the challenge

of putting together a case, the challenge of being able to, with all the

changes that have taken place — all the case law that has happened, all

the changes in law at the federal level in terms of developing the rules

and the guidelines and those cases that set precedents by which law

enforcement must operate and which governments must take into account….

There then becomes that ability to be able to put together a

case.

As we know, the most effective way to do that is having evidence

that will stand up in court, whether it is DNA evidence, whether it is

records or witnesses — people who have been involved firsthand in the

kind of criminal activity that we have seen, the kind of criminal

activity that everybody who has spoken in this House has

recognized.

[4:00 p.m.]

There are people who have seen things, who have participated in

things, who know things that need to come forward. And there are many

who know that they do need to come forward, but they don’t know how.

They fear for their own safety, or they fear for the safety of their

friends and their family, and they want do the right thing because, at

some point, they have become sickened by what they have seen. Or they

have become scared for their own safety by what they have seen and what

they know, and they want to be able to assist the police and do the

right thing.

We have the federal program in place, and that will continue to be

in place. But what we need in this province, and what other provinces

have recognized, is something that is B.C.-based that allows us to deal

with the situations that we find here in British Columbia and that is

flexible and adaptable and can be put into place quickly. That’s what

this legislation is about.

It will give us a unique flexibility that will assist the police

and law enforcement agencies in this province to be able to do just

that, to be able to say to someone: “There is another path. We can

protect you if you testify. We can help. There is legislation that will

allow us to do this.”

I can tell you, upon becoming Solicitor General and having my

first meeting with E division…. We talked about: “What are the kinds of

things that you would like to see happen?” This was at the top of their

list. They viewed this as a significant advance that would assist them

in terms of dealing with gang violence and organized crime in the

province of British Columbia.

When I talk with community groups, when I talk with local councils

about the kind of support they need, it’s not just on the education

front, not just in terms of putting more boots on the ground but the

kinds of things that would assist police in being able to do a better

job, not only in bringing individuals to justice but to have more

successful prosecutions.

This has been the experience in Alberta. This has been the

experience in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Ontario and Quebec also have a

different kind of program, but they’ve all gone down this route of

recognizing that they need something that meets the needs of their

individual provinces and their individual demographics and their

individual, unique circumstances.

That’s what this legislation is about, and that’s why I am so

pleased to be able to stand and have this before the House — and very

pleased with the support that it has received so far. As I said, there

will be plenty of time to deal with the questions at committee stage. I

look forward to doing just that.

With that, I will take my place, as the final speaker on this

particular piece of legislation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill 4, Witness

Security Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move