2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004

Morning Sitting

Volume 26, Number 17

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tabling Documents

Auditor general report No. 5, 2004-05,

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

Salmon

Third Reading of Bills

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Royal Assent to Bills

Safe Streets Act (Bill 71)

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

[ Page 11719 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2004

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present

report No. 5, 2004-05, of the auditor general: Salmon Forever: An Assessment

of the Provincial Role in Sustaining Wild Salmon .

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Plant: I call report on Bill 71.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is third reading of

Bill 71.

Just before we begin the debate on the bill, I just wish to

apprise the members of the parameters to which debate is limited. It's an

unusual occurrence — third reading debate.

Because all bills in this House come from Committee of the Whole,

debate at third reading is limited. However, members have available to them the

amendments to the motion for third reading that are available to the motion for

second reading, always remembering that debate at this stage is strictly limited

to the contents of the bill.

Third Reading of Bills

SAFE STREETS ACT

J. Kwan: I want to begin this morning by making a couple of

points: first, why we're here and then about the substance of the bill. Over the

last three and a half years, a very definite pattern has emerged with this

government. With every seat in this Legislature save four, the government has

developed a sense of complacency about the importance of this institution and

about the debate that takes place in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, please. Debate is limited to the

contents of this bill — period. That goes for all members in this chamber. We

will not hear spurious debate at this time.

J. Kwan: Yesterday I tried to make closing comments about

this bill, and I was unable to do so. I did not have the opportunity that I

think, in my close to ten years of being in the Legislature…. When a bill is

before the House and before the final vote is voted on, usually I would have the

opportunity to bring forward some closing comments. I was unable to do so

yesterday. I tried, and I was unable to do so. In not having an opportunity to

make my final case in the opposition about this bill…. That is why we're here

today.

I know that the government doesn't have to agree with the

opposition or listen to the opposition, politely or otherwise, or even show up.

I know that they can heckle and they can scream and they can abuse. They have

done so, as it is the tradition of this House oftentimes — for that is the

theatre perhaps. That's why I think we sit two sword-lengths away, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just say that the government cannot, on a whim, decide that

debate is over and the vote is called. The record of the opposition in dissent

must be heard and dialogued. On this final day of debate….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat for a

moment. I wish to caution you again, and all members in the House, that debate

on this bill was well canvassed at second reading, where a wide variety of

topics are allowed. It was well canvassed clause by clause in committee, where

many members strayed from the intent of committee. This is possibly the reason

why your closing remarks were closed off yesterday in committee.

I caution the member again: the Chair will only listen to items

pertaining to Bill 71 — period. Please proceed.

J. Kwan: Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you. Let me talk about

the bill, about the substance of this bill — a bill that in my view was

ill-thought-out. The Attorney General actually had to add two amendments to this

skimpy piece of legislation that only has five sections to it — a bill that was

so poorly drafted and overreaching that it makes asking for change for the phone

or selling a newspaper at the ferry illegal. Those were the words of the

Attorney General yesterday.

[1010]

The Attorney General conceded in this debate yesterday that the

bill was so unnecessary and so obviously a political stunt that the mayors of

B.C.'s two largest cities, Vancouver and Victoria, have panned the Attorney

General's legislation.

I know that this government doesn't like to listen to Vancouver's

mayor, so let me quote the mayor of Victoria instead. He said: "I do not believe

we need the Safe Streets Act. We have the Criminal Code to deal with aggressive

panhandlers."

The Attorney General yesterday tried to make the claim that the

local governments needed a provincewide law. The Criminal Code, of course,

applies to the entire province, but the Attorney General says that that's not

good enough and that local governments needed this piece of legislation,

notwithstanding — and I know some members in this House would appreciate this —

that local governments have the authority to bring in any additional bylaws to

address their specific situation. Legislation that governs local governments

gives them that enabling authority. Some jurisdictions, some municipal

governments have brought in those bylaws, and some haven't. Maybe that tells a

story. Maybe that should be implicit — why not every municipality has a bylaw to

deal with this issue.

[ Page 11720 ]

This is a bill for which the question of constitutionality is in

question, a fact that even the Attorney General had to admit in debate

yesterday.

Yes, one point that the Attorney General refused to acknowledge in

yesterday's debate is the relationship between poverty and homelessness and this

government's crackdown on panhandlers and the poor begging for food. The

Attorney General said that homelessness has nothing to do with the desperation

of people on our streets. I beg to differ. This is despite the fact that Linda

Thomas, the housing director at the Vancouver coastal health authority, has

stated about the housing situation under this B.C. Liberal government:

"During the 1990s Thomas was able to create housing" —

she said — "for the mentally ill by going to non-profit groups, building

housing for families or singles and offering them support staff, paid for from

her budget, if the housing society would agree to reserve some units for the

VCHA patients. The Liberal provincial government has essentially stopped

building low-income social housing as it previously existed, focusing instead

on projects for the elderly and disabled. There isn't any of that general

housing anymore."

The fact is that the government took money that used to be

used for building affordable housing away from that development and put them

into assisted living. This is despite the fact that Linda Mix of the Tenants

Rights Action Coalition backs this up, stating: "While the NDP government spent

most of its housing budget on new units for low-income people, the Liberals

focused instead on independent living." A direct quote: "The B.C. Liberal

government is taking money from the housing envelope and putting it into the

health care envelope."

The Attorney General states that his government and this bill have

nothing to do with increased desperation on our streets, despite the fact that a

September 2004 Statistics Canada report shows that B.C. now has the biggest gap

between the rich and the poor of all the provinces. Similar studies indicate

that during this government's tenure, poverty has grown faster in the lower

mainland than in any other urban region in Canada and that the number of

homeless in the lower mainland has more than doubled.

[1015]

After all, despite how much the Attorney General and the members

on the other side hate to hear it, this is a government that has cut the very

programs and supports that keep people off the streets and protect public

safety. This government has cut or eliminated funding and has reduced programs

for the construction of affordable housing, for street-level youth programs, for

victim assistance programs and for street-level mental health programs. The

government has even refused to put forward an organized crime task force.

The government has cut legal aid. This bill will attack the very

people who cannot afford legal assistance, and they will have no recourse. The

government has cut Crown prosecutors' funding — the very people that try to

address crime and safety in our communities. The government has cut funding for

advocacy for people to keep them off the streets — to name a few programs,

PEERS, WISH Drop-in Centre and countless others. Those programs were designed to

get people off the streets, to make it safer for everyone, and this government

has cut those programs.

I want to just touch on the constitutionality issue for one more

minute. The Attorney General, by his own admission yesterday, stated that in

Ontario the Safe Streets Act is under the Court of Appeal. It is questionable

whether or not that act will stand up in a court of law on the issue around

constitutionality. That issue here is before us, I expect, sometime in the

future. I expect that this bill will be challenged, and I expect that

constitutional issues will be raised.

I want to make a final comment about this bill. There are a lot of

people out there, a lot of pundits and what have you, saying: "Well, this is the

popular vote." The government, by their own admission, says it's a popular-vote

issue. You know what? Sometimes being in government isn't just about being

popular. Good public policies should override what is popular and what is not.

It is the opposition's point of view that sometimes you have to do something

because you believe it is the right thing to do. That's what the opposition will

be doing.

We believe it is the right thing to do — to vote against this bill

— because it does not address the issue of crime and safety. It does not, in my

view — under the government's leadership or lack thereof — put programs in place

that would ease the many challenges on our streets.

Governments should not be bringing forward policies that divide

communities and pit communities against each other, but rather should work

toward bringing communities together. Good public policy should be based on

substance and not just a cheap political trick.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we are at third reading of Bill

71. The Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: I acknowledge that we are now having the

third reading debate that we could have had yesterday evening. As has been the

case throughout this debate, I have waited for a critique of the legislation

from the opposition. I have yet to hear it. I have heard criticism about other

matters. I heard it again this morning.

The opposition argue that we should be arguing about homelessness.

This is not a bill about homelessness. The opposition would like this to be a

debate about how to house the mentally ill. This is not a bill about housing the

mentally ill.

[1020]

This is a bill about safety on our streets. It is a bill which

says that the right of free passage on the streets of British Columbia is a

fundamental right, and there is a role for the provincial Legislature in

establishing a provincewide set of rules that have the force of law in ensuring

that the citizens of British Columbia do have the right of free passage on the

streets without being harassed or intimidated or abused or beset by those who

abuse their own right as citizens to be on the streets.

[ Page 11721 ]

This bill recognizes that those who wish or feel they are obliged

by circumstance to panhandle or beg are free to do so. They have the right to be

on the streets, just as all of us do. But they do not have the right to use

their right to be on the streets to intimidate and to belligerently verbally

abuse people, to block their right of passage, to take advantage of their

presence in situations where citizens are waiting to make a phone call or using

a cash machine.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the opposition, during the course of

this debate, raise questions about constitutional arguments. I have waited in

vain for them to make the constitutional argument. If they say there is a

constitutional argument, then I would respectfully suggest it's their obligation

to explain it. They don't explain it. Just as they have not critiqued the bill,

they have not offered in this chamber a critique of the constitutional issue.

We are here debating a bill. We are not here debating larger

social policy questions, which are important and which deserve debate and which

have been debated in this chamber on other occasions and which will be debated

on other occasions. But at the end of the day, the question on this reading — as

it was the question yesterday in committee stage debate, as it was the question

in second reading — is: what are the standards of behaviour and action that we

as legislators believe should be permitted on the streets?

To vote for this bill is to say that there should be standards;

that there should be a provincewide code of standards; that there should be the

force of law behind those standards; and that the police and peace officers

should, in appropriate cases, have the tools they need to ensure that all

citizens have the right of free passage.

To vote against this bill, simply put, is to vote against that

proposition. To vote against the bill is to say that the citizens of this

province should not have the right to pass unmolested on the streets of this

province. To vote against this bill is to say that people should have the right

to verbally abuse citizens when they are panhandling. To vote against this bill

is to vote in favour of the right of some citizens — a small group of citizens —

to harass and bully and intimidate others.

I don't think that's what British Columbians want us to do in this

chamber. I think British Columbians want us to vote in favour of standards which

should apply equally and for the benefit of all.

During the course of the debate, from time to time we came close

to talking about the way in which this bill will also operate to protect those

who are disadvantaged, because no one should be abused or intimidated or dealt

with in the way that is proscribed by this bill. Maybe a homeless person…. Does

that give a couple of punk kids from some suburb the right to take a bus and go

visit a downtown neighbourhood and beat up on, verbally or otherwise, a homeless

person? I don't think so, and this law will prevent that. This law will protect

those who are disadvantaged from being taken advantage of, the same way it

protects all the rest of us in British Columbia.

I have waited for the criticism of the bill on its terms. The

opposition has not offered that criticism. All they can do is talk about other

issues. I think it's time that we as legislators decide if we're for safe

streets.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question before the House is

third reading of Bill 71.

[1025-1030]

Third reading of Bill 71 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 49

Falcon

Les

Wong

Chong

Locke

Hansen

Harris

Bruce

Santori

Bell

van Dongen

Roddick

Bray

Cobb

Lee

Murray

Plant

Brice

de Jong

L. Reid

Penner

Anderson

Jarvis

Orr

Nuraney

Nebbeling

R. Stewart

Hunter

Chutter

Long

Johnston

Krueger

J. Reid

Hawes

McMahon

Brenzinger

Stephens

Masi

Nijjar

Bhullar

Visser

Lekstrom

K. Stewart

Bloy

Suffredine

Whittred

Sultan

Kerr

Manhas

NAYS — 2

Kwan

Nettleton

Bill 71, Safe Streets Act, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I've been informed that the

Lieutenant-Governor is in or near the precinct, and she will be here

momentarily. I would ask all members to please remain in their seats.

[1035-1040]

Royal Assent to Bills

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took

her place in the chair.

Clerk of the House:

Safe Streets Act

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

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth

assent to these acts.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 11722 ]

[1045]

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the House at its rising do stand

adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after

consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the

House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it

is desired to prorogue the fifth session of the thirty-seventh parliament of the

province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so

satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time

stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if

it has been duly adjourned to that time and date, and that in the event of the

Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker

shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. G. Plant moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I wish you all safe journeys as

you travel to your constituencies to continue your work there. In case I do not

see you, have a very merry Christmas.

The House adjourned at 10:46 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2004: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175