Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 19, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 213

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

S. Furstenau

Motions Without Notice

Membership change to Public Accounts Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Membership change to Finance Committee

Hon. M. Farnworth

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship (continued)

L. Doerkson

Hon. J. Osborne

I. Paton

M. Lee

J. Sturdy

A. Olsen

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

P. Milobar

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2022

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. Oakes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

I am pleased today to introduce, on behalf of the member for

Fraser-Nicola, who is presiding in the House today so of course is unable to

make the introduction, a group of grades 7 and 8 students from Hope

Secondary School and their chaperones.

I hope that you have a wonderful and informative visit to the

Legislature.

Would the House please help make these students welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Eby: I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Land, Water and Resource

Stewardship in the little House.

In this House, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry of Attorney General

and Housing.

[1:05 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:06 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000.

The Chair: Would the minister wish to introduce his staff?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. Joining me today are Tracy

Campbell, ADM, executive finance officer; Peter Juk, assistant Deputy

Attorney General, B.C. Prosecution Service; and Shannon Salter, the

Deputy Attorney General.

M. de Jong: As we embark upon this annual exercise of reviewing the budgetary

estimates, for the Ministry of Attorney General in this case, maybe a

bit of a softball question to begin with. When we go through this, we

can obviously look at the blue books, and the minister, the Attorney,

has mentioned the number we are voting on. How that is allocated within

the budget is somewhat helpful in determining priorities. The Attorney

has a mandate letter, following the last election. Sometimes that’s

helpful, and we may get to that at some point.

I think, at this point, what I was hoping to ask the Attorney….

Looking to the year ahead, looking to that period for which these budget

estimates apply, what can he tell the Committee of Supply about the

areas of priority that he sees as being paramount? I’m hopeful that at

least one or two of those areas are consistent with areas that I think

might be priorities and that that might give us some licence to explore

those further.

[1:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m going to be focusing my response to the member’s question on

justice-related priorities. That’s the staff that are with me. I’ll take

it as written — it’s the Ministry of Attorney General and Housing — that

housing is a priority, and so is anti-racism. I’ll be focusing on the

Ministry of Attorney General justice side of the equation in my

response.

Indigenous justice is a priority for government, our continuing

work on the Indigenous justice strategy.

Modernization, holding on to the gains that we made during the

pandemic of transforming how justice services are delivered in the

province, building on those and solidifying them.

Access to justice generally. That would include, under that

subhead, legal aid or clinic initiatives, a wide variety of different

programs.

Prolific offenders and crime, particularly in downtown cores, and

how the justice system fits in with social services and other responses

to respond to mental health and addiction issues that drive repeated

criminal activity.

Family justice and family justice law reform.

Finally, our work around the regulator of legal services in the

province, through the office of the superintendent of professional

governance and through my ministry.

M. de Jong: We are not going to have time during these proceedings to discuss

all of those areas. That’s clear.

I was pleased, a moment ago, to hear the Attorney include in that

menu of priorities a couple of the areas that I would like to canvass

over the next few days in these proceedings. Maybe, though, because the

Attorney has alerted the committee to these areas of priority, I can ask

at least this with respect to these areas.

We’ll start with the first one: Indigenous justice. I’ll ask the

same question with a couple of the other areas that he’s

mentioned.

We’re standing here 12 months from now, as we likely will be.

Assuming the Attorney General is still in his post as Attorney General,

when, or if, he is asked to outline what he believes is representative

of success in addressing that priority area, what will he say? What are

his objectives and the ministry’s and the government’s objectives today,

going forward, as they relate to Indigenous justice?

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his patience.

The work on Indigenous justice is informed by the Indigenous

justice strategy. It has been developed and signed and is in the full

implementation phase right now.

I’ll run through some of the items that my ministry is working on,

but to underline, the member should also canvass this with the Ministry

of Public Safety and Solicitor General, as there is significant work

happening in that ministry as well. That minister is the best place to

answer the corrections-related, probation-related and other

policing-related Indigenous justice questions.

[1:20 p.m.]

There is also a parallel process, a Métis justice strategy. In the

next year, we expect to have that strategy finalized with Métis Nation

B.C. and to be in implementation of that strategy. The strategy has not

been announced or released yet.

On the Indigenous justice strategy, the member will recall there

are two tracks. One track is about building up capacity in Indigenous

organizations in the justice sector, to facilitate increased

jurisdiction and taking responsibility over aspects of the justice

system as they relate to Indigenous peoples in the province.

To that end, I’m happy to say we’re celebrating the first

graduating cohort of the University of Victoria’s joint degree program

of Canadian common law and Indigenous legal orders. That whole program

is about restoring and rebuilding Indigenous laws and Indigenous legal

orders to build capacity in nations to be able to have expertise —

people who have expertise both in Canadian common law and Indigenous

legal orders — to work in both systems and build that

capacity.

We will be, by the end of this year, marking one year of the

implementation of the civil litigation directive that we co-developed

with the First Nations Leadership Council and the First Nations Justice

Council. We are developing metrics to determine the impact of that

directive on our civil litigation program and to determine whether it’s

having the effect that we hope for in terms of reducing the impact that

court processes have on our relationships with Indigenous people when we

need a judge to resolve disputes between us.

Then we will also have a year under our belts of the anti-racism

data legislation in place. We anticipate — this is maybe a bit

tangential — that depending on the data that ultimately is collected and

processed through this, it may have direct implications for justice,

which is why I raise it. The work of implementing that legislation will

have been underway, and we expect that we will be working in some of the

immediate interest areas, which could include aspects of the justice

system.

We have, currently, three Indigenous Justice Centres in place,

plus a virtual…. I say we, but it’s the First Nations Justice Council

who are providing financial support for them. We’re funding three

clinics plus a virtual Indigenous Justice Centre and providing joint

support with the federal government. We have funding in place this year

for up to five physical justice centres to be opened, so depending on

the capacity and the opportunities available to the First Nations

Justice Council, we may be up to five physical sites across the province

by the end of the year.

The B.C. Prosecution Service will continue to implement its

Indigenous framework and policy changes related to Indigenous offenders

in the justice system. They are also developing metrics to evaluate the

impact of those policies post-COVID, so when we have a chance to see how

they’re operating in a more typical kind of environment. They will

continue working with the First Nations Justice Council. I’m sure the

member has seen the coverage of the disgrace of the overrepresentation

of Indigenous women in our prisons across the country. Obviously, the

public conversation about this continues.

With respect to building Indigenous capacity to deliver services —

Indigenous organizations delivering services to Indigenous people — we

will continue to work with Legal Aid B.C. to transition Indigenous legal

aid services to Indigenous organizations.

The member will know that we transitioned Gladue report writing

from Legal Aid B.C. to the First Nations Justice Council to administer

that program. It’s a program, by design, exclusively for Indigenous

people, and it is now being delivered by an Indigenous organization in

British Columbia, building up that capacity and continuing that theme as

part of my discussions with Legal Aid B.C. and the First Nations Justice

Council on how we do that effectively and ensure that people receive the

services they need and, ultimately, from Indigenous-led

organizations.

[1:25 p.m.]

Then we’re doing work on more Indigenous courts in the province.

These are more in the nature of the second track of the First Nations

justice strategy, which is about the existing justice system and

bringing Indigenous elements into that system. The member will recall

that Indigenous courts in the province are sentencing courts with the

participation of Elders, who assist in crafting a sentence appropriate

to the situation faced by an Indigenous offender who has pled guilty or

has been convicted of a criminal offence.

Our hope is that we will have at least one, but possibly two more,

of these courts open by the end of the year.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. This is purely for the sake of time, and

the Attorney has some staff. They may want to make some notes, because

I’m going to ask a whole bunch of questions flowing from that, bundled

up in one, but I wouldn’t expect the Attorney to remember them all.

Hopefully, that’ll be a cue to staff to try and….

What I’m driving at here: the answer is helpful, but I’d like to

take a moment to drill down just a little bit further into the areas

that the Attorney has mentioned. When I say, “I thought I heard the

Attorney say something,” I’m not trying to put words into the Attorney’s

mouth. If I get it wrong, I know that he and the staff will say: “No,

that’s not what we meant.”

Here’s what I thought I heard in a variety of these areas. There

is, on the justice strategy, an objective or an intent to finalize and

release a plan with the Métis Nation of B.C., and when the Attorney

says, “by the end of the year,” I’m not sure if he means the calendar

year or the fiscal year. He can clarify that in a moment.

In terms of the jurisdictional transfer, the Attorney has

mentioned the graduating cohort at UVic. That’s the first, and I presume

the intention there is to see that continue into the future and to have

the graduates put their unique expertise and talents to work.

On the anniversary around the civil litigation directive, which

the Attorney has mentioned, he has said that the ministry is in the

process of developing metrics on measuring the success. I presume the

objective is, by the end of the year at least, to have that, so that

there is a framework around which one can measure whether the directive

is having the desired impact. I’d be interested to know today, at this

stage, what the Attorney believes some of the key indicators will be,

within the developing metrics.

I think the Attorney has indicated that in addition to the three

presently functioning Indigenous Justice Centres, the objective is to

have two additional Indigenous Justice Centres operating by the end of

the year. Again, he’ll clarify whether that’s calendar year or fiscal

year. He qualified that, I think, by pointing to available capacity, but

it sounds like the objective is to have two additional centres

operating. To the degree that he can indicate where those centres are

intended, at this point, to be located, that would be

helpful.

The Prosecution Service is developing metrics to measure the

successful application of its policy as it relates to prosecuting

Indigenous peoples. It sounds like the objective is to have that fully

in place by the end of the present year.

[1:30 p.m.]

Again, I’d be curious to know, at this stage and having developed

the policy, what the Attorney and the government believe the key

indicators of success will be — and that we should expect to see those

factors included in the metrics framework.

Finally, I think the Attorney talked about the intention to expand

Indigenous courts by one or two more such institutions, again, by the

end of the year. I’d be curious to know what the objectives are around

where those courts might operate.

I’ve tried to track what the Attorney has said, and all of the

questions delve a little bit deeper into those areas. I’ll understand if

it takes a moment to gather that information.

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I will do my best to take the member’s questions in

order.

For the Métis Nation B.C. justice strategy, we are dependent on

our partners for timing, but currently we are hopeful for the end of the

calendar year for completion of the strategy and publication of the

same.

For the University of Victoria joint degree program, the program

will be continuing. Most of the graduates will work in traditional

private practice or in First Nations communities or with First Nations

communities directly. Some with will work for government, but there is

no specific work program through the ministry linked to that specific

legal program. The graduates certainly do have a number of skills very

applicable inside government, so if they’re looking for a wonderful

place to work — work with great people and do interesting things — they

should consider working for the government of British

Columbia.

The civil litigation strategy. The challenge with the metrics,

obviously, is measuring harm not done. It’s a hard thing to measure, but

we think that we can come up with suitable measurements. We’ll be doing

this work in partnership with the First Nations Justice Council and the

leadership council. I anticipate that there would be things like efforts

to reduce the complexity of pleadings, reducing the number of issues,

length of proceedings, and so on. But it’s very premature, because we

have not yet started that formal engagement, although the initial work

has started within the ministry for us to be able to do that.

The justice centres. I’m advised that the First Nations Justice

Council has not yet decided where the next two centres will go. Part of

that is because there is broad interest. A second piece is that for the

successful implementation of a justice centre, work has to be done with

the local First Nation or First Nations, because a successful centre

needs close integration with the local nation. Determining that, as the

funding was just announced, does take some time for them to do, but we

all feel a huge sense of urgency around getting these open as soon as

possible.

On B.C. Prosecution Service metrics, I was remiss in my initial

answer in failing to mention that the metrics relate to Indigenous

offenders as well as Indigenous victims of crime. I focused, in my

response, on offenders only. The goal is to reduce Indigenous

overrepresentation both on the offender and on the victim sides in

relation to crime. Metrics include data around charges, detentions and

sentencing, and referral to alternative measures and other

remedies.

The challenge with these data points is that the numbers during

the pandemic are so out of whack with historic norms that it’s very hard

to know what are policy and what are pandemic-related impacts. We’re

hopeful that as we return to something more approaching normal, the data

is going to become more reliable to compare with historic

levels.

Finally, with respect to the Indigenous courts, I can advise the

member that the group that’s furthest along is Lillooet. They have a

more developed proposal and are engaged with the Ministry of Attorney

General and the courts on this proposal. Port Hardy has expressed

interest, but they’re in a very early stage still.

In terms of the timing of Lillooet, I would love it if we could

have Lillooet in place by the end of the fiscal year — and certainly,

Port Hardy as well. But again, it’s at a very early stage, I’m advised

by staff.

[1:40 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Just one follow-up from that series of answers, for which I’m

grateful. It was a bit unclear to me. When we are referring to the

prosecution service and the metrics, my initial impression was that

those are in the process of being developed, but something about the

Attorney’s answer suggested to me that in fact, they have been

developed, and there are now measurements and variables in place that

are being tracked.

If the Attorney could clarify that, and notwithstanding whether

the metrics are in place now or whether they remain to be finalized at

some point during the fiscal year — on the topic of overrepresentation

in terms of prosecutions, overrepresentation of Indigenous people in

terms of prosecutions, overrepresentation in terms of victims — will the

metrics include or do they include targeted numbers? Or is it simply a

general objective and a general hope to reduce the number? Or is there a

more specific target than that?

Hon. H. Bains: I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery, we have, I think for the first time, my granddaughter,

all the way from Regina, Anna Bains Hudema. She’s here with us, along with

her mom, my daughter Jasmeen Bains Hudema; our son-in-law, Darren Hudema;

and my wife, Rajvinder Bains. They came all the way from Saskatchewan to see

the beautiful city of Victoria and our province.

I hope that they will be encouraged, along with the other 107,000 who

came to B.C. from across the world, a lot of them from other provinces, that

they will join with them as well, this year or next year, whenever they feel

appropriate.

We would love to have you here, because we do need more

doctors.

Please help me give them a very warm welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member — I understand his confusion, because the situation is

within the Prosecution Service, somewhere in the middle. They collect

data, currently, on a whole array of issues — time to trial or

convictions, and so on, referral to alternative measures and so on. For

Indigenous-related data, they’re very reliant on information that’s

collected from police, so the baseline is not great, and it’s really

hard to have targets or anything other than try to identify broad

trends.

While they collect this data right now, the work that’s happening

around the metrics is to identify which ones are most representative of

where we want to go and how to measure whether the broad trends are

indicating one way or another. I think it’s helpful to think about this

data as not being in isolation but being related to other initiatives.

Do we see a change in a community that has an Indigenous sentencing

court in terms of what the Prosecution Service is seeing?

[1:45 p.m.]

If they have an Indigenous justice centre, are we seeing a

difference in those impacts? If we open a restorative justice program,

does that make a difference? If there is not a restorative justice

program, does that make a difference? Trying to identify the

interventions that we can put in place that will have a positive impact

on these overrepresentation rates so that the Prosecution Service,

through their policies, can measure these things. It’s also informative

for government around other initiatives that I’ve talked about in our

response.

M. de Jong: I’ll make this in the form of a statement because, again, we’ll

need to move on.

To the degree that I think there is wide acceptance of the

proposition that Indigenous people continue to be overrepresented in the

justice system, overrepresented in a negative way in the justice system,

and that there is a desire to address that and see that change in a

significant way, I will urge upon the Attorney and the government the

advantage that will accrue to them and us as a society if we are able to

demonstrate to society that the actions being taken are having a

positive impact and to demonstrate that empirically as opposed to just,

in a general way, suggest that we think we’re doing better.

To the extent that the metrics can include empirical measures that

can make the case or help support the case that progress is being made,

I think that’ll be helpful.

Let’s move on quickly, then, to another area that the Attorney

identified as a priority area, and that is modernization, a label that

can capture a range of areas.

The Attorney made specific reference to some of the changes

necessitated by the recent pandemic as it relates to how court

proceedings are conducted, the use of technology. So some perhaps more

specific indicators that….

The Attorney is wise enough to know why opposition has asked these

questions — a year from now, to be able to say, with the investments of

tax dollars being made: “One year ago these were the objectives around

modernization. Were they met?” What, in a more detailed way, should we

look for, and how will we measure whether those objectives were met 12

months out?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Under the heading of modernization, I would include a number of

different programs that I expect to make significant progress this year.

All will not be implemented by the end of the year, but they will be

worked on significantly throughout the year.

The Virtual Indigenous Justice Centre will continue their work and

hopefully expand it with our online connectivity initiative to rural and

remote communities. Those are primarily Indigenous communities. Those

communities will now have access to that service, so we will be looking

to see — and I know the First Nations Justice Council is hopeful as well

— increased use of that from rural and remote communities.

We have our northern bail program that has been in place towards

the latter half of last fiscal, and this year we will continue and

expand the use of virtual bail through the Interior. That program’s

measures of success on the court’s evaluations relate to the

displacement of offenders from different communities for bail — whether

or not offenders need to travel to attend court for bail hearings, and

so on.

Traffic court online we hope to have implemented this year. The

member will recall passing legislation to enable that.

We have something called the digital evidence management system

for Crown, which currently…. We’re hopeful for implementation in the

middle of 2023. This is a project that aims to respond to the

overwhelming growth in digital evidence collected by police in response

to crimes and to ensure that it’s managed properly to assist in the

conviction of offenders.

We have and will continue to expand Teams and Zoom implementation

in courthouses across British Columbia. That includes Wi-Fi expansion in

55 courthouses.

We also have underway approval, and the work is in the initial

stages, to update and replace legacy systems. The member will recognize

some of these names, I imagine — CEIS, CORNET and JUSTIN — if he had

exposure to the criminal justice system. These are very, very old

programs that manage key aspects of the justice system in the province.

That work to replace those systems is underway.

Then we’re also — it’s a relatively minor program in terms of

expense but a relatively significant program in terms of access to

justice — delivering more online, user-friendly forms for matters such

as divorce so that individuals are able to access justice and fill in

forms in a way that courts will be able to process their applications

more readily.

[1:55 p.m.]

Then we also will be expanding our use of family justice virtual

supports so families in crisis do have access to family justice

counsellors wherever they are in the province, as we continue our work

to expand our early resolution program, which is currently in Victoria

and Surrey.

M. de Jong: Are the procurements relating to the software systems internal to

the Attorney General’s ministry? The ones I think I heard the Attorney

say are, I believe, court judicial programs. If that is so, has that

procurement process started?

I will say this candidly. From my recollection, if there was one

way to send ministers fleeing in despair, it was to bring a technology

procurement before them. The question is an obvious one. What order of

magnitude are we talking about in terms of cost?

This has been a recurring theme that transcends any single

government. Technology procurements that run amok cost double or triple

and then don’t work or, at least, partially don’t work. What can the

Attorney tell us about this particular procurement upgrade and the rough

order of magnitude, where we’re at, and the degree to which it has been

organized in a way to try to avoid some of the pitfalls of the

past?

D. Davies: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Davies: I just happened to notice, while I’m sitting here in the chamber, that

a couple of my fellow northerners have joined us in the gallery right now.

We have the mayor of Fraser Lake, Sarrah Storey, and a city councillor for

the city of Prince George, Cori Ramsay, who are down here with UBCM. I’ve

been bumping into them lots lately, in Fort St. John for NCLGA and the

meetings here.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Debate Continued

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. These are programs related to the

administration of justice in the province. CEIS is a civil litigation

scheduling database program. JUSTIN is a criminal justice system

database, and then CORNET is a police-related database.

The current budget is $9 million. It was just recently approved,

so no vendor has been selected yet. The member will immediately intuit

from that number that this is a very light-touch repair-and-replace

mission. There are a number of Oracle components in these systems that

are no longer supported by the vendor. So it will be to replace those

components that are no longer supported or simply are not

working.

While that work is happening, the idea is that the new components

will be implemented on a platform that can be built incrementally,

through what is described as an Agile development process — lots of

report-backs — but an iterative process, going forward.

[2:00 p.m.]

It won’t be that one day we turn off the old systems and turn on

the new system. It’s more that the existing system will be replaced one

piece at a time and, in doing so, at the same time, a new platform will

be transitioned to that supports that kind of development

process.

M. de Jong: Okay, if you say so. All right.

I want to just take a moment to reveal a bias in this general area

of modernization. I don’t think I did this last year, but I’d like to do

it this year and seek the Attorney’s views on this, because we’re a

year…. Much of what the Attorney has described relates to the use of

audiovisual technology that allows proceedings to traverse great

distances at a reduced cost. A little bit later I may actually canvass

with the Attorney — ironically, in what I’m about to say — some cautions

around circumstances in which video technology in bail hearings…. We

have to be a little careful; but we’ll get to that in a

moment.

I’ll preface my question with this observation, and I’ll try to be

fair. I am concerned — for reasons that we’ll get to momentarily — about

the perception that the public has of our justice system, and confidence

diminishing. I’m not going to suggest that that is a phenomenon that is

entirely recent. I will try to make the case later that it may have

accelerated a bit recently.

The general lack of confidence that has developed around our

institutions of justice is something that has troubled me for some time.

I believe that that lack of confidence is further enhanced, as is

generally the case, by a lack of understanding of how some of our

institutions of justice operate — the complexities, the protections that

necessarily must exist.

I have thought for some time now that one of the ways to address

that is to give the public greater access through the use of technology,

despite the institutional push-back that would exist around broadcasting

proceedings. When we say “broadcasting” today, we don’t mean network TV;

we mean streaming live, giving people access in that way. The advent of

these technologies, for purpose of the administration of justice, lends

itself to a broader application that would allow the public — those that

are interested, at least — and media outlets, which no longer can afford

to send people down to the courthouse.

We get, sometimes, very skewed reports of proceedings, because the

day of the courthouse reporter dedicated to a lengthy trial is over.

Media outlets can’t do this anymore but might be able to assign someone

to watch proceedings from a central location. All to say that for all of

the reasons that modernization and technology utilization, for the

purpose that we have just described, make sense, ensuring or expanding

the use of technology to grant the public better access….

Look, I’m talking in general terms. There will be circumstances

that the Attorney can think of and I can think where that might not be

appropriate. But as a general rule, allowing the public, who can now go

to a courthouse or have always been able to go to a courthouse and watch

but don’t do that…. Granting them access through the use of this

technology seems to me to be one means by which we can reverse the trend

that we see around diminishing confidence in our judicial

institutions.

[2:05 p.m.]

It has been a while since I sat in the Attorney’s chair, and I

don’t know to what extent, if at all, institutional resistance to that

approach and that position has reduced. It was certainly there when I

sat in the Attorney’s chair.

I am curious to know to what degree the Attorney General and the

government are supportive of the basic proposition that as we utilize

technology to facilitate the internal management of justice and

administration of justice, we should similarly be prepared to make use

of that technology to facilitate a greater public opportunity to watch

the operation of our institutions of justice.

Hon. D. Eby: It does seem to be that it really depends on the court. The

Supreme Court of Canada, as the member knows, routinely broadcasts their

proceedings.

[2:10 p.m.]

The B.C. Court of Appeal, in my opinion, had great success, during

the pandemic, broadcasting their hearings. People were interested and

watched, and I know that those who did enjoyed having that access. I was

very appreciative that the court did that. I share the member’s opinion

that it does assist in educating the public about court

processes.

I know when the member for Prince George–​Valemount, for

example, was Attorney General, there was an application to court to

broadcast a large-scale criminal proceeding involving a large number of

defendants, which the court rejected. That case, and some related cases,

does establish a core judicial authority, constitutionally based, for

courts to control their own proceedings and the broadcasting of the

same.

We have, during the pandemic, implemented Teams-based hearings,

for example, for bail hearings, and so on. In order to observe those

hearings, you have to essentially…. For the members in the House who are

familiar with the Teams platform, you have to become a participant in

the meeting. It’s not like you can just watch it.

That has brought with it challenges in ensuring that the platform

is locked down so that participants are not able to, then, interrupt the

proceedings. It has led to concerns from the court about recording and

reposting of testimony, and so on, despite judicial cautions that that

should not be happening. Historically, not currently, there have been

concerns about the security of Crown counsel, their likenesses being

broadcast, especially if they’re involved in organized crime work. All

of which is to say that there are definitely, as the member has raised,

institutional challenges to a full broadcast.

Now, I agree with the member in principle on open courts,

including in this modern age. Open courts mean available to watch on a

computer monitor or TV. We’re of a mind on that.

I can advise him that there is a very lively discussion, not just

in British Columbia but across Canada and in many other parts of the

world, following the pandemic, about what it means, given the number of

proceedings that have shifted to these online models, to have the open

court principle, which is also a constitutional right — that the courts

should be open to the public — while we have these online proceeding

systems that have, almost by definition, very limited access. Beyond

that, as we expand, as I advised the member, Wi-Fi and Internet capacity

within the courthouses, it becomes possible to expand public

access.

This will be a dialogue with the courts, without doubt. It will

be, ultimately, the decision of the chief judge, the chief justice or

the chief justice of British Columbia which hearings are broadcast and

which are not, or widely available or which are not.

I appreciate the member raising the question. I can advise him

that those exact conversations are absolutely happening within the

province. There is this shared concern between the courts, the bench,

the bar and the government about ensuring the public maintains access,

even in virtual hearing environments.

M. de Jong: The general topic is of sufficient interest to me that I’ll make a

short reply. Then we can move on, unless the Attorney wishes to

respond.

As I listened to his comments, he reinforced my own understanding

and suspicion that with the use of Teams and Zoom…. What the pandemic

forced upon us and forced upon the courts and the Prosecution Service

and the civil litigation departments was the use of this technology

through Teams and Zoom and all of these platforms. The problem,

ironically, became restricting access to those platforms.

[2:15 p.m.]

The only thing I would say, to place on the record at least, is….

The presumption today…. The presumption has been, for over a century,

that I can walk down to a courtroom, and the door will be open. At the

courthouse and a courtroom, the doors will be open. I can sit and watch

those proceedings, whether I am connected with them or not. The

presiding judge or justice has the right, in exceptional circumstances,

to restrict my entry, but she or he must justify that with some manner

of reasoning.

The use of this more modern technology to enhance access to the

courts can operate no differently. The fundamental shift that has not

occurred yet in the thinking of the courts and, quite frankly, many of

the participants, not all but many of the members of the bar, is…. This

is still a sanctified setting that mustn’t be sullied by having it

available on what I still refer to as the airwaves, but I think we know

what we’re talking about.

As attractive as that traditional approach might seem to some, I

believe it will continue to undermine the public’s understanding of what

takes place in these important institutions and undermine their

confidence. So to the extent that the conversations are taking place, to

the extent that the chief justices and the chief judge of the province

have some appreciation for that fact and, with the assistance of the

Attorney General and the Ministry of Attorney General and the court

services branch, are prepared to cautiously move into this

area….

The highest courts in our province and in our land have found a

way to do this. Now, I understand they don’t hear witnesses. They don’t

take evidence, generally, from witnesses. There are, of course, some

logistical issues, but it is in the long-term interests of these

institutions to find a way to capitalize on the work that took place

over the last two years and apply it in a slightly different way to

enhance the public’s confidence.

If the Attorney wishes to reply, I’ll sit down. Otherwise, I’ll

carry on.

Another area that the Attorney cited as being a focus for him and

the government and the ministry in the coming year was family justice.

The question is not dissimilar. Beyond that general label, what are the

more specific measurable initiatives that we should look for in the 12

months ahead as they relate to family justice services?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of significant initiatives that are in

early-stage implementation around family justice. The member will know

we have the early resolution model in place in Victoria and expanded it

to Surrey relatively recently. We do have the evaluation back from

Victoria, and we saw a very high satisfaction rate among

participants.

The whole program…. The idea of it is that a family in crisis….

The parents who are separating meet with, separately, a family justice

counsellor who helps them identify what issues they have that they’re

trying to resolve through court, works with them to ensure that they get

all their documentation together, and tries to, if appropriate, broker

agreements on issues outside of court.

The goal of all of it is to reduce the number of issues that

ultimately go to court and ensure that the families are fully prepared

when they do go to court with all of the documentation. You don’t get

this scenario of taking the day off work to show up in family court, and

the judge says, “Okay, do you have your tax statement for the year from

Canada Revenue?” and the person says: “I didn’t know I was supposed to

bring that today.” Then the judge says: “Okay, I’m going to put this

over for a couple weeks. You need to bring all your tax materials. Come

back.”

I sat in family chambers. It’s a horrific thing to watch for

people who are not going through this program, because you can see the

frustration on the families, working with duty counsel, trying to figure

out what was needed, and so on. That’s why this program has been so

successful.

One of the data points that came out of that evaluation was the

number of…. Only 31 percent of the issues identified by families ended

up having to go to court, so there was a better than 60 percent

reduction on the number of issues that went to court, and that led to

huge reductions in the number of trial days, court time and, obviously,

acrimony between families, reducing conflict between families — one of

the key goals here as well as efficiency.

[2:25 p.m.]

That program…. We’re interested in potentially expanding that

model to other places, and we’ll explore the possibility of

that.

In Kamloops, we have an informal trial process, a pilot program.

This informal trial is, by consent, a process where a separating couple

will agree to participate in this. It’s like a mediation-arbitration

process. The judge will conduct this informal trial, and really, it is

much more like that arbitration kind of model than a formal court

process. It will be evaluated for success and satisfaction, reduced time

in dispute, reductions in conflict, and so on. Depending on those

evaluation results — as I say, it has just been launched this fiscal —

we’ll look at whether it’s something we should be looking at adding to

other registries.

We have just implemented the new family law rules. This fiscal

will be the first full fiscal year of the new family law rules, which

are meant to simplify and modernize the process when families do have to

go to court to resolve issues.

We have just launched the recalculation service in registries

across B.C. So when a member of a separated couple has an obligation to

pay support to the other partner and they get a new job that pays a

higher salary, the recalculation service allows for child support to be

recalculated and a new level set without a full court appearance —

without any court appearance — and implemented. So it’s a time savings

for those individuals who recognize that these are very much

formula-based determinations around child support, and it reduces

burdens on the court.

Then the member will know that we passed, in this place, the

legislation adopting the international convention around recognizing

child support orders from other jurisdictions and vice versa. We’re

able to be implementing that this year.

M. de Jong: A couple of things, then, with respect to the early resolution

model. I’ll press the Attorney somewhat. He has spoken of potential

expansion beyond the Victoria site — which has been, apparently,

evaluated — and the Surrey location. This is where I ask the Attorney:

as part of the budget for the coming year, are there funds allocated for

a further expansion, and if so, where?

Hon. D. Eby: There are no funds currently allocated for further

expansion.

M. de Jong: I wanted to ask something relating to this area that we talked

about 12 months ago, when we were having this discussion — that I think,

as I recall, the Attorney and I were similarly positively disposed to —

related to the initiative around paralegals, specifically in the family

law sector. It had encountered some challenges and some obstacles as it

relates to early resolution models and even, I dare say, informal trial

processes.

[2:30 p.m.]

It strikes me that there is very much a role to play for

paralegals to assist families in organizing themselves so that when they

do come before a mediator or a judge in those settings, they have

organized their documents in a way that lends for the mediator or the

arbitrator or the judge to more accurately and more efficiently get to

the heart of the matter. Any progress on that front as it relates to the

deployment of paralegals?

Hon. D. Eby: I recall discussing this issue with the member, my critic, last

year. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think we both

expressed some chagrin about the decision of our colleagues, in a member

resolution, to delay the implementation of family paralegals after the

Law Society did ask government to pass legislation enabling exactly

that. We did so, and we’re still waiting to see the outcome of those

internal deliberations within the Law Society.

I can say that there has been a very significant development since

we last spoke, which is that government has committed to and we have

shared with the Law Society, with the regulator for notaries and with

the paralegals in the province that it is our intention to move to a

single regulator for legal services in the province. The core focus of

this regulator will be the public interest, and a second animating

principle will be ensuring access to justice for British

Columbians.

There will certainly be discussions about respective scope of

practice of those existing categories — lawyers, paralegals and notaries

— as well as flexibility around new categories of practice. The member

will surely be familiar with legal advocates that deliver many legal

services in our province yet are not recognized in that work and, in

some cases, may even be considered to be offside in terms of the

monopoly on practice enjoyed by lawyers in our province.

Having some flexibility around that, within that regulator, will

be very important to recognize where legal services are being delivered

and ensure that they’re being delivered in a way that protects the

public interest. So this is something that I have indicated to these

groups of professionals is going to happen.

Beyond that, though, I am really counting on the lawyers and the

paralegals and the notaries to work together and to work with the folks

in my ministry — with the superintendent for professional governance,

who is an expert in these areas, and his team, in partnership — to come

up with a model we all, at a minimum, can live with but even better,

hopefully, we are excited about in the sense that we believe it will

achieve the goals we all have — independence of lawyers from government;

of protection of the public interest to ensure the public is looked

after when they purchase legal services in the province; that they’re

getting high-quality services and that there’s accountability when they

don’t get what they pay for; and that access to justice is a key and

animating consideration of this regulator in deciding issues related to

areas of practice.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’m excited about this work, and I’m very positive about it. It

has been met with, I will say, enthusiasm around engagement on the part

of the notaries and the lawyers and the paralegals. I’m very hopeful

that we will co-design a system that achieves the goals that, I think,

the member and I discussed in some detail last year.

M. de Jong: That’s all helpful and useful information. What can the Attorney

or what will the Attorney tell the committee about his and the

government’s intention around the timing of the legislation that will be

required to create the single regulator? Because it will, ultimately,

require legislation. This session of parliament is due to expire after

one more week. By the time we come back, the government will be in the

final two years of its mandate. Time marches on.

Does the Attorney have a timeline in mind for the tabling of

legislation? Is he intending to communicate that or has he communicated

that? I’ve seen the letter that was sent out to the notaries and members

of the Law Society, and I don’t recall it including a specific date by

which the Attorney intends to table legislation. But has he communicated

a timeline to those parties and representatives of the paralegals? Is he

in a position to advise the committee today whether his intention, at

least, is to table that legislation creating a single regulator over the

course of the next 12 months?

Hon. D. Eby: This is the timeline that has been communicated to the

participants in this important process. Engagement is underway as I

speak. The government will be developing an intentions paper based on

this engagement, which we will publish later this year. We’ll take

feedback on the intentions paper and use that feedback to develop

legislation to be introduced in fall of 2023.

M. de Jong: Right. The Attorney, in response to my initial question, referred

to several other areas, and I simply want to place on the record: each

one of these areas is worthy of careful and lengthy discussion and

scrutinization. We don’t have time to do that, so I don’t want anyone

who might be observing these proceedings to think that there is not

regard, on either side of the House, for the importance of the issues.

But we’re working within a time period, a legislative calendar, that we

need to abide by.

The area that I want to spend a little bit of time with in these

proceedings is one of the areas, happily, that the Attorney mentioned.

He spoke of prolific offenders and crime. I think the Attorney knows

that that is an area I and the opposition have some interest in, because

we perceive the public to have an interest in it. I’ll start, again,

with a very general question that will afford the Attorney an

opportunity to offer some general thoughts on the topic that he has

recognized and indicated will be a priority for the year

ahead.

[2:40 p.m.]

My question is this: do we have a problem? I think we do, but my

opinion matters much less than the Attorney’s and the government’s in

that regard. So as it relates to the actions of prolific offenders and

their contribution to criminal activity, do we have a problem? To what

extent does the Attorney think we have a problem, and how does he see

that problem at the moment?

Hon. D. Eby: I think we have two problems, maybe three. The first problem is a

shifting in crime patterns. I think when you look at, especially,

property crime data — but, in Vancouver, including violent crime — you

wouldn’t see numbers that would cause a great deal of alarm. In fact,

you might see numbers that would cause you to believe — certainly, could

cause me to believe — that things are actually remarkably positive. Yet,

when I meet with mayors from communities, or other leaders, they

identify that there are very significant and growing issues — in

particular, in their downtown cores.

The data are, to that extent, concealing the first problem, which

is that shift in criminal activity and patterns that took place during

the pandemic. That shift is problematic for a couple of reasons. One is

that the stores and businesses and restaurants, and so on, that took a

real hit during the pandemic are now under pressure. Due to perceptions

of safety, people are reluctant to come downtown, hearing on the news

about prolific offenders or seeing activity downtown that causes them to

feel unsafe, or actually being a victim of crime.

That’s a problem. It’s a problem for recovery from the pandemic.

It’s a problem for lively, attractive downtowns. It’s a problem for, in

bigger cities, our goals of supporting people to live closer to work, to

live closer together to reduce carbon pollution and also to increase

innovation and opportunity. So it’s a problem we need to address. It’s

sort of a pattern of where the criminal activity is a

problem.

A second and related problem that I see and that has been

identified for me, again by mayors and various leaders in the community,

is a small number of people creating an outsized amount of havoc in

communities — again, typically in downtown areas. I hear it from hub

cities like Trail, Terrace, Quesnel — smaller centres but centres of

even smaller and more remote communities; and also from the mayors of

many of B.C.’s biggest cities, from the Vancouvers and the Victorias and

the Nanaimos and the Kelownas; and I could go on.

What I hear from these mayors is that there are small groups of

individuals in our communities, and the data appear to support that.

These individuals cause a great deal of havoc, everything from low-level

assaults to property damage, shoplifting, uttering threats, and so

on.

[2:45 p.m.]

Within this category, there are two different groups: one group

that seems almost particular to Vancouver, which has been identified by

VPD, committing random, violent attacks on strangers, unprovoked; and

another group with serious mental health and addiction issues committing

chronic property crime.

These issues are distinct, but I think they’re very linked,

obviously, given the fact that these offenders have such an outsized

impact. This is the goal of doing what’s possible to disentangle what’s

happening — these different trends that have been amplified through and

following the main pandemic public health restriction period.

It is currently being undertaken by two experts in this area — one

an expert in the practical application of policing in community in

relation to chronic offenders, Doug LePard, and another, Dr. Amanda

Butler, an expert in the success, or lack thereof, of previous

initiatives trying to grapple with mental health and addiction issues

and corrections and the best way to respond to people with profound

challenges that lead them to interact, again and again, in a negative

way with the criminal justice system and with the public. That work is

underway.

M. Lee: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

M. Lee: I just want to take the opportunity to welcome, in the gallery, 28

students in grade 6 from Sir William Osler Elementary in the riding I

represent, Vancouver-Langara. I had the opportunity to meet with them in the

lower rotunda — and the teacher, Mr. Patrick O’Hara. I had the opportunity

to participate in their vote process, when they vote for various candidates.

I think I won that one. But I appreciate the opportunity here.

You are seeing, as I mentioned to you — because they were looking at

the Hansard booth…. You can see all the technology at use. Now you’re in the

chamber, and you’re seeing, on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, the

estimates process with the Attorney General of our province and the member

for Abbotsford West, the critic for the Attorney General.

I was that critic for 3½ years. I have many fond memories of many

debates and discussions with the Attorney General about various topics,

including community safety.

That’s what you’re seeing here. Have a great rest of your visit.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

The Chair: Welcome to the students.

M. de Jong: The students should know that if there is a member of this assembly

that can lower the voting age, his estimates are on the docket right

now.

Debate Continued

M. de Jong: That initial exchange is helpful. I’m going to take a few minutes

and explore with the Attorney the magnitude of the problem he has

alluded to and seems to recognize exists. I want to explore that a

little more.

It struck me, though…. I have used the terms “prolific offender,”

“chronic offender,” and those terms are used interchangeably. I’m not

terribly concerned about that. But I did think that for the purpose of

this discussion, we should probably try to establish who we are talking

about when we talk about prolific offenders.

As I will from time to time during our exchange, during these

estimates, I’m going to ask the general question of the Attorney. What

is the definition that he and the ministry apply to decide who is a

prolific or chronic offender?

As part of that conversation, I’m going to refer to a document

that I came across from the Attorney General’s ministry in the United

Kingdom, a study they did, I think, two or three years ago. I made a

copy so that the Attorney is not flying blind as we have this

conversation. I’ll ask that perhaps it can be sent over to

him.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member and the

article he has shared really hit the nail on

the head here. The phrase “prolific offender” is not defined in the

Criminal Code. It doesn’t by itself form the basis for any B.C.

Prosecution Service policies, currently. It’s typically used by police

services. For example, the B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus correspondence,

which I know the member is familiar with, defined a prolific offender as

an offender who commits greater than 30 offences per year, and it also

uses the term to describe persons involved in 30 “negative police

contacts” in a year, which is different than an offence.

In that same correspondence, Abbotsford PD describes prolific

offenders as individuals with ten to 29 convictions. Others have

observed that prolific offenders are people who “repeatedly break the

law and are at high risk to break it again.”

There are a number of conflations of different issues as well.

There’s the discussion of the complex needs of someone with a mental

health and addiction issue who commits a property crime as being a

prolific offender, regardless of the number of offences. So the

challenge around that is one of the reasons why I asked for a specific

and clear definition if possible, a working definition that we can use,

from the investigation team that is looking into this right now for my

office.

Defining these terms is important because it enables a couple of

things. One is it enables us to identify the size of the group — the

relative size of the group — in different communities. It enables us to

measure progress of any interventions we put into place. We’re seeing

fewer prolific offenders. We’ll assume some meaning. We won’t be sort of

talking at odds with people who are identifying a different issue when

they say prolific offender than when we say prolific offender. So the

definition is critically important.

M. de Jong: I think part of the Attorney’s answer is what gives rise to some

of the concerns and frustrations that he and the government have been

confronted by, where he points out and acknowledges that the notion of a

prolific offender isn’t presently the basis for any policies within the

Prosecution Service. Over the course of our discussions, I am going to

suggest that that is a problem. The Attorney, I expect, is going to tell

me that he is working on that problem with the study that has been

called for and will eventually appear.

I’m going to press, though, a little bit, by making this point:

we’re not alone. A lot of this work has been done. The study that I

have, the portion of the study from the United Kingdom Ministry of

Justice from May 2019, includes some pretty specific stuff about how we

define prolific offenders.

[2:55 p.m.]

In their view…. They break it down. They make the point that

depending on the age of an individual, the criteria could be very

different. Someone that’s 18 years old has not, presumably, had the same

amount of time to accumulate a record of convictions that a 50-year-old

has. But they do try to quantify in a specific way.

The Attorney and his officials can see from the document that I

have provided that they talk about a juvenile prolific offender as

someone aged ten to 17 who has had four or more previous…. The word they

use is “sanctions.” A young adult prolific offender, someone between the

ages of 18 and 20, who has had eight or more previous sanctions, of

which four or more were received while the offender was between 18 and

20. And then an adult prolific offender is anyone over the age of 21 who

has had 16 or more previous sanctions, of which eight or more were

received when the offender was over the age of 21.

The point being in developing…. Perhaps the Attorney and I don’t

disagree on this point. I think we need to develop…. I think we should

have had some policies — we should have some policies — and we need to

develop those policies. But we need to know who we’re developing them

for.

With the greatest respect, I’m not sure we need a further study to

develop a definition for what constitutes a prolific offender. The

Attorney is quick to make the point that there can be any number of

reasons that someone becomes a prolific offender. No argument from me.

We’ll need to be cognizant of that. But what is a prolific

offender?

The United Kingdom seems to have — to their satisfaction, at least

— determined what that is. Police departments around the province have

developed some loose

definitions, but I don’t think that they’re

particularly formalized.

The question to the Attorney General is: if he is serious about

wanting to develop policies directed to restrict the criminal activities

of prolific offenders, isn’t it essential that the Ministry of Attorney

General now, quickly, reveal to the public whom they believe or what

they believe the criteria is for a prolific or chronic offender? And to

what degree does he believe that the approach — he may quibble with the

numbers — taken by the United Kingdom in breaking it down on an age

basis, in the way that they have, is an appropriate way to

go?

[3:00 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I think the first clarification I’d like to make is just that the

investigative work that’s underway right now into this issue is not set

up to…. The reason for asking these two esteemed individuals to do this

work was not to provide the government with a definition. I think a

definition is necessary to measure the success of anything we implement.

It’s part of what I’ve asked.

The goal is solutions around this issue, which I think the member

and I both accept is a real one. Certainly, the mayors and the police to

whom I’ve spoken believe it’s a real issue. So I don’t know that there’s

any debate about that.

In order to measure the effect of the program or programs that we

put in place to respond, whether the problem’s getting worse or better

over time, I do think we need a definition that everybody agrees on. It

could be the U.K. definition the member put forward. It could be other

definitions that are used in other places in Canada or North

America.

I believe we have the right people on the job to establish that

definition independent of me. The reason why that’s important is…. I

think, reasonably, someone could say: “Well, you’re choosing this

definition to make it look like the problem is less than it is” or

“You’re choosing this definition because you can address that problem,

but you didn’t put this in the definition because you can’t.” It gives

us something that’s established at arm’s length from government and that

will enable us to wrap our heads around the problem and address it. Just

by way of clarification.

The other piece is…. I think it’s important for people to know

that there are a number of initiatives in place around prolific

offenders, especially those with serious mental health and addiction

issues, in different communities. We have the downtown community court

in Vancouver. We have a community court in Kelowna. We have one in

Victoria.

Now, I say that all while noting that these are three of the

communities that have come to us asking for help. So we have these

resource-intensive courts that are operating in these communities

notionally to support the management of these prolific offenders. These

mayors are coming to us and saying: “Hey, we’re in distress.” At least,

Victoria and Kelowna have really focused on prolific offenders in their

concerns that they’ve brought to me. Vancouver is slightly

different.

[3:05 p.m.]

Why are those courts not responding to these issues? Why are these

particular offenders resistant to the programs and processes that are

put in place in those courts? These are important questions. I don’t

know the answers to those, and this is some of the work that is

underway.

I agree with the member. The lack of a definition, a provincial

definition, is troubling. It’s strange that we don’t have one. Police

services all use their own. They’re all slightly different. We need one.

Yet that doesn’t mean that nothing has been done on this

issue.

There is also another category of offenders I want to flag so that

the public knows that this group of offenders does have a process and

policies in place: high-risk offenders at high risk of reoffending in

relation to a sexual or a violent crime, particularly against vulnerable

groups. These high-risk offenders….

There’s a national program. They’re tagged in the criminal

records. It forms the basis for dangerous offender applications,

long-term offender applications. So there is a full program within the

Prosecution Service, which is part of a national initiative around this

group of offenders. A different set of considerations, really, than the

group that I believe that we’re talking about.

I hope that’s some clarification and response to the member’s

question.

M. de Jong: Yeah, I don’t think that we’re going to solve this matter today.

We are having a discussion that hopefully will be helpful in terms of

conveying concerns and hopefully, ultimately, some

suggestions.

By the way, just so the Attorney knows, I have some ideas that

eventually I’d like to convey to him. One derives from something that he

just mentioned as it relates to violence against…. The term has changed

over the years, but I think today it is violence against intimate

partners. There is a suite of policies that the ministry, over many

years, has developed to address that very specific issue, and

ultimately, I’m going to suggest that what we’re dealing with here

warrants a similar approach.

I was heartened to hear that the Attorney recognized it. If we are

to do that, we should know the group by definition, the group that we

are dealing with. That will require a definition of sorts. I disagree

with the Attorney that it would somehow be inappropriate for him and, by

extension, the ministry to develop that definition. I think the body of

literature around this that exists is sufficiently well developed that,

unless the government and the ministry adopted something so

extraordinarily out of sync with that literature, the prospect of being

criticized is pretty remote.

The U.K. approach, as the Attorney and his folks will see, speaks

to two criteria that need to be applied to the three age quotients.

Offending history, which is the minimum number of previous convictions

that need to have occurred in the various age groups. Then a second

criteria, criminal history pattern. The point there is…. If someone has

committed 15 offences as a non-adult — as a juvenile, to use their

language — but only one as an adult, the point is made that that

probably disqualifies the person from being considered a prolific

offender, unless that pattern continues.

All to say that there is, I think…. If we’re going to address

this, we need to formalize who it is that we are targeting, if I can use

that word. The question…. I would prefer it be done sooner rather than

later. I expect the Attorney has already…. Well, he has already

signalled that he intends to wait until his report is

complete.

[3:10 p.m.]

The question. Whether it’s now or subsequent to the receipt of his

report, can he commit to the committee that there will be a definition?

For any policies that might follow, it will be clear that the Ministry

of Attorney General and the Prosecution Service, in particular, consider

anyone that meets the following criteria, for the purpose of

prosecutions, to be a prolific offender?

Hon. D. Eby: I can assure the member that I did indeed ask for the definition,

the best recommendation of the investigators who are looking at this

matter, and I’ll receive that from them. I can’t, in advance of

receiving it, commit government to adopting it, but I can certainly say

that our government is committed to dealing with the issue of prolific

offenders. Part of that, in my opinion, involves government adopting a

definition so that we can track our success, or lack thereof, with the

initiatives that we put in place to try to go after this.

We will be adopting a definition. Whether or not it’s the one

that’s put forward by the investigators is another question. But I have

asked them to do that work indepen­dently, and ultimately, as the

member knows, I’ll bear poli­tical responsibility for that. I’ll

take some comfort from his reassurance that he and his colleagues will

not critique that definition when it’s adopted. I’ll read this portion

of the Hansard back to him when it does happen. I’m just

kidding.

The staff had a quick look at the member’s paper and the U.K.

prosecution service. They weren’t able to find within the U.K.

prosecution service a definition or policy used within that service. So

if the member is aware of that, I’d encourage him and welcome him to

share that.

[3:15 p.m.]

We do have the white paper the member sent over, and we’ll use

that to inform our work. I don’t know why that paper was produced or

what context it was produced in, whether it’s for developing a policy

for the Prosecution Service or so on. But any other relevant

documentation that the member wants to share to inform the work that’s

happening would be welcome.

M. de Jong: A couple of things. Notwithstanding my impatience, I am gratified

to hear that the Attorney has committed to the fact that the ministry

will adopt, and presumably do so publicly, a definition of “prolific

offender.” I would urge him to do so as quickly as possible, and he has

indicated, forthrightly, the

schedule he intends to follow in that

respect.

Just for information, the document I sent over is, I think,

part 4

part 5 of a report published May 16, 2019, by the Ministry of

Justice, specifically on prolific offenders. The last reference I’ll

make to it to emphasize the point that I think the Attorney General has

accepted…. On the bottom of the third page of the document I sent over,

under the heading “Definition of ‘prolific offender’,” which is actually

set out above, the authors point to some statistics on a table on page 4

of the document. I’ll quickly read it into the record.

Of all prolific offenders, by virtue of their definition, 4

percent were juveniles aged ten to 17, 8 percent were young adults aged

18 to 20, and 87 percent were adults. They further break that down,

tracking the graduation — if that’s the right term — of young prolific

offenders into adult prolific offenders. That’s all to say that, having

adopted that definition, they’re able to generate these kinds of

statistics for the purpose of at least trying to better understand what

is taking place and by whom.

For all of those reasons and, obviously, more, I commend the

report. We’ll be watching closely for the adoption and publication of a

definition that will at least allow all of us to agree on who it is we

are talking about when we use these terms.

While I chat, I’ll send over another document that I’m certain

that the Attorney has. I just realized that the Attorney and the

ministry have millions of documents, and it’s not always easy to get

their hands on it quickly. What I’ve sent over is the Vancouver police

department report to the police board on crime stats, which I know that

the ministry has, that I’m sure they have. It’s dated February 7, and it

was submitted to the Vancouver police board on February 24.

On the second page of that report, under the heading “Violent

crime,” on the first bullet, it reads: “At the end of 2021, the number

of violent crimes was 5,866, up 1.5 percent from the same time in 2020….

The 2021 year-end violent crime total is 7.1 percent higher than the

three-year average of violent crime incidents….”

[3:20 p.m.]

The point I think the author is making is something the Attorney

General referred to earlier, and that is that through the pandemic,

because of its impact on movement of people, that had an impact to skew

the numbers.

Further down in the second bullet, the fourth subpoint, the report

says: “Serious assaults decreased by 1.1 percent; however, the number of

serious assaults in 2021 is 28.5 percent higher than the three-year

average between 2017 and 2019.”

My first question to the Attorney, with the assistance of his

staff: does he accept those numbers as a description of the problem?

Does the Ministry of Attorney General accept the data, as reported by

the Vancouver police department to the police board, as being accurate

with respect to the reporting of violent crime?

Hon. D. Eby: I have a couple of different sets of statistics to share with the

member. Starting in fiscal year 2017-18, I have reports to Crown counsel

received from police. A report to Crown counsel is where there’s been an

offence, and police have been called. They’ve done an investigation,

compiled everything together and prepared a report to Crown,

recommending charges. Then Crown does their deliberations.

This measures the inputs coming into the Crown office. It’s a good

indicator of trends. From ’17-18 through to fis­cal year ’21-22,

there was a 27.8 percent decrease in the number of reports to Crown

counsel received. The reason for that is just a collapse in the number

of reports to Crown counsel in two categories — one is property offence

reports to Crown counsel, and the other is administration of justice

reports to Crown counsel.

[3:25 p.m.]

Property offence reports to Crown counsel were down 44.1 percent,

and administration of justice reports to Crown counsel were down 41.9

percent. A significant but smaller decrease was in other offence reports

to Crown counsel, which were down 17.5 percent. The one outlier is what

Crown counsel described as person offence reports to Crown counsel. This

would definitely include violent crime. It’s really any interference

with another person, which were up 12 percent over the same period. So

that would show a trend not inconsistent with what the member had read

out.

Now, I have different numbers than the member around police data

on violent crimes, Vancouver police violent crime data. This is from the

Vancouver police department annual reports. The violent crime trend line

from ’16-17 through 2021, in their data, indicates an increase from

5,266 incidents in 2017 to 5,865 incidents in 2021 but a similar, marked

decline in property crimeI from 40,711 property crime incidents in 2017

to 28,733 property crime incidents in 2021. If you look at the total

number of offences for Vancouver over that period — again, it’s a

remarkable reduction, from 52,062 offences in 2017, total, to 40,239

offences in 2021, total.

This reflects in the overall crime rate per 1,000 members of the

population. In 2017, the number was 77.74 offences per 1,000 members of

the population of Vancouver; in 2021, the number was 58.05 offences.

When you take into account population growth, even with population

growth, it does moderate, a little bit, the increase in violent crime

that we’re seeing. You’ll see that in 2017, the crime rate per 1,000

population was 7.86, and in 2021, it was 8.46.

In these numbers, to put them in some historical context, violent

crime was 9 percent higher and property crime was 11 percent higher in

2012. Vancouver, the city, had a smaller population, yet crime, in just

gross numbers, was remarkably higher.

The member rightly notes that over the pandemic period, we have

seen an increase in violent crime. When we look at the provincial

statistics, which provide a bit more of a breakdown about what might be

driving that violent crime, there’s whole bunch of things that fall

under that category.

We see somewhat staggering increases in offences described as

uttering threats; indecent or harassing communications; and what are

described as assault level one, the definition of which is an

interference with another person — it could be a push, a shove — that

doesn’t result in a significant injury to that person but could be quite

terrifying for that person. In 2017, assault level one, provincially,

20,634 offences; in 2020, 27,352 offences. Uttering threats, in 2017,

8,660 offences; in 2020, 16,362 offences. Indecent or harassing

communications, 5,651 offences in 2017, and 9,431 in 2020.

[3:30 p.m.]

Some of this is confounded by a change in Statistics Canada’s

definition of how they…. It comes out of the Unfounded investigation in

the Globe and Mail , where police deemed, in particular, sexual

offences, alleged disproportionately by women, to be unfounded, and they

were not recorded as offences. The federal government took a perspective

— and rightly, in my opinion — that women, and victims of crime

generally, who bring allegations forward should be believed and that it

should be reflected in data.

That change happened between the years 2018 and 2019. You can see

a marked increase. I don’t believe it explains the full increase that

we’ve seen. There are many explanations that have been offered about the

decline in civility and the increase, in the shadow pandemic that was

described, of violence against women and associated uttering of threats,

racial epithets and other activities that we’ve seen increase during the

pandemic. I think we’ll be researching for many years why this is

happening.

It is a complicated picture in terms of both provincial and

Vancouver crime statistics. The trends that the member has identified, I

think, are correct. I have different numbers from the annual reports

than the one that the police board report has.

Of interest, perhaps, the crime severity index, which is monitored

by Statistics Canada — I only have this for the provincewide numbers —

has decreased from a high in 2019 to be more consistent with the

long-term average, but it’s still higher than normal. For violent crime

severity in British Columbia, we are currently lower than violent crime

severity was in 2011-2012 in British Columbia. But at 89.5 on the

severity crime index, we are significantly higher than we were in 2017,

which was 74.5.

For the youth crime severity index, happily, the numbers are much

lower. In 2020, the most recent year for which I have data, 28.2 is the

crime severity index measurement. That is actually the lowest crime

severity for youth since 2011, according to B.C. Statistics.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney.

A number of things flow from that that I would submit to the

Attorney. This is a difficult forum in which to throw huge numbers of

numbers around. I think the Attorney has accepted my proposition in

directing him to this particular collation of data from the Vancouver

police department around the general trend lines.

In the document that I’ve provided, on pages 4, 5 and 6, there are

a number of bar charts that relate to the trend line upwards for violent

crime, for homicides, for shots fired. Happily, there seems to have been

a significant decrease in bank robberies, for example — and by the way,

to put on the record, seemingly a significant decrease in property

crime. But in these other areas, the numbers — as I was listening to the

Attorney — whilst perhaps they are slightly different, didn’t strike me

as being all that different from the numbers he is quoting

from.

It’s all to say that the proposition I am hopeful the Attorney

General will agree with is that trend lines around crimes against

persons, violent crimes, are heading in the wrong direction. We don’t

have data for the most recent period.

[3:35 p.m.]

The Attorney, I expect, is getting the same anecdotal advice from

the prosecution branch, the police, the mayors and community leaders

that the trend is accelerating in the wrong direction, which speaks to

the importance of taking steps to try and arrest that.

One other point about the Vancouver police department report — I

provided a copy to the Attorney — is on page 10. I’ll just direct him

and his staff to that. I think this is going to be relevant to a

conversation that is going to arise at some point — and maybe,

peripherally, already has — and it relates to

section 28 Mental Health

Act apprehensions. I wondered if the Attorney would comment on, first of

all, whether he agrees with the statistics and then, secondly, whether

he had any comment around the apparent modest decrease, in 2021, of

Mental Health Act apprehensions.

At some point, we are going to have a conversation about what

causes prolific offenders. The Attorney is going to, quite rightly,

point out that there are many causes and that they can relate to mental

health issues and addictions. I was a bit surprised by this — by the

fact that at the time persons crime and violent crime are on the rise,

apprehensions under the Mental Health Act seem to, ever so slightly, be

decreasing.

That was not my perception or my expectation, but I’m sure that

the Attorney General’s ministry and the officials are aware of this. I’m

curious to know from the Attorney whether they were surprised or what

explanation they would have for what seems to be a bit of an

inconsistency there.

Hon. D. Eby: We have very limited line of sight into Mental Health Act

apprehensions for the reason that typically, if a police officer does

apprehend someone for a Mental Health Act apprehension, they will bring

that individual to the hospital. The person may be admitted as an

involuntary patient to that hospital. There is no contact with the

justice system and, therefore, no data collected by Crown and so

on.

Happily, I do have some data that may assist the member in

understanding the trend. We have done some work on the mental health

rights advice service, and we have some statistics from the Ministry of

Health and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. I would

recommend the member to direct sort of more…. Or perhaps Public Safety

and Solicitor General may have an explanation about police activity in

this regard.

The number of individuals with involuntary status in acute care

facilities has been increasing steadily over the last 15 years. When we

look between 2005-2006 and 2017-18 — I apologize; these are the only

data I have — the number of involuntarily admitted patients increased by

approximately 79 percent,

whereas voluntarily admitted patients

increased by only 12 percent. It is possible that one of the reasons why

there are fewer apprehensions is that individuals are spending longer in

involuntary status in an acute care facility.

[3:40 p.m.]

That is purely speculation, because, as I advised the member, I

don’t know. This ministry does not have the detailed data on this kind

of activity.

M. de Jong: Before I go any further, I was remiss. The Attorney has introduced

to the committee the very capable staff helping him. I want to

acknowledge a woman who has helped me.

Karen Bill plies her trade with great diligence and little

fanfare. Our ability to have this conversation is, in large measure, a

tribute to her helping me compile some of this material so that we can —

at least, in a reasonably efficient way — have this conversation about

the minister’s budget. So thank you to Karen Bill.

All right. I think we have established some measure of agreement

that the trend lines around violent crime in the city of Vancouver —

we’ll come to other parts of the province in a moment — are headed in

the wrong direction. I suppose the question that requires asking is:

what explanation, or any, does the Attorney General have for why this is

taking place?

Hon. D. Eby: This is exactly one of the questions we’ve asked the investigators

to look into. We’ve had a meeting with the Vancouver police department

to discuss this issue. They’ve identified, specifically in Vancouver, an

issue of random stranger attacks, which they were at pains to point out

is distinct, in their assessment, from the group of prolific offenders.

So in the terms of reference for the investigators, I set those out

separately.

In conversations with them, what’s driving this kind of activity….

There were no easy answers. I think if they had easy answers, they would

be working overtime to address those, if they were policing responses

that were required. I’m sure they are working overtime to address these

issues.

I will say I’ve been heartened by some of the recent coverage

around increased foot traffic downtown resulting in decreases in crime.

News 1130 recently had an

article headlined “Vancouver’s West End Sees

Decreases in Crime amid Loosened Restrictions.” There was a similar

article in the Globe and Mail , Francis Bula–authored, talking

with the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association.

I think and I hope that we’re starting to see a crest in some of

these kinds of activities, but the member may be right. Given the

real-time nature of the issue we’re dealing with, we’re…. I can’t point

to anything aside from increased foot traffic, the number of people

downtown, potentially driving these decreases in some of the activities

that were causing a great deal of distress earlier in places like the

West End — whether that is a trend or whether it’s a blip.

I think the core of the work that I’ve asked these experts to do

is: “Can you identify why these things are happening, in terms of the

random stranger attacks? Can you help us identify ways to prevent them

or respond to them more effectively?” That is the work the government is

doing.

M. de Jong: Well, who says the media can’t be an authoritative source for

crime information, crime stats.

[3:45 p.m.]

I am obliged to ask the Attorney this question and will do so.

Insofar as the data began to reveal a trend line in the wrong direction,

particularly in the areas of violent crime, the question that he has

seen posed in those same and other media outlets and that I will pose

now is why it took until last month or two weeks ago for the Attorney

General to take the very preliminary step of calling for this study to

be undertaken.

Hon. D. Eby: The question is premised on an incorrect assertion, which is that

this investigation is all that government has done in relation to the

issues of mental health and addiction driving criminal activity and the

feelings of a lack of safety in downtown cores. The member will know

that we have taken very significant measures to address large-scale

encampments in downtown Victoria and downtown Vancouver and the Whalley

strip, that we committed in the budget 500 complex care beds for people

with serious mental health and addiction issues.

Cities like Vernon that track these numbers carefully are now

reporting a 50 percent decrease in crime in their downtown core thanks

to supportive housing that has opened there, getting people inside and

addressing their core needs that were driving some of the criminal

activity that they were engaging in — very positive results from that

community.

Situation tables are providing positive results, funded by the

provincial government, in communities like Quesnel, yet despite that

work…. And as the mayors themselves will say, we’ve worked together

closely on complex care and on delivering these programs.

There is a group of people who will not take up these voluntary

programs, and the extent of this problem, I think, surprised them. It

certainly surprised me. In the context of what I would describe as

historically low levels of overall crime in Vancouver and the province,

certainly we were aware of the disorder issues, the challenges downtown,

but the impact of this small group of prolific offenders driving some of

that disorder downtown…. When they initially raised the issue with me

and I asked them to collect some data on this so that we could have a

look at it, I think we were all unpleasantly surprised by the results,

which led to that investigation.

We’ve been doing a lot of work together on the issues of helping

communities recover from the pandemic, helping address issues of

disorder in downtown cores, address issues of open poverty, drug

addiction, mental health issues, suffering in the streets that really

detract from feelings of community safety and, for the people suffering

with those life situations, address in a compassionate way their

challenges and make their lives better with better outcomes, as many of

the reviews of our supportive housing do show. So there’s lots

happening, but this is another layer of a complicated problem, and we’re

going to go after that too.

I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of

Attorney General.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, Ministry

of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:52 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000

(continued) .

M. de Jong: The Attorney’s last comments are probably as good an opportunity

as I’ll get to offer this confession to the committee. We all come to

these conversations with certain biases, and they colour the way we

analyze these things. I think this is one of those times, and I’m happy

to lay on the record a bias that I have.

I accept absolutely the notion, the proposition and as a fact that

many of the people who commit crimes, commit acts that are outlawed in

the Criminal Code, do so from a position of diminished capacity, whether

that is by reason of mental health issues, addictions. There is no

question that is based on firsthand observations from a time when I used

to be involved in the courts.

I must say there is another group…. We had an exchange, the

Attorney and I, in a different forum in this place, which is less

amenable to thoughtful exchanges, where I tried to, I suppose clumsily,

make that point. There is a group — happily, I think, a much smaller

group — who is not so burdened.

[3:55 p.m.]

They are burdened by and burden society because they have made a

decision to pursue a life of crime, and they conduct themselves

accordingly. There are other reasons, I suppose, in their backgrounds

that may have contributed to that decision, but it is not always

attributable to our traditional notion of mental health issues or

addictions.

The reason I say that is…. The Attorney will, as he already has,

point out steps that the government has taken to address that group of

people who are impacted by mental health issues and addictions. I am

less convinced that steps have been taken recently to address what I

acknowledge is a smaller group but a group that in my view is

responsible for much of the havoc that the Attorney General is receiving

submissions about from leaders like the mayors.

That is a good transition for us. The next document, if you will,

that I wanted to refer to — and I’m sure the Attorney has it over there

— is the letter he received on April 5. If he doesn’t have it readily

available, I have a copy, if that makes it easier. I know he has it. I’m

not suggesting….

Hon. D. Eby: We have it.

M. de Jong: You have it.

The B.C. Urban Mayors Caucus finally, frustrated by what they saw

happening in their communities, wrote. They wrote with respect to a

particular concern. They wrote to the Attorney. They also wrote to the

Solicitor General. They highlighted what, for them, has been a

particular source of frustration.

Now, I’ll try to deal with this in a couple of steps here. Early

on in their letter, they talk about the issues their communities are

facing with repeat offenders. They used the phrase “catch-and-release

policy.” I know that has acquired a partisan distinction. They do,

however, use the term in their letter as well.

I’ll start merely by asking the Attorney this. In a general sense,

the urban mayors, and a number of non-urban mayors, are saying, and have

done so in their letter, that something has happened of late to amplify

this as an issue, though we haven’t yet defined the term “prolific

offender,” where prolific offenders are committing criminal acts on a

repetitive basis for which they and their communities perceive no

sanctions to be imposed and no measures being taken to protect their

communities from those repetitive criminal acts.

Does the Attorney General accept the proposition that this

behaviour is on the rise and is contributing to genuine safety concerns

in communities in B.C.?

[4:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: We spent a brief moment discussing the member’s question, and I’ll

acknowledge that we are a technical ministry when it comes to

questions.

Does it mean…? Someone is arrested. There’s a question of whether

they should be released, either at the scene of the offence by the

police officer, catch and release — that’s something that can happen,

that does happen; be released under conditions agreed to that the

prosecutor proposes, catch and release. That is something that happens.

A person still comes for trial and for hearings and so on, procedural

matters, or their counsel does, but they’re waiting for their trial in

the community, not in a remand facility; or they appear in front of a

judge, and the judge says: “I have decided that I can release you back

into the community with these conditions.” Catch and release — that’s

something that happens.

Those are all stages at which someone can be caught. The police

can have reasonable and probable grounds that the individual committed

the offence. They’re arrested, and they’re released at some stage along

their journey, or they’re sent to a remand facility to wait for

trial.

One of the things that we’ve seen, I can advise the member, in

terms of trends, is a decline in the prison population in British

Columbia, over the course of the pandemic, of about 20 percent or so

that has not yet recovered. There’s a number of reasons that I’m given

for why that has taken place.

The decline in property crime rates and reports to Crown counsel.

There’s just the restriction in the number of criminal trials that took

place during the pandemic. Many were adjourned, so people completed

their sentence in facilities, were released, and they weren’t replaced

as they normally would be by incoming people from criminal trials that

were concluding — someone being convicted and sentenced to time in a

facility. So we have a lower number of reports to Crown counsel, lower

rates of crime, restricted court access. Courts were still open but

processing fewer individuals.

And then one particular category of offence, which is

administration of justice offences, had two separate initiatives

impact…. I read to the member, earlier, statistics about the collapse in

the number of administration of justice offences. Those were one of two

categories with remarkable declines.

Bill C-75, out of the federal government, requires courts,

prosecutors, to use least restrictive means when someone is arrested on

an offence. They’re put on conditions to, wherever possible, avoid

custody; to use least restrictive means in terms of the conditions that

are imposed; and when someone breaches those conditions, to only pursue

an administration of justice offence breach of conditions in

significantly restricted circumstances than before bill C-75. So that

was one.

[4:05 p.m.]

The second was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, on a

case called Zora, where the court admonished all actors in the criminal

justice system about having people wait in jail for their trials as one

of the default responses and that prosecutors and judges need to be much

more careful in holding someone in custody waiting for their

trial.

In that respect, many people who have been caught by police, or

police have probable grounds to believe they committed an offence, are

not spending their time waiting for trial in jail anymore. They’re

waiting in the community. I’m told anecdotally by our Crown — they don’t

have data on this yet — that they are seeing more and more individuals

coming into the court for prosecution, being arrested by police, that

have multiple offences that are in process than historically has been

the case. A person will have five, six offences that haven’t yet gone to

trial.

This means that the person has been released back into the

community and has committed another offence that caused them to be

arrested and then brought back in. This is something that is showing up

more frequently.

There are a number of explanations for these trends that seem very

persuasive to me in what is driving them and, I think, present a

challenge to the province. The first is that these are federally

initiated changes that are implemented by an independent judiciary and

an independent prosecution service. Even if neither of them were, I

would have trouble directing them not to follow the federal law, which

is Bill C-75, in relation to administration of justice

offences.

They are bound to apply that federal law in the Zora decision, and

they do so, and that’s their job. They are independent of me to prevent

political considerations from interfering with that critical work. So

that presents a challenge.

The second challenge is really more in the nature of an

opportunity, which is that even though we do not prescribe the law that

decides whether or not someone waits for their trial in custody or in

the community, as a province, we do have a number of opportunities to

respond to situations where…. And it might be through….

We’ve canvassed some of these possibilities in the Legislature. I

set out a number of them in the terms of reference for the

investigators. Opportunities to provide supports to the justice system

to recognize that people would be waiting for trial in the community in

a way that they weren’t before — to mitigate these potential harms while

they’re waiting for trial.

I did set out things like electronic monitoring and support

services that would be mandatory, available to judges to access. Perhaps

there are other opportunities available out there. This is the work that

we have tasked these investigators to do. So we’re working within this

federal context, but there are opportunities that come from the

challenge to address these issues.

M. de Jong: So a few things flow from that that I can convey to the Attorney

General in advance of my question. First of all, in the course of this

discussion, I may be interested in other things, but what I can attempt

and what the opposition can attempt to hold the government and the

Attorney General to account for are things within their control. Insofar

as there are other factors at play, the Attorney won’t and shouldn’t be

concerned that I will endeavour to hold him to account for those

things.

[4:10 p.m.]

For example, we are now, on the strength of what we have heard

from mayors and community leaders, delving into a matter as it relates

to the release policies for persons charged with criminal misconduct —

persons that we might reasonably consider prolific offenders, based on

their records.

I understand and accept that members of the Prosecution Service,

once the matter is before a court, do not make that decision. It is made

by a judge, on the strength of submissions made by the Prosecution

Service and counsel for the defendant. It’s made by an independent judge

on that basis. The nature of the submissions and the position taken by

the Crown is something that I can explore with the Attorney and perhaps

even provide some thoughts and submissions around.

Secondly, I will say this to the Attorney. It’s something that

we’ll get to either later today or next day. I have heard him refer to

two sources of law that have complicated this matter — I’m not sure if

he has used that word, but I will — from the perspective of Crown

counsel. One is jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, and the

other is Bill C-75, passed by the federal parliament.

I’d like to explore both of those with him, to go beyond the

general statements and find out what precisely is at the source of the

complication or the difficulty that these represent when it relates to

the detention of prolific offenders, but we’ll get to that

momentarily.

The reason being that if, in fact, there are provisions of C-75

that are contributing to the problem and contributing to the challenge

that communities and community leaders have identified and are beating

on the Attorney General’s door about, this is the opportunity to

articulate them. If the federal parliament got it wrong, then let’s tell

them that. More importantly, let’s have the Attorney General tell them

that. They don’t care what I think, but they may care what the Attorney

General thinks. But we’ll get to that in due course.

It’s all to say that to the extent…. I’m not sure that we’ll get

there today. Having those two or three decisions…. I can forewarn that

the ones I was interested in were Zora, Jordan and Antic, as the three

that seem, to me, to have been referred to as having been problematic —

at least, others have said that they’re potentially problematic — and,

of course, C-75. Having that available would be helpful.

In the letter that has sort of prompted this and that I’m

referring to in this discussion today, there are some anecdotal

references. I’m not going to ask the Attorney General to comment on

specific accused persons and specific cases. He can be assured of that.

But I’m going to refer to them, because I’d like to get them on the

record and then ask him some general questions about these kinds of

circumstances.

The mayors cited, on page 1 of their letter, at the bottom, an

example from the Abbotsford police department, which happens to be in my

hometown. They claim to be monitoring 81…. They use the term “prolific

offenders,” which they define as individuals with 10 to 29 convictions,

believed to be criminally active. They say that this is a 33 percent

increase from 2019 and that 50 of those are considered “super prolific.”

That’s a new term, super prolific, meaning that they have more than 30

convictions.

Now they don’t say within what period of time, and they don’t

break it down as young offenders versus adult offenders, but assuming —

and I do — that information is correct, from the Abbotsford police

department, that’s very troubling.

[4:15 p.m.]

They talk about, in Vancouver, 40 — and here again, a slightly

different term — “super chronic offenders” who have an average of 54

convictions per offender, So 40 people with a total of 2,152

convictions. They list for almost a dozen communities.

Then they get very anecdotal, and I’ll mention three of these

examples. In Abbotsford, an individual who, at the time the letter was

written, had several outstanding warrants for his arrest for the second

time within two weeks. His latest release order was issued and breached

the same day.

Last arrested and charged with theft of a motor vehicle, robbery,

assault, assault with a weapon, resisting and obstruction of a peace

officer and driving while prohibited. In 2021, initially remanded for

two weeks, then issued a release order. The latest three convictions

were for breach of probation, breach of undertaking and breach of

release order. That’s the example from Abbotsford.

In Kelowna, an individual who, apparently, since 2016, has

generated 346 RCMP files and received 29 convictions for property crime

and assault offences and currently has “no-go” conditions to 11

businesses. The offender is routinely released with conditions and

subsequently reoffends.

Finally, a third example that I’ll refer to from the letter. In

Nanaimo, an individual who generated 300 crime files, was a young

offender until 2019; grom 2019 to ’22, as an adult had 113 files, 20 of

which generated charges; from 2019 to present, they had 21 criminal

charges, resulting in seven convictions and one non-conviction, one

pending, eight stays of proceedings.

We don’t know what that definition — prolific offender, super

prolific offender…. But assuming these descriptions are correct, they

are likely to fall within that category somewhere.

By the way, the one I didn’t mention, from Victoria: 248 offences

for an individual in a short period of time.

Let me ask this. To what extent does the Attorney General’s

ministry and the Prosecution Service track…? I mean, we know that when a

report to Crown counsel comes in, Crown counsel does their work. They

assess the charge and make a decision to proceed or not. They have to

make a decision on submissions around detention or release.

To what degree does Crown counsel track — individually and,

perhaps, cumulatively — these files that, if we had a definition or when

we have a definition, might fall into the category of prolific offender?

How is the Prosecution Service set up — or is it? — to address what to

any reasonable, thinking person would be examples of gross, ongoing,

blatant criminal activity, concentrated criminal activity that really

wreaks havoc in communities?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of thoughts and some background for the member. In a lot

of these stories that have come forward, a number of them are from

smaller communities. In smaller communities, these individuals are well

known. They’re well known by police; they’re well known by Crown. It’s

their history, and for judges in the area, for everybody, it is

generally not a revelation when they’re arrested and appear in

court.

In terms of process, when someone is arrested, Crown counsel will

pull all previous files. The reason they do that is to determine — let’s

say it’s a bail application — whether the person is going to show up for

court, whether the person is likely to reoffend, whether there’s a

pressing public need for the person to be detained to ensure public

confidence in the system. The back files, the history of these

individuals, informs that evaluation by the Crown of how to move

forward.

I’m advised that this process is done on an individual basis, that

there are not categories — you know, you’ve crossed over a certain

threshold, so now it’s a different approach. It involves an assessment

of those previous files and the pattern of behaviours.

I’m also advised that typically, in these kinds of situations —

not every time — defence counsel for the person who has been arrested

will work with Crown counsel, and the person will typically agree to

plead guilty to a number of the offences they’ve been arrested for. They

will be sentenced for those offences. Typically, these individuals are

not those engaging in the most serious crimes — serious assaults, sexual

assaults, murders. These are lower-threshold, still incredibly

disruptive and problematic activities in community, but not the worst

offences.

[4:25 p.m.]

What happens is that the longest sentence, under the criminal

system we have in Canada, for someone seized for this bundle of offences

that they’re going to plead guilty to is less than two years. That’s at

the outside. That’s really a more exceptional circumstance. Most times

it’s going to be less than that in the sentence that the judge imposes.

That person is going to be back out on the street, and then the cycle

will repeat. That’s how you get to those kinds of numbers.

In that process, it’s hard to see the obvious opportunity to

interrupt this kind of pattern. The person has pled guilty, been

sentenced, gone to jail, served the time, been released, repeat and

recycle again and again. That is the important work that government is

doing — to figure out how to interrupt this cycle. What supports, what

interventions, what approaches are going to have the most success in

interrupting that?

This is the Crown counsel. As the member said, we’re not going to

go into specific offenders, but in a typical “prolific offender” — we’re

going to use the term, even though we haven’t defined it — case, this is

the pattern, and this is the problem.

M. de Jong: I’m not sure if this was communicated to the Attorney, but by

agreement, my friend the Leader of the Green Party, I expect, is here,

expecting to participate in this at 4:30. Okay. Good. Then the

collaborative work of the opposition and government is on track for the

moment. I will make one further submission on this point, and then I’ll

pick it up, I think, likely when we return to these proceedings in the

week following.

I’m going to say a couple of things, in response to the Attorney

General, that are not intended to be argumentative, but there are

elements of what he said that I disagree with. I’ll begin by making this

observation, as it relates to people who have shown a proclivity to

offend and reoffend — that notion of the prolific offender. Seriousness

is in the eye of the beholder.

To be fair, I’ve heard the Attorney say that when you are the

victim of one of these acts — an assault that doesn’t qualify as

attempted murder, perhaps — it’s still, certainly, serious for that

person. I don’t think the Attorney argues that point, but there is a

tendency — as someone who has been involved in the court system — to

measure these things. The idea: for someone who has been convicted 20 or

30 times, I think the reasonable person would observe that it’s starting

to get serious. It’s long past the point, because of the numbers of

people that are being negatively impacted.

The Attorney has referred to the statutory test for judicial

interim release, and I’ll say this. We know what it is. It’s in the

Criminal Code. I know the test of the reasonable person. One is cautious

about applying it as it relates to something as complex as the Criminal

Code, but the test around the likelihood of reoffending, I think,

confuses a lot of people, when someone has been convicted 30

times.

Even in the scenario that the Attorney General has laid out — I’m

not quibbling with it — the person, the average person, the member of

society, the mayor says: “I think I can make a pretty good case that

this person is going to reoffend after the 30th time in three years.”

The degree to which that doesn’t seem to be reflected is in some of the

approaches and decisions.

[4:30 p.m.]

I’ll say this. There is a paragraph on page 3 of the letter from

the mayors. I’ll read it into the record: “Importantly, not all prolific

property offenders require a health care response but rather require

that their repeated and constant offending be deterred and denounced.

These individuals are having a negative and costly impact on the local

business community, putting extreme pressure on policing resources and

eroding the sense of public safety and trust in the justice system by

residents in all our communities.”

That’s the assertion in the letter. I agree with that. I’ll go

further in a moment. I’d like the Attorney General to indicate in this

committee whether he agrees with that statement.

I’ll say this, and it’s not something one likes to say. But in the

case of someone who persistently chooses to engage in doing harm to

others or even other people’s properties and refuses to cease that

activity and over a short period of time consistently reoffends and is

convicted, it may be that the only way to stop that person is for them

to be detained, pending the trial, and, following the trial, a further

period of incarceration.

I get that in many circumstances people are challenged with other

things in their life — mental health, addictions — for which that

response may not be appropriate or isn’t appropriate. But I think we

have forgotten the group that is causing these communities and these

mayors a lot of their concern. In the day ahead or the days ahead in

these proceedings, I’d like to explore with the Attorney General how we

might better respond to those concerns and offer up some suggestions

about how that might be done.

But I’m now over the time I promised to cede the floor and also

want the Attorney to have an opportunity, if he wishes, to respond to

what I’ve just said.

Hon. D. Eby: Just one point of concern is that there seemed to be a conclusion

reached by the member that the Crown, in these kinds of situations that

the member has described — a person’s got a long history of re-offending

— would not be seeking that individual’s detention. He said it seems

like they’re likely to re-offend and that public confidence in the

justice system requires seeking detention. Crown does seek

detention.

C-75 does not prevent Crown from seeking detention, and neither

does Zora in appropriate circumstances. The challenge is…. And Crown

often gets that detention order. Then the person’s in custody waiting

for trial. That’s typically when — and I ran through the process for

these individuals — they’re sitting in jail. They’re like: “Okay, I

don’t want to wait for trial.” Their defence counsel reach out to Crown.

They come to an arrangement to plead guilty. There is a sentencing. The

person serves the sentence. Then they’re back in the community, and the

cycle begins again.

[4:35 p.m.]

I said that that’s the typical process, and that is also the

problem. Now Peter Juk, ADAG, reminds me that pre-charter in the

Criminal Code, there were provisions that allowed you to hold prolific

offenders essentially indefinitely. Those provisions are no longer

available. We’re bound by the Criminal Code sentencing provisions, and

while I agree with the member that when you’re a victim of

crime….

If someone pushed my wife and kid into the street, it would be a

level 1 assault. It wouldn’t feel level 1 to me, or to them. But it

would certainly be subject to Criminal Code provisions where sentences

were not life sentences — in fact, were significantly less than that.

The challenge that we have is: working in this federal Criminal Code

context, and working within the Charter that we’re all bound by in our

work, how do we address this problem?

I agree with the member. There are criminals. There are people who

commit crime for profit that choose that lifestyle willingly. Now, I

will say that I suspect strongly that there are serious capacity issues

in an individual that has 300 offences where they’ve been caught and

prosecuted. I don’t mean to laugh. That just seems so ludicrous that…. I

don’t know what the reaction is. If not laughing, then crying, that this

is such a dismal situation. It feels to me like that person has a pretty

serious capacity issue, but really, semantics, I guess, at the end of

the day, when we’re talking about people who are choosing to engage in

criminal activity.

Mental health and addiction issues are serious issues that cause

people to be more involved in criminal conduct than they might otherwise

be, because their judgment is impaired. Because their volition is

impaired by the organic brain injury or by the mental health issue or by

the substance that they’ve ingested, it causes them to participate in

criminal activity, and, too often, in problematic ways.

In many ways, I agree with the member. I’m not sure that we have a

significant point of departure. It’s very difficult to talk about these

things in the abstract, but almost necessarily so. But I’ve enjoyed the

conversation. I look forward to the questions from the member from the

Third Party.

S. Furstenau: For the Attorney General’s benefit, I’m going to be asking a lot

of questions, to start, on housing. I’m not sure if there’s a difference

in staff.

Hon. D. Eby: I have housing staff coming Monday and Tuesday of the next sitting

week. The staff who are here — the B.C. Prosecution Service…. The Deputy

Attorney General is here. I can endeavour to do my best to answer the

questions, or the member could bring her questions when B.C. Housing is

here as well. I’ll have, perhaps, more detailed answers.

M. de Jong: Why don’t we huddle here for a minute.

I think, to ensure the efficiency of the proceedings and in

fairness to my friend, she will pick this up when the staff are here in

the area that she is interested in.

We’ll come back then to where we left off in the exchange. Earlier

in these proceedings, the Attorney General referred to the data he had

around charge approvals.

[4:40 p.m.]

I wanted to canvass that here in this section, where I’m trying to

review with the Attorney the magnitude of the issue and how it’s

reflected in the information that we do have available to us

now.

The material I’m going to refer to for a couple of moments is

actually material that, happily, the Attorney General provided to a

colleague of mine in a letter he wrote on September 15, where he

provided some of those statistics around charge approvals. Again, I

hadn’t warned the Attorney General specifically that I was going to

refer to that letter, and I have a copy of it here if he….

Hon. D. Eby: We have it.

M. de Jong: You have it.

The Attorney General responded to my colleague from Kamloops–North

Thompson, who had made queries about charge approvals in Kamloops and

the Interior region. He did so with an attachment to the letter that

included a couple of tables that showed the numbers.

This will take a moment, but I’ll get this on the record, and if

the Attorney and his staff have the table, it’s probably easier for them

to follow than to try to make sense of the numbers I’m going to read

into the record.

These are statistics that provide an insight into the number of

times, following the receipt of a report to Crown counsel from police,

the decision is made by Crown counsel not to proceed with a charge.

That’s the material that the Attorney provided to my colleague. I’ll

summarize, as follows.

There were three tables. One was for Kamloops. And just by way of

example, in 2016, the Prosecution Service received 3,244 reports to

Crown counsel. Of those, the decision not to charge was made in 440

cases — about 13½ percent, according to the data.

I’m not going to read all the numbers into the record, but the

trend line goes as follows. In 2017, the decision of no charge was 11

percent. In 2018, it was 14 percent. In 2019, it was 16 percent. In

2020, it went to 27 percent. And for the first half of 2021, it was

tracking at 20 percent.

The other interesting feature is that the number of reports to

Crown counsel received decreased fairly significantly. I didn’t do the

math, but it looks like by almost 33 percent. That similar trend appears

in the Interior region, where in 2016, the decision of no charge was 14

percent, and it tracks at 14, 13, 15, until we get to 2020, when

suddenly it jumps to 22 percent and remains that high.

For the province of B.C., again, and these are larger numbers

because it captures the entire province — 73,486 reports to Crown

counsel in 2016. In 12 percent of those, the decision was not to charge.

It tracks at 12 percent, 12 percent, 13 percent and 14 percent in 2019.

Then it goes to 20 percent. I mean, not quite doubling, but almost at

double — again, at a time when the number of reports to Crown counsel

goes from 73,486 down to 64,000.

[4:45 p.m.]

The number of reports coming in is going down, but the number of

times a decision is made not to proceed with a charge is going up

significantly enough, starting in 2019 and 2020, I would say, to

register our attention. I guess the obvious question is why. What’s

happening to explain that phenomenon?

Hon. D. Eby: The question is a sound one and an interesting one. There were two

remarkable trends over the last couple of years. One is indeed this

trend around Crown file approval. The other, as the member has rightly

identified —