2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Volunteer B.C.

V. Anderson

Crime Prevention Week

Brenzinger

Youth sport

B. Locke

Oral Questions

Surgery wait-lists and impact of St.

Mary's Hospital closing

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Collective bargaining

process in education system

R. Nijjar

Hon. G.

Bruce

Incident at Vancouver Island Regional

Correctional Centre

S. Brice

Hon. R.

Coleman

Settlement of power export case

between B.C. and California

P. Nettleton

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Surgery wait-lists and impact of St.

Mary's Hospital closing

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Hansen

Mountain pine beetle control

Christensen

Hon. J.

Murray

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Finance

and Government Services, second report

B. Locke

Committee of the Whole House

Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) (continued)

Hon. G. Hogg

J. Kwan

Christensen

K. Stewart

B. Penner

Mayencourt

[ Page 7779 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: A few months ago, when we were in the midst of the fires in the

Okanagan, the fire chief there went on the news and was commenting on all the

donations that the fire department had received, but he said that they would

really appreciate some beer. Molson Brewery quickly stepped up to bat. We have

two guests here today from Molson, Jeff Gaulin and Ferg Devins. They not only

donated beer to the firefighters up there, but they also donated $100,000 to the

fire relief fund in the past couple of weeks. I'd ask the House to give them a

hero's welcome, please.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Santori: This afternoon it gives me great pleasure to introduce three

constituents from the beautiful city of Grand Forks. With us today we have His

Worship Mayor Jake Raven, Councillor Ann Gordon and the chief administrative

officer, John Lambie.

At this

time I want to take the opportunity — relating back to the fires this past

August and the closeness of devastation in the city of Grand Forks — not only

to ask the House to make these people feel welcome but also to congratulate the

city of Grand Forks in their cooperation with the B.C. Forest Service, as well

as the U.S. Forest Service. They worked together so diligently over some very

difficult times this summer and actually kept that fire from getting into the

city of Grand Forks and creating devastation. Please help me welcome my guests

from Grand Forks and congratulate them on a commendable effort.

J. Kwan:

I rise to share some unfortunate news with the House today. The Leader of

the Opposition, while walking to work this morning, slipped on some black ice

and hit her head against the sidewalk. She has visited a clinic and has received

good medical advice. She is resting. She's had an X-ray done on her skull.

Hopefully, there's no permanent damage and there will be speedy recovery and

return for the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I know the House will join me in

wishing her well and wishing that she will be with us as soon as possible.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm pleased to introduce Glen Ringdal, the president and chief

executive officer of the New Car Dealers of British Columbia. Glen has been

working with the government and meeting with a number of members of government

today. Would the House please make him and his associates welcome in this House.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 72 grade 5 students visiting

from Surrey Christian Middle School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, who are

here to learn about the B.C. government and about this House. Joining them are

their teachers, Ms. Kim Bell and Jackie Hofstede, as well as 18 parents and

teacher-volunteers who have taken time away from their busy schedules to

accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. If it is the wish of the assembly, we will

send the Leader of the Opposition a get-well wish and hope she has a speedy

recovery.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

VOLUNTEER B.C.

Anderson: Today I want to commend the members of Volunteer B.C. They're

planning a volunteer forum in the year 2004. Such a summit, long overdue, is to

highlight and support the thousands of volunteers in B.C. and to highlight the

importance of the volunteers to the social core of our communities.

September 2002 Volunteer B.C. initiated the Voluntary Organizations Consortium

of B.C. as an ongoing network to enable volunteers to share in the facets of

society in health, education, social services, sports, recreation, culture,

arts, multiculturalism, aboriginal, disabilities, children and youth services,

environment and many, many others. The founders of the network identified a

number of strategic priorities, such as encouraging cooperation on shared

projects and recognizing and supporting individuals of all ages and backgrounds

to share their gifts with the community.

Volunteer

B.C. is in cooperation with Volunteer Canada, by which the federal government

had recognized the "third force." This is the volunteer force, the

other two being the public and the private sector. This third force has long

been recognized in international NGOs — that's non-government organizations

— related to the United Nations and more recently on the national scene.

[1410]

Volunteer

B.C. is now stressing the need to recognize, celebrate and support the third

force in B.C. by supporting interaction between the government, private and

volunteer sectors. The volunteer summit is a key initiative to bring together

volunteers in B.C. to build excellence and excitement throughout the province.

This summit is the precursor to a major dialogue with the government of B.C.,

and we wish them well in this undertaking.

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Brenzinger: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak about Crime

Prevention Week. Crime Prevention Week provides communities with an opportunity

to come together to recognize the things we can do to make our homes, streets

and schools safer.

This year's

theme, "Crime affects us all. Be part of the solution," reminds us of

the role each of us can play

[ Page 7780 ]

to ensure our children are safe and our neighbourhoods are protected. Crime

prevention can be as easy as becoming a Block Watch parent, joining a

Neighbourhood Watch group or taking

part in community events.

The need

for block parents is becoming more pronounced, as we don't often take the time

to get to know our neighbours. A block parent provides a safe place to turn for

a child who is bothered by a stranger or a bully, or who is sick, hurt or lost.

A child knows that when they see the "Block parent" sign, a safe adult

is there to offer help.

Neighbourhood

Watch is a crime prevention program that works to reduce threats to your and

your neighbourhood's property. Essentially, the Neighbourhood Watch program

encourages neighbours to be aware of other neighbours during times when

burglaries are likely to occur. A police officer patrolling your community might

not recognize a stranger in your yard, but your neighbours will.

Finally,

taking

part in activities in your community is not only an excellent way to meet

your neighbours and make meaningful relationships, but it also goes a long way

in preventing crime by creating a network of citizens who watch out for each

other and each other's property. The British Columbia Crime Prevention

Association's website outlines a number of events and activities that we could

all take

part in to foster relationships that will act to prevent crime. Crime

Prevention Week reminds us of the importance of getting involved and making a

difference in our communities.

YOUTH SPORT

Locke: Today I rise to speak to a positive and extremely popular subject for

the many children and families in my community: youth, parents and grandparents

coming together to celebrate the accomplishments of talented young athletes and

instilling a spirit of friendship, sportsmanship and hospitality in our diverse

communities.

Organized

sport for young people provides a forum where kids can build relationships in a

safe environment that is both enriching and fun. Throughout B.C. community sport

programs, young athletes are motivated to pursue a higher level of fitness and

achievement — lessons that I am sure will remain with them forever.

Currently,

in every constituency in our province there are excited kids trying out for the

B.C. Winter Games, be it in hockey, skating, ringette, curling, gymnastics or

judo. These games grant them an important gift. They deliver self-esteem,

team-building strategies, good health and great attitudes. Sports teams teach

children how to win, how to lose and how to keep striving for your dreams, no

matter what the score.

Like my

daughter Katie, a ringette player who this year was chosen to compete in the

upcoming B.C. Winter Games, these young athletes will learn life lessons. I will

stand proud with many other parents, cheering them on and watching our kids

strive for greatness.

Corporate

and small business sponsors also play a critical role in the development of

youth sport. Providing financial assistance allows industries to give back to

their communities. Most importantly, kids are trying hard and having fun, and

the value of having fun is something that should never be underestimated in a

child's development.

Thank you

to the provincial government, the outstanding volunteers, the committed coaches

and referees, and all the moms and dads who have supported and contributed to

helping B.C.'s children and youth achieve their very best.

Oral Questions

SURGERY WAIT-LISTS AND IMPACT OF

ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL CLOSING

J. Kwan:

The latest statistics show there are some 85 patients waiting for orthopedic

surgery at Eagle Ridge Hospital. Some of those patients have been waiting for as

long as four months for surgery. As a result of the B.C. Liberals' decision to

close St. Mary's, as many as 306 patients also waiting for orthopedic surgery

will be transferred to Eagle Ridge — more than tripling the size of the

waiting list.

Can the

Minister of Health explain to patients waiting for orthopedic surgery at Eagle

Ridge and St. Mary's why the government is forcing them to wait even longer?

[1415]

Hon. C.

Hansen: There's some good news the member may not be aware of. Actually, in

the last year we increased the number of hip replacements done in this province

by 14 percent; we increased the number of knee replacements done in B.C. by 11.3

percent. Also, something the member may not be aware of is that just last week,

Fraser health authority opened the fifth operating room at Eagle Ridge in order

to build more capacity for that fast-growing part of the lower mainland. In

addition to that, they're planning to open a sixth operating room at Eagle Ridge

to make sure that the increased capacity can be developed to meet the needs of

patients.

I was faced

with information earlier, in the last month and a half, that indicated to me

that the St. Mary's board was going to run out of working capital by January of

next year. I had an obligation to make sure that the very patients the member is

referring to can continue to get access to the care they need into the new year,

and the decision was made that those services would be transferred to other

facilities.

J. Kwan:

You know, with all due respect to the Minister of Health, that answer just

doesn't wash. The fact is Eagle Ridge's wait-list has actually gone up, and

since this government took office, orthopedic wait-lists have exploded, rising

by more than 53 percent. St. Mary's is an important centre for orthopedic

surgery. Now, as a result of its closure, patients will have to wait even

longer.

[ Page 7781 ]

There are

1,433 British Columbians waiting now for cataract surgery at St. Mary's. Most of

those patients will be transferred to Burnaby Hospital, where there are already

780 patients waiting for the same procedure. Some of those patients have been on

the wait-list for six months. Can the minister tell patients how much longer

they will have to be forced to wait for cataract surgery as a result of his

decision to close St. Mary's?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I have every confidence that the Fraser health authority is going to

be able to build the capacity that is necessary to make sure patients continue

to get access to the care they are counting on, whether that's at any of the

facilities in the region. The decision as to what the future of St. Mary's is,

is clearly up to the board at St. Mary's.

I was

provided with information that showed that they were going into a financial

crisis as of January. That very information called into question whether or not

the patients who were counting on that ophthalmology care or the orthopedic care

or the other services that would be provided…. Those patients would not

necessarily be able to count on getting that care at St. Mary's, given the

financial crunch that they were facing. We made the right decision to make sure

that patients in the Fraser Valley and throughout the province can continue to

get access to the care they need in a timely fashion.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan:

You know what? This is the same minister who campaigned during the election to

British Columbians that they'll get health care when they need it and where they

need it. Wait-lists for eye surgery have already gone up by 11 percent since

this government took power, and now patients have to wait even longer. There are

247 patients now waiting for general surgery at Eagle Ridge, but now 70 more

patients will be added to that list because of the decision to close St. Mary's.

Again to

the minister. He can spin all he likes and he can blame everybody else and not

take responsibility for his own government's action, but the facts are simple.

Under this government, wait-lists for general surgery have increased — up by

more than 12 percent. Can he tell patients waiting for general surgery at Eagle

Ridge Hospital and at St. Mary's why they're being made to wait even longer?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, the greatest increase in wait-lists happened in this

province during the 1990s when her party was in office, in government. Last year

we increased the number of major procedures that were done in this province, we

increased the number of hip replacements, and we increased the number of knee

replacements. Quite frankly, I think she should think carefully about the

comments she has just made, because what she is asking is that we continue to

make patients vulnerable to receiving their care in a facility that had already

indicated to us they were going to run out of working capital come January.

That's not acceptable, from my perspective, and we had to take action to make

sure that those very patients continue to get access to the care they are

counting on.

[1420]

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS

IN EDUCATION SYSTEM

Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. In

the past ten years, every collective agreement reached with teachers in the

public education system has involved some form of government intervention. This

is a frustrating experience for all parties involved, including parents and

students, and reflects that the current bargaining structure is seriously flawed

and in need of review. In light of these facts and the expiration of the current

agreement in June 2004, can the minister tell us what he is doing to address

this issue?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The member is absolutely correct. We've seen a sad history of poor

negotiations — in fact, none to speak of — in regard to getting collective

settlement with respect to the teachers. I think it was Bill 26 back in the year

2002 that settled the most recent dispute. Under

section 5, the minister was

empowered to go ahead with the review process of the bargaining structure, and I

gave that some time so the parties could heal, if you'd like.

At this

point I have had Don Wright, a former deputy minister to this government and a

former Deputy Minister of Education in the past administration, reviewing and

meeting with different groups and organizations to bring forward to me some

advice on how best to structure a process where we could bring the parties

together and see if we could come up with a new process that would allow for

collective negotiations to take place.

The member

would be interested to know that prior to this, I met with the BCTF, the School

Trustees Association and the Principals and Vice-principals Association as well

as several other union organizations that work within the school districts. All

agreed that the structure we are faced with today does not work, and all

indicated to me that it was…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …worth our attempt to get a new process in place.

INCIDENT AT VANCOUVER ISLAND

REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Brice: My question is to the Solicitor General. In the spring I asked the

Solicitor General regarding a disturbance that had occurred at the Wilkinson

Road jail on January 21 and was assured at the time that at no time was the

neighbourhood at risk. I understand

[ Page 7782 ]

there are some recommendations from the B.C. corrections branch that are

currently under review. Could the Solicitor General please give my constituents

an update on those recommendations?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The disturbance ended peacefully, without injury, although there

was a significant amount of damage to one of the living units at the time in

January 2003. After every incident like this one, we actually do a review of our

policies, procedures and risks. That report has been completed and has been

reviewed by the ministry staff.

There were

a number of recommendations around the correctional centre's contingency plans,

actions with regard to a tactical unit and with regard to some of our emergency

mechanical services. All of these recommendations have been acted upon. People

in our corrections facilities actually have a pretty difficult and dangerous

job, and I'm pleased we were able to avoid any serious injuries. I am confident

that the corrections system will be better for this report, so we will implement

some of the recommendations across the system.

SETTLEMENT OF POWER EXPORT CASE

BETWEEN B.C. AND CALIFORNIA

Nettleton: The public has read contradictory statements this week on the

announced out-of-court settlement between the state of California and B.C.

Hydro. Some reports state that B.C. Hydro has forfeited up to $450 million

(Canadian) owed them for power exports. The Minister of Energy has stated —

contrary to this — that with this settlement, in effect, B.C. has a much

better chance to obtain the $282 million that is owed to us by California.

I'm not as

concerned with the dollar differences but with the fact that the minister is

still of the view that California still feels obligated to pay B.C. for power

delivered, in spite of continued opposition by the California Attorney General

and others in the United States. Will the minister disclose comprehensively the

details of the settlement, including all of the facts regarding its total cost

to the taxpayers of British Columbia so that we may know whether we have won

something here or not?

[1425]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, British Columbians have won something. B.C. Hydro asked that

there be a special hearing with FERC about their — Powerex, I should say —

actions in sales of electricity to California during their difficult time in the

year 2000-01. B.C. Hydro and Powerex had been put in the same box as Enron and

all the other ones that were actually taking total advantage of the system.

Powerex always said all they did was sell into a system that was set up by

someone else.

We asked

for a special hearing on that. We got that special hearing. Out of that special

hearing came a number of good things. One of them is that B.C. Hydro and Powerex

were not involved in any of those scandals. That's good news for Powerex, and

that's good news for the people of B.C., who own B.C. Hydro. We've not had any

collusion of any kind with any other organization in the U.S. to try and make

the prices higher than they should be. We have won that.

The issue

about the $282 million is a totally separate issue that we continue to pursue.

They are two separate things. But there is good news for British Columbians.

SURGERY WAIT-LISTS AND IMPACT OF

ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL CLOSING

J. Kwan:

Under this government, wait-lists have increased by more than 20 percent. In 12

of the 14 categories wait-lists have increased. Now the government is closing an

important hospital where over 2,400 people are waiting for surgery. When the

Liberals were in opposition, they went ballistic over wait-lists. Now the

government is deliberately jacking the wait-lists up.

To the

Minister of Health Services: after more than two years in power, why are

wait-lists getting much longer, when he promised they would be getting shorter?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The good news is that the health care system, as we have redesigned

it, is actually able to do more procedures than it has in the past. We had an

increase last year of 38,000 in terms of the number of major procedures that

were billed through the Medical Services Plan. I mentioned earlier that we had

an increase in the number of hip replacements that were done last year by 14

percent, an increase in the number of knee replacements by 11.3 percent, an

increase in the number of cardiovascular listings by 4.4 percent, an increase in

obstetrics by 3 percent, an increase in surgical procedures by 4 percent and an

increase in procedural cardiology by 8.45 percent. The health care system is

meeting the needs of British Columbians.

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE CONTROL

Christensen: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the question.

Christensen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As all

members of this House know, the pine beetle infestation has had a devastating

effect on forests all around British Columbia. In fact, I'm told it has attacked

upwards of four million hectares of forest, which is significantly more than

what was destroyed in the Okanagan fires this last summer. Unfortunately, my

part of the province, North Okanagan, has not been immune to this outbreak, and

these little pine beetles do not respect park boundaries. As a result, a number

of my constituents have raised concerns about the im-

[ Page 7783 ]

pact of pine beetles on the trees within Silver Star Provincial Park and the

potential fire hazard that is creating in the park for the adjacent resort area.

Can the

minister tell my constituents what strategy the ministry is adopting to attack

the mountain pine beetle within Silver Star Provincial Park?

Hon. J.

Murray: I know the issue of the pine beetle is one that's of concern to the

member's constituents — and park staff, as well, actually. That's why I

accepted the member's invitation last month to go visit the site and see for

myself. Looking at the number of marked trees, it was clear that there's an

extensive infestation which over time will lead to more and more standing dead

timber and fuel hazards for fire.

[1430]

Normally,

prescribed fire might be used as a fuel management tool. In this case, it's

clear that would create safety concerns and property damage in the Silver Star

area, which would be a completely unacceptable risk. That's exactly why my

ministry has a tree removal policy to allow us to remove such hazards. In this

case, tree removal using environmentally sensitive methods and full restoration

is the prescription. We're in the planning stages for removing approximately

25,000 to 30,000 cubic metres of standing dead trees and beetle-infested wood to

deal with this issue.

[End

of question period.]

Reports from Committees

Locke: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing

Committee on Finance and Government Services for the fourth session of the

thirty-seventh parliament respecting a special funding request by the

information and privacy commissioner.

I move that

the report be taken as read and received.

Motion

approved.

Locke: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

Leave

granted.

Locke: In moving the adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments. The committee held three meetings to consider the subject of special

funding for the information and privacy commissioner as he begins his statutory

and oversight duties under the new Personal Information Protection Act. After

careful consideration, the committee recommends that the information and privacy

commissioner be granted a sum of $292,000 to defray expenses in relation to

duties regarding the act for the present fiscal year.

I move that

the report be adopted.

Motion

approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, before I call the orders for this afternoon, I'm

advised that Sean Leslie, a CKNW reporter here in the Legislature, lost his

father rather suddenly over the weekend. I ask that you, on our behalf, send our

condolences to him and his family.

Mr.

Speaker: So ordered.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 63.

Committee of the Whole House

YOUTH JUSTICE ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 63; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:34 p.m.

section

1 (continued) .

Hon. G.

Hogg: I wanted to add a couple of comments in response to the member's

questions this morning. She made reference to those children in care over the

age of 16 and suggested there had been…. I think the word was

"decimated" in terms of the numbers.

[1435]

I just

wanted to point out that there are almost 1,500 children in that age group in

the care of the ministry, which is an 8 percent reduction over the past three

years. There are 190 children in that age group who are on youth agreements,

which is an increase. The numbers are, hopefully, reflective of need as it

exists within the community.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear. When the comment about the services being

decimated…. It's not the opposition who raised that issue. It's the people on

the ground in the community who are providing services to youth that are saying

that. I quote from the newspaper of November 1, Amy O'Brian. This is a quote

from a person on the ground: Michelle Fortin, the executive director of Watari,

a youth and family community services executive director. She said: "The

reality is that services to the kids between the ages of 16 and 19 have been

decimated."

The further

issue that had been raised by people on the ground is this: "There's an

unwritten expectation out there on social workers to not take any young person

over the age of 16 into care, and it doesn't matter how motivated the young

person is." That's a quote, once again, from Michelle Fortin, in the

newspaper.

It's not

being made up, in terms of the reality of what people are being faced with out

in the community. The government has reduced some $500,000 from its programming.

The minister is suggesting that the

[ Page 7784 ]

reduction in the programming, and the reduction in the caseload, is a result

of the children-in-care caseload dropping. If the feeling from the community is

that those caseloads are dropping, not as a result of need but rather as a

result of some unwritten expectation on social workers to not take a young

person over the age of 16 into care, then we have a problem.

I would

actually suggest that the numbers perhaps show that. If the minister says there

are some 1,500 young people — the number who are now in care, which is a

reduction of about 8 percent — yet the youth agreement category has an

increase, then it actually jibes with what the community is saying — that

there is an issue here. There is an issue in terms of what service is available

and what is not.

I would

assert that one of the important things this minister needs to be doing is

ensure that the programs are available. I understand the need to try and reduce

caseload numbers in the ministry, and I would be happy if the numbers were

reducing because the demand was not there — not through some force outside of

the real need but rather through the force of the minister trying to drive

budget numbers to meet his targets. That's a concern. When you have community

workers saying that services for children — youth between the ages of 16 and

19 — are decimated, then I would say we have a problem. I would suggest that

the minister ought to be turning his attention and energies into addressing that

issue.

The

question I asked the minister earlier is about other expanded programs for the

community in terms of the intensive support programs, which is a key

intervention youth program, as one option to address this question we're

debating and in dealing with the flexibility provisions that have been made

available under the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act. The question to the

minister is: did the government and did this minister consider any of these

other measures to address the flexibility provisions that have been made

available under the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act?

[1440]

Hon. G.

Hogg: In response to the member's question and commentary, just with respect

to the $500,000 reduction which was referenced, it is in the community youth

justice area. A budget of $34 million is the amount for youth justice. This

represents a 1.5 percent reduction in that budget at a time when there's been a

caseload reduction of some 30 percent. So it seems quite equitable to say that

that is referencing and is consistent with the expectations. When we reduce the

caseloads by 30 percent, a 1.5 percent reduction is a reasonable response to

that. As well, we're trying to diversify and ensure that our programs are

adequate and appropriate across the full spectrum of services needed.

The member

also referenced the issue of intensive supervision and support, and I think we

dealt with that earlier this morning as well. We do have, by far, the best

intensive support programs in Canada. There have been no reductions to that, and

it is generally accepted and recognized as the most adequate in terms of the

range of supports available in youth justice services in Canada.

We did look

at that; we are happy with that. We are quite satisfied that we continue to have

the best support programs available for community support in the youth justice

area.

J. Kwan:

I understand the member from Vernon has some questions for the minister, and I

have further questions for the minister under this

section as well. I have,

however, to step out of the House for a few moments. So I'm going to yield the

floor to the member from Vernon, and I'll return to ask further questions of the

minister on this section.

Christensen: I just have a few brief questions in respect of some of the

definitions in

section

Section 1 deals specifically with

definitions that

then apply through the rest of the act. Some of my questions are intended to get

clarification as to exactly what the intent is. Certainly, this first question

is. I find that in the definition of "contraband" — under subsection

(

f) there — it refers to "the person in charge of a youth custody

centre." That term "the person in charge" is referred to on a few

occasions through the act.

The

question that comes to mind is: is there a single person in charge of each youth

custody centre, or is it the person in charge at any particular time when

somebody might find themselves? Obviously, the relevance in terms of contraband

is that one of the aspects of what would constitute contraband under this act is

any substance that, in the opinion of the person in charge of a youth custody

centre, may threaten the management, etc., of the facility.

So my hope

is that the person in charge is actually the person in charge at the time I or

somebody else actually arrives there; it's not just a single person.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The member is correct; it is the latter. It is the person who is in

charge of the institution. Obviously, the director of the institution is not

there 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so it is the officer or the staff

member who is in charge at any given point in time at the facility who would

make those determinations.

Christensen: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

The second

question is with respect to the definition of what is an offence, which is

"the contravention of an enactment." I know there's often some

confusion when we speak about justice issues generally, because of the shared

jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial government.

Perhaps the minister could just expand briefly on what constitutes an enactment

for the purposes of this legislation.

[1445]

Hon. G.

Hogg: The enactment is limited only to provincial statutes. It doesn't apply

to any of the federal legislation around that.

[ Page 7785 ]

Christensen: With respect to the definition of parent, would that include a

foster parent?

Hon. G.

Hogg: It would not apply to a foster parent. However, if it was a child who

was in the care of the state, there would be a social worker who would act as

the guardian, and in fact the state may be the parent. Therefore, in that

instance there would be delegated authority to act in that manner in that case.

Christensen: What's a consequence of being a parent for the purposes of the

act? I know certainly there's a provision further on — I think it's

section 5

— that deals with the requirement to provide notice to a parent where a youth

has been arrested or is otherwise in trouble. But can the minister explain sort

of the broader implications of being found to be a parent under this act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Well, the consequence of being a parent for the purposes of this act

includes ensuring…. The intent of the state is that young people have their

parents, and their parents are informed, interested, involved and have every

opportunity to attend the proceedings, to participate in the proceedings and to

be a part of the decision-making process. So it's an intent, an expectation,

that the role of parents becomes part of the court proceedings and process to

ensure that they're engaged, involved in and can carry out the roles and

expectations which are normally expected of parents with respect to young

persons.

Christensen: Is there any legal obligation imposed on a parent to

participate in the proceedings or to actually be involved in their child's

justice problem?

[1450]

Hon. G.

Hogg: There's a requirement for notification, but the judge has

discretionary ability to make a determination with respect to whether or not a

parent must attend. Some of the criteria that would be used or the tests applied

with respect to that would have to do with the maturity of the young person.

Obviously, if it was a 12-year-old person, the judge would be more likely to

compel the parents to be in attendance, rather than somebody who might have been

independent and out on their own for some considerable length of time.

Ultimately, the judge has the discretion with respect to making that

determination.

Stewart: I have a question with regard to the definition of

"sentence." Further along, it talks about if a person has been

sentenced and they get an absolute discharge. When they get an absolute

discharge, the court considers it to be in the best interests of the young

person and not contrary to the public interest. Is it at that point considered a

sentence, under the definition of "sentence," if they get an absolute

discharge?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, an absolute discharge is deemed to be a sentence under the

purposes of the act.

J. Kwan:

The flexibility programs that the minister talked about earlier…. The specific

question I had was in relation to intensive support. Perhaps the minister can

enlighten me and tell me what's happening in that area, particularly with

intensive support programs for youth.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Just expanding on the notion of intensive supervision or support for

youth, it is indeed a long-established program with the Vancouver metro

intensive support and supervision program, the DARE program in Vancouver, the

Fraser region intensive supervision program. These primarily provide one-to-one

workers who have caseloads of from six to ten. They provide for the support and

supervision of conditions, support and recreation, mentoring, assistance in all

kinds of fashions.

This

government, this ministry, has expanded that program. There was $400,000 that

has gone out to the north and interior to provide intensive supervision in some

of the smaller communities rather than just the metro areas, so they have access

to that. On top of that $400,000, in terms of contracting for intensive

supervision, there have been a further 18 full-time persons who have been

allocated to work in it. So it is seen as a broad-based program — a program

that provides an alternative to custody, a program that helps provide the

comprehensive range of services which are in the best interests of being able to

provide supports to youths who are in conflict with the law.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

Would there be new moneys to this ministry to enhance the intensive programs

that the minister talked about, new moneys that were being considered for this

upcoming budget and new moneys that the minister will be injecting in addition

to the bill we're debating today in dealing with youth justice issues?

Hon. G.

Hogg: As I've stated, there have been a further 18 staff members and

$400,000 which have gone into these programs in the interior and the north. We

will not be expanding it beyond that. We have the broadest range of intensive

supervision programs in Canada with that expansion, and we have a declining

caseload. We are meeting the need adequately at this time — in fact, more than

adequately.

J. Kwan:

With all due respect, I would suggest that we would need more funding and

more support in these areas. The minister may think it's adequate, but the

reality is that the people on the ground, in the community, are saying it is not

— particularly for a youth between the ages of 16 and 19 — to the point

where people are saying they feel resources and access to programs for this age

group have been decimated. The crisis is in fact increasing as opposed to

decreasing, as the minister would like to suggest.

I'd like to

ask the minister this question. The federal legislation differentiates violent

versus non-violent crimes and aims to reserve custody — or jail time, as

[ Page 7786 ]

the Solicitor General likes to call it in the media — for violent crime.

Was the new provincial youth act guided by this same philosophy?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I think there may be some confusion in some of the questions or

references the member has made with respect to the articles in the paper, which

I think are referring to issues that may have to do with child welfare as

opposed to the youth justice issues we're focusing on today. I don't think there

was, to my recollection, any reference to youth justice within the context of

those articles.

While we're

looking at comprehensive service delivery models, it is clear that today we're

talking about those matters as they apply to youth justice rather than to the

issues of child welfare. While there is certainly some overlap, there is clarity

with respect to the expansion that has taken place in youth justice and the

reduction of some 30 percent in the caseloads or the demands there.

With

respect to the specific question as to whether or not the same principles were

being followed, the answer is yes. In this provincial legislation, custody has

been maintained only for those most serious of the provincial statutes and is in

fact not available for less serious crimes. There is a distinction and a line

drawn between those to reflect the role of custody as a consequence.

J. Kwan:

No, there isn't any confusion in my mind. The issue here is this. We're

debating this youth justice bill, which the Solicitor General and the Attorney

General are on the record in the media saying they want to see in place because

it is meant to be a deterrent for youth crime and particularly for serious

crimes, as the Solicitor General has put it. The message that I think the

Solicitor General is trying to put forward is, of course, the notion that we

need to be tough on crime, particularly in dealing with youth — even though

the statistics show that youth crime is actually on the decline and has been for

at least ten years.

[1500]

The issue

that I raise with the Minister of Children and Family Development deals with

children at risk. We know that children at risk particularly are the sectors or

groups of people that may well come into conflict with the law down the road. If

the programs for dealing with children at risk, for youth at risk, are not

adequate, then we run the risk of seeing more problems amongst the youth

population. The best solution, by far — in dealing with children at risk,

youth at risk, in preventing crime — is to do some preventative measures,

which is why I raise these questions, Mr. Chair, in relation to this bill that

we're debating today.

If we want

to talk about decreasing youth crime, if we want to talk about some measure of

deterrence, if you will, then if you ask the experts what are the best things

that one could do, what are the best things that governments could do,

government is saying, "Increase your preventative programs or your

preventative measures, " and that's how these items link. That's why I ask

about the intensive programming that has proven to be effective, which the

community folks on the ground are saying is what we should be doing. This is why

I ask, say and suggest that we should be increasing the funding in those areas

instead of actually bringing forward a bill to deal with more jail time for

youth — more custody time, if you will.

Jail time

for youth, by the way, is the term the Solicitor General has used in the media.

I'm suggesting perhaps the minister should be putting his attention to the area

where you can actually prevent the crime from taking place in the first place,

and that is preventative measures. They fall directly in the mandate of this

minister, and that's how these two things link. You can't separate one from the

other. The notion of where, in my view, in the philosophy of deterring youth

crime by putting in tough measures would work in the context where youth crimes

have actually gone down is a mystery to me. This is why I asked the minister the

question: where did this philosophy come from? How was it guided, which brought

this piece of legislation before us?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I think the answer to the member's question is that, in fact, we do

need both. We have increased our funding for early childhood development, for

intensive supervision and for family development. That is an important part of

the focus, but we also need deterrence. There are two kinds of deterrence:

individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence is based on the premise

that the imposition of a consequence or a punishment will cause the individual

offender to refrain from breaking the law again. Individual deterrence therefore

occurs after the law is broken, and it prevents further or future offending.

General

deterrence, on the other hand, is based on the premise that persons who might

otherwise commit offences will refrain from doing so because of the fear of the

consequences. Those fears include custody. Therefore, general deterrence

prevents crime in the first place. While I will allow that as a general rule

adolescents do not typically think about the consequences of their actions nor

think they may be caught, there is no question that a young person who does

experience a custody sentence for a very serious offence will think again before

repeating that offence when he is returned to the community — again,

individual deterrence.

However,

while not all youth may think or learn from the example of what individual youth

do, it is likely that at least those in his immediate circle will know what

consequences were imposed on the individual, and they, too, will think twice

about committing similar offences — which is, again, general deterrence. For

example, a youth who breaks a principal's order to leave the school grounds

because of gang-related activities will be individually deterred in a serious

consequence if a serious consequence were imposed, while his gang colleagues

will be generally deterred after learning about his sentence — therefore, the

difference between individual and general deterrence.

[ Page 7787 ]

[1505]

As the

member will note,

section 8 provides for the option of a custody sentence for a

specified list of the most serious of provincial statute offences. The common

theme in the selection of the listed offences is the need to maintain the

integrity of the administration of justice, and of safety and order in key

public services. These offences are all concerned with breaches of court orders

or with serious intrusions into key public institutions, specifically failure to

comply with a youth sentence; driving while prohibited; bringing contraband into

or trespass of a youth custody centre or adult correctional centre, which are

also part of the administration of justice; a breach of a protective

intervention order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act;

contravention of a school principal's order to refrain from being on school

premises; assisting or counselling a patient to leave a mental health facility.

Mr. Chair,

it is vital that firm consequences at least be available to the court to address

the most egregious circumstances in these kinds of serious offences. If not,

then there is a danger that the administration of justice and the maintenance of

the integrity and order of these important public institutions could be

undermined.

As a

specific example for the member,

section 28 and

section 98 of the Child, Family

and Community Service Act allow for the court to make a protective intervention

order or a restraining order in circumstances where a child or a youth is being

sexually exploited. Usually these orders are made against adults and, quite

thankfully, rarely against youth.

Nonetheless,

there are some youths who are involved in the pimping of young girls. If a

protective intervention is made against a youth and that youth breaches that

court order by contacting the sexually exploited girl again, the present law

does not permit the court to impose a custody sentence. We would have a

situation where a youth is being sexually exploited, and the court order that

attempts to continue can only deal with that continued exploitation by placing

yet another court order or probation.

I think

that is simply wrong in this circumstance. We cannot have youth breaching court

orders with impunity in serious circumstances and putting other children at

risk. Such measures tend to undermine the integrity of the administration of our

justice and, I believe, erode confidence in the justice system.

This type

of legislation will help to restore some confidence in such instances. I think

the specific example of a young male who is involved in sexual exploitation of a

child, wherever that may be…. With a court order under the Child, Family and

Community Service Act, this will give the courts the opportunity to impose at

least a custody sentence — albeit short — in an effort to protect the young

girl, as provided in this instance.

I believe

that is the right way to go. We need to have deterrence. We need to have the

ability to protect youth in those circumstances and to maintain the integrity of

the court system rather than having the only access to the judges in those

matters being that of placing it under further probation order. It is clear in

that circumstance that there is need for heightened sanctions in order to

protect the public and maintain the integrity of the system, and this does

precisely that.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, hon. Chair, with the exception that there are some gaping holes in

the minister's argument. Aside from the issue that the resources are inadequate

in terms of preventative measures for youth, there are also issues raised by

others with respect to the enforcement side of things.

Let me

actually just put on the record a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun on

November 3 by B.C. Crown Counsel Association president David Jardine. He writes:

"The

recently published Vancouver Board of Trade study on property crime in

Vancouver initiated much debate last week in the Legislature about crime. The

introduction of the Youth Justice Act, Bill 63, and reports of increased

organized crime have also contributed to the discussion. The Premier, Attorney

General and Solicitor General have all assured the public of their commitment

to safe streets.

"But

none of this debate has touched upon the impact that budget cuts introduced by

this government are having upon the ability of provincial Crown counsel to

prosecute crimes. Without a concurrent commitment to increase the resources

given to prosecute crimes, there is little public benefit in hiring new police

officers or introducing new legislation.

[1510]

"The

budget for prosecuting services was reduced this year by $5.5 million, with

more to come next year. Victim services offices have been eliminated. The work

that used to be done by 35 victim services workers is now done by Crown

counsel, who are already stretched far too thin.

"Senior

Crown counsel are leaving and taking their years of experience and judgment

with them. The remaining Crown counsel have been told there is not enough

money in the budget to fund job reclassification to replace the lawyers who

have left, even though they are prosecuting the most serious and high-profile

cases in the province.

"The

Crown counsel office is in trouble, and with due respect to the Premier,

Attorney General and Solicitor General, it will take more than verbal

assurances that the government is committed to safe streets and safe

communities to fix it."

"David Jardine, President

B.C. Crown Counsel Association"

With all

due respect to this minister, he can sort of stand up and say, "Hey,

everything is fine. The programs are being funded. Do not worry. Things are

fine, and we're putting these measures in place," but in reality there are

gaping holes in dealing with the issue, and the minister knows this.

It appears

to me that there isn't any differentiation between violent and non-violent

crimes in the drafting of this piece of legislation. I think the philosophy that

actually prompted this government to act is from the Solicitor General's notion

that somehow the penalties, if you will, for youth are too soft. He wants to

send a message, just a message, for political reasons that we need to be tough

on crime for youth instead of actually

[ Page 7788 ]

trying to deal with the problems — wanting to prevent the crimes from

taking place to begin with.

The

Solicitor General also made some noise last week about introducing legislation

next spring to make strip searches of prisoners Charter-proof. Is there anything

in Bill 63 that anticipates this legislation as far as youth custody centres are

concerned?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Just with respect to the comments on Crown and prosecution, the youth

court cases in '91-92 were 13,224. The latest numbers we have are for 2000-01,

in which there were 9,727, which represents a 25 percent reduction in the

workload of Crown in the youth justice area — as the member made reference to

Mr. Jardine.

[1515]

It should

also be pointed out, as we did this morning, that this act does not change the

sentencing. It just changes the consequences. There will be no change in terms

of the increase of work that Crown would be involved in. The demands or the

sanctions that could be provided are the only difference. It should have no

impact on the workload of Crown. I'm sure Mr. Jardine, when he has a chance to

look at it, would understand that.

The other

question is with respect to strip searches that were made reference to. The

Solicitor General, I think, made reference to that within the context of the

Vancouver Jail, and that's contained under the Correction Act. He has suggested

he will be reviewing the issue and addressing it in the future. If, in fact,

there are amendments made or changes to the Correction Act that required there

to be consequential amendments to this act, then that would be looked at and

undertaken at that point in time.

J. Kwan:

Yes, youth crime has been on the decline, as I had mentioned during this debate,

but the reality, of course, is that other crimes — property crimes

particularly — have been on the increase under this Liberal watch. The Crown

counsel's office has had to deal with those kinds of increases as well. The $5.5

million impacting the Crown counsel's office is not limited to just the youth

services component but is for this entire operation. The reality is that the

Crown counsel prosecutors are actually having a tough time as a result of the

budget cuts from this government.

If this

government is really serious about doing something about preventing crime and

preventing repeat offenders from committing crimes, as the Minister of Children

and Family Development was just claiming, then why is the Solicitor General

cutting his public safety and policing budget by almost $20 million this year?

Why is he increasing the number of cases that each probation officer must now be

responsible for? This will mean, for example, less supervision for people out on

the streets or under house arrest, which is a population at considerable risk

for re-offending. Why not put the money back into enforcing existing laws

instead of just creating new ones for public window dressing?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There has been an enormous reduction in the number of youth property

crimes. In 1991 there were 13,504 and in 2002 some 4,700, so there's a dramatic

shift with respect to that. With respect, it obviously has an impact on the

workload that grows out of that. With respect to youth probation officers and

the caseloads they carry, the caseloads in British Columbia average 23, which is

the lowest in Canada for youth probation officers. In about 1997, I believe it

was, the caseloads averaged closer to 53.

[1520]

There has

been a dramatic improvement in terms of that and in the ability of the youth

probation officer to provide more personalized, individualized attention to each

individual on their caseload to ensure that they're able to provide for the

range of services we have been talking about as we move forward. With the issue

of probation and youth probation officers, we are amongst the very best or are

certainly the best in Canada in terms of the caseload numbers.

J. Kwan:

It doesn't change the reality that the Solicitor General's office has

actually cut some $20 million in public safety and policing services. The

minister, I think, knows this very well. When I say that property crime had been

on the increase, I'm not talking about property crime conducted by youth. I'm

talking about property crime in the general population. I'm talking about crime

generally speaking. All except for youth crime has actually been on the

increase.

When we

talk about the prosecution services and the budget being reduced by some $5.5

million…. Their office has to deal with the entire spectrum of crimes that are

being committed in British Columbia and prosecute them accordingly, not just the

youth segment itself. So it's misleading, to say the least, to try and skew the

numbers in the way in which I think the minister is trying to suggest.

Aside from

the items that I have raised, there's another issue here. That is that we

understand that Bill 63 anticipates further regionalization of youth justice

services. Can the minister, first of all, indicate what sections of the bill are

relevant in that regard, and will this regionalization occur after, before or

concurrently with the fulfilment of the government's new-era promise to return

75 percent of the traffic fines collected to municipal governments?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Continuing on the previous discussion with respect to the number of

offences, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of offences for both

adults and youth. The member is focusing on youth and acknowledging the adults

as part of it. But still, if we look at the number of property offences in 1991,

there were 303,838, and in 2002 there were 268,866 property offences. So, again,

there has been a dramatic reduction in those numbers, which is reflected in the

workload.

The member

asked questions with respect to regionalization being contemplated, anticipated

and facilitated with respect to Bill 63. That is in fact the case.

[ Page 7789 ]

With respect to the timing, that's contingent upon meeting the readiness

criteria, and that will include ensuring that there is adequate service

transformation and that our budget targets are under control and being met

before the governance model is put into place.

[1525]

There is an

active involvement of the community in that area, both aboriginal and

non-aboriginal community. There are planning committees existing in each region

of the province. There have been over 14,000 consultations that have taken place

with respect to those. It is our expectation that they will meet those as well

as the KPMG readiness criteria sometime within the next two years. That is the

expectation. That is the focus they're working on. I think the outside date that

the aboriginal community was seeking was 2006, with a recognition that they

needed more time to develop capacity and an ability to respond to these matters.

With

respect to the question regarding the 75 percent return of traffic fines to

communities, the Premier responded to that in the recent past and said that it

was a commitment that was made and would be completed prior to the end of the

term of this government or prior to the next election. Consistent with that, the

time frames that we're dealing with for regionalization are consistent with the

numbers that we've laid out in our service plans and continue to work with.

J. Kwan:

The minister knows very well that crime actually had been on the increase, save

and except for youth crime, and particularly property crime. I have just sent a

note to my office for them to send me the stats so I can put that on record. For

the minister to suggest otherwise is simply untrue. It's simply untrue, and I'll

put the stats on the record when I receive that, Mr. Chair.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

It's

interesting, as well, in terms of this minister trying to deny the fact that the

government is not actually funding preventative measures in a way that I think

is demanded for the community. The community have actually come forward and said

that the programs for ages 16 to 19, for youth, have been decimated. In spite of

what the people on the ground are saying, this minister is saying: "Don't

worry. Everything is fine, and things will proceed accordingly."

It is

interesting to note, as well, that a report conducted by this government came

forward with summaries and conclusions calling on the government to put more

resources into preventative measures as a way to deal with youth crimes. Just to

take a quick quote from this document, the report paid for by the government,

entitled Profiling the Repeat Offender: Implications for Early Intervention

by Nicholson and Artz, 2003:

"Our

child welfare, education and mental health systems must also have prominent

roles in responding to the needs of these youth. We see that focusing on early

prevention and intervention may provide the best chance for reducing

recidivism by preventing children's involvement in the youth justice system in

the first place. The evidence points to the need for very early intervention

for at-risk children, zero-to-five years, and their families…

"We

need to offer parenting supports for families, develop and fund school-based

identification and intervention programs and ensure that effective links are

developed between prevention and intervention initiatives. Improved

integration of funding and operation of all child-serving organizations is

imperative.

"If we

take seriously the proven relationship between poverty and youth delinquency,

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

employment opportunities. We would consider implementing graduation incentive

programs to motivate youth to finish their high-school education."

You know,

instead of going in this direction, Mr. Chair, the government is actually going

in the opposite direction. We know that in the Ministry of Education, there is

tremendous pressure in terms of underfunding for programs in the education

system. We know that anti-bullying programs have been taken out. We know that

counselling programs have been taken out. Programs that encourage students to

stay in the school system — some of those have been eliminated because of the

funding pressures put on by this government.

To suggest

that the government is doing everything it can and in fact is doing a great job

is simply false. I would submit that the minister should know better than that

— the minister ought to know better than that — and just touting the

government line is quite frankly not good enough.

The

question to the minister, though, relating to Bill 63 around what sections would

be relevant with regard to regionalization of the youth justice services…. I

don't believe the minister actually gave me an answer on that.

[1530]

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'm sure we'll be able to deal with that when we get to

section 24,

which is the relevant

section dealing with the appointments for regionalization.

J. Kwan:

section 24, then, deals with regionalization.

On the

question around the 75 percent of the traffic fines collected to municipal

governments, it is interesting because the minister refers to the Premier's

comment that in 2005 moneys will be transferred to local governments. The

question is actually raised now: why is it that during the campaign, in the New

Era document, nowhere does it say that 2005 is the year to which the

commitment will be made? Why is that idea a good idea in 2005 — that is to

say, 75 percent of the traffic fines will be transferred to municipal

governments for policing — and why is it not a good idea now?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'm sure the member knows that the new-era commitments were not

designated with specific time frames. Certainly, as the government gets its

budget in order — given the challenges we have inherited — we have to deal

with those new-era commit-

[ Page 7790 ]

ments across the course of our mandate, and we will do that.

J. Kwan:

The economic woes that this government is dealing with are a creation of this

government. Make no mistake about that.

Unemployment

is at a nine-year high under this Liberal government. Unemployment is now over

200,000 in terms of people needing jobs, the highest in nine years — 9.1

percent under the Liberal watch. The government would like to blame everything

on the NDP, but the reality is that the responsibility is theirs. The economic

performance under this government is worse than it has ever been in the last

decade.

The fact is

this: the government chose to give tax breaks to the corporations and the

highest income earners; and lo and behold, the tax breaks did not pay for

themselves. Therefore, they have to cut programs, including the Ministry of

Children and Family Development — $500,000 of which are programs being cut

from this ministry, impacting services across the board for many British

Columbians and, I would venture to say, impacting children and youth services as

well.

The

minister knows very well what those impacts are and how the community is hurting

as a result of that. There are many program cuts yet to come in the next budget

year. So for the minister to try and blame it on the previous government….

Guess what. It's the new era; it's now two and a half years into the Liberal

watch. The responsibility is this government's.

The

Chair: Order for a moment, please, member. I remind the member that we're

now on

section 1. We're not in second reading debate, and therefore the House

would prefer that you stick to the issues in

section 1 of the bill.

J. Kwan:

I was just responding to the minister, who tried to blame the previous NDP

government for his problems. I'm simply responding to that, Mr. Chair.

The final

piece that I would raise with the minister is this. When I receive that

information, I will actually table it for the minister's information, and that

is, of course, the crime statistics and how under the Liberal watch, the crime

statistics — all except for youth crime — have actually been on the

increase. Property crime particularly has actually been on the increase,

contrary to what the minister had suggested.

Section

1 approved.

[1535]

On

section

Stewart: With regard to the persons under the age of 12, we all know that

crime doesn't really hold off at any age. There's definitely a gravitation

towards one's negative peer subculture, and crime is not an area that alleviates

this. What do we do about the children under the age of 12 who are committing

crimes and who aren't covered by this act? Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We are very consistent with the age 12 and the under age 12 with every

province in Canada. With under age 12, we don't want to get into the

prosecution. It is much more appropriate to respond with the parents. We expect

parents to take care of their children, to be able to manage them under age 12,

and by and large, they do that. In those exceptional instances when that does

not occur, there is intervention that the state can provide through child

welfare, through mental health — a number of support services that can be

provided. The end game with respect to that is the apprehension of a child

should the parents be unable to control or manage them. Then they would come

into the care of the state, and services would be provided consistent with the

practices under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Stewart: We talked about the demographic change of youth and the difference

in the numbers of cases handled by the youth probation officers. I believe the

comment was that in 1977 there were 53, and in 2001 there were 23. How does that

reflect the demographic change of 13-to-16-year-olds, in the comparison

between…? That seems like almost a 50 percent reduction in the amount of youth

being under the direction of youth probation officers, as compared to the number

of youth out there in those two periods of time.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I think the member is asking, with respect to the demographics: what

are the actual numbers that are reflected in that? We've seen the projections

from StatsCan and B.C. Stats that suggest there will be a reduction, I believe,

of some 40,000 children over the course of about a six-year period. We're

partially into that, so we've seen a reduction of…. I don't know what the

exact numbers are, but certainly in the demographics of children under the age

of 18, there has been a dramatic reduction. We've seen reductions across the

schools of this province and seen a number of schools closing as a result of

there not being any higher numbers.

We don't

have a specific number that we can correlate the actual numbers to the impact

that it's having on caseloads, but we are satisfied that using the caseload

management tools, we're able to look at and ensure that the caseloads being

carried out by our staff are consistent with their ability to respond to it.

We have

more intensive supervision, and we have a better quality of supervision than was

in existence when caseloads were at 52 and 53. The youth probation officers are

able to take on more responsibilities as a result of that and keep better track

of the youths under their charge and, as a result, should be able to provide us

with a safer, more consistent form of protection within communities.

[1540]

Christensen: On

section 2, Mr. Chair, the minister a few moments ago talked

about the situation of how the state can respond to the child under 12 who

[ Page 7791 ]

commits what would otherwise be an offence if they were over 12. I certainly

recognize that we're talking about a real delicate balance and that we're

dealing with pretty young kids here, but at the end of the day the public has a

right, I believe, to feel that they are being protected and that protection of

the public plays a significant role regardless of the age of an offender.

I'd like

the minister to expand on what his ministry's ability is to deal with children

who can't be prosecuted but who may pose a danger to the public. How does the

ministry ensure protection of the public from those children? Recognizing that

this is a very, very rare circumstance, it is something that — when it does

occur — certainly raises a lot of concern in communities it occurs in, and

people do need that assurance.

Hon. G.

Hogg: There was some media coverage in the not too distant past of a young

person under the age of 12 who was involved in car thefts and who appeared to be

continuing with those car thefts. I assume that's the type of example the member

is making reference to. In those instances where there does not seem to be any

way to manage the child within the range of services, then it is one-to-one

programming that is put in place, which means there would be one staff member

assigned — in those very rare and exceptional circumstances — to work with

and to be with that individual 24 hours a day. They would work a shift, and then

another one-to-one person would come with them. They manage to work and to

control and to protect the public safety by having a correctional officer, it

may well be, or certainly a child care worker working one to one with that

person and remaining with them 24 hours a day to ensure that the public is kept

safe and to ensure that the protection of that child is also guarded and

maintained.

Christensen: Just to follow up on those comments, I take it that in that —

again, it's a rare circumstance — one-to-one attention, that child is then

getting some pretty intensive attention to any underlying difficulties. I

recognize that perhaps the ministry doesn't have a whole pile of these types of

cases it can refer to, but is the minister able to comment on whether we've seen

any success in handling things that way?

Hon. G.

Hogg: As you say, the cases are indeed very exceptional and rare. In the

matter we have been referring to, there was a comprehensive mental health

assessment done for the individual. There was eventually a placement in a

family-based care home with continuing support from child care workers and from

psychiatric experts in the field.

We are

cautiously optimistic in this case that the interventions that have taken place

are having some successes in helping this child cope more appropriately and

adequately with the challenges he sees before him. So there are some examples of

our being able to develop a case-specific program that meets the psychiatric,

psychological and social needs of the individual and being able to continue to

provide those services in the hopes that the child will have a more normalized

life in the future.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

I now have the information with respect to the crime statistics I mentioned

earlier. For the minister's information, in the second quarter of 2003 there

were 130,268 Criminal Code offences reported in B.C. — 8 percent, or almost

100,000 offences, more than the second quarter of 2002. This number represents a

9 percent increase from the second quarter of 2001 and a 12 percent increase

from the second quarter of 2002. Between 2000 and 2003 the number of Criminal

Code offences reported has increased an average of 2 percent, or approximately

10,000 offences each year.

If you look

at the chart that's provided in the 2nd Quarter 2003, Quarterly Crime Report ,

highlights from 1993 to 2002, the Criminal Code offences and crime rate in B.C.

have actually been on a steady decline from 1993 until 2000. Then it started to

have a reverse trend, where the numbers started to go up again.

Starting in

1993 the number is 516,537; in 1994 it's 516,122; and in 1995 it's 523,317. Then

in 1996 it's 535,859; in 1997 it's 504,442; in 1998 it's 487,384; in 1999 it's

467,384; in 2000 it's 459,609; in 2001 it's 470,126; and in 2002 it's 478,635.

In fact, the numbers have actually been taking a reverse trend, if you will.

Property

offences, including motor vehicle theft, break and enter, fraud, theft and

possession of stolen property. In 2002 the police reported 268,866 property

offences, an increase of slightly less than 2 percent compared with 264,587

offences reported in 2001. The property crime rate rose 1 percent from the 2001

rate, increasing from 64.5 offences per 1,000 persons to 64.9 per 1,000 persons.

The

Chair: Would the member please give me the relevance to

section 2.

J. Kwan:

The relevance is that I'm trying to tie into the minister's earlier answer with

respect to crime rate and how it has actually gone up under this government's

watch, as opposed to under the previous government.

The

Chair: Member, I think if you check

section 2, it's to do with children

under 12.

J. Kwan:

Yes. Thank you. But in the context of overall crime trends in B.C., I think it

is important to put it into perspective. It was established earlier that youth

crime is actually on the decline as opposed to on the increase. All the other

crime categories have actually been on the increase since 2003. I'm simply

trying to establish that point with the minister.

Sections 2

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

section 6, is the change from the "predisposition report" in the

Young Offenders Act to the

[ Page 7792 ]

"pretrial examination and report" just one of language? The role of

the probation officer, in that he or she can recommend not going to trial — is

that the same as before?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There is simply a change in the wording, but it also facilitates

contracting out, as an example, for aboriginal agencies to be able to carry out

some of those responsibilities. The expectation is that it remains the same,

although providing for the provision of contracted aboriginal agencies and

perhaps other agencies to carry out those responsibilities as well.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

When the minister talks about contracting out agencies or services in the

aboriginal sector and other sectors…. Could he expand on that, please?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This simply reflects current practice. In fact, there are some

services which have been brought in-house so that we're able to maintain the

number of youth probation officers that we have — as an example, community

service orders — so that we can continue to function within that. It reflects

current practice.

J. Kwan:

It always makes me worry when any minister in this House says it reflects

current practice. Usually it means something else. Usually it means it's

something brand-new. I don't know if that's the case in this instance, so I'm

just going to probe a little bit deeper here with the minister around that

issue.

The notion

of contracting out their services — in the case of aboriginal community

services, could the minister please outline the process in which the government

embarks on with respect to that?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The process would vary in some smaller communities where there would

be one service provider. It may be a direct award in some instances where there

are a number of agencies which could provide the services. It may well go to

tender, and the types of services they would provide would be such things as

community service orders, case aides, alternate measures program, intensive

supervision programs. The types of programs we've been talking about would be

the types of programs that would fall within that ambit.

J. Kwan:

When the minister says they would be contracted out, is it non-profit sector

community groups who will provide the services on the ground in the community,

or would some other private agencies actually bid on these contracts?

Hon. G.

Hogg: As far as I know or we know within the context of the aboriginal

community, there are no for-profit agencies. They are all non-profit within the

aboriginal communities.

J. Kwan:

Does the ministry embark on consultation processes when the ministry decides

to contract out a particular service related to this?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, we do engage in consultation.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise with whom?

Hon. G.

Hogg: If the member is still referring to the continuity of the discussion

around the aboriginal issues, then we have a memorandum of understanding which

has been signed with the four elected aboriginal leaders in this province: the

First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Métis Provincial

Council of B.C. and the United Native Nations.

I meet

regularly with them, and we continue to consult with them. We also have within

each of the five regions aboriginal committees, which are working on the

development and planning of programs and program and service delivery within

their regions. I also meet with them on a regular basis, and they meet across

the committees. In fact, the committee for the north was meeting in Prince

Rupert, I believe, last week, and they had some 60 people from across the north

who were involved in this consultation and who were providing information in

support to the ministry.

[1555]

J. Kwan:

What about for the non-aboriginal sector?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We have a somewhat similar process with the non-aboriginal community.

There are five planning committees in existence in five regions of the province.

I meet with the chairs of those committees on a fairly regular basis, as well as

with the aboriginal chairs, and they provide the input and information. I think,

as we've stated many times, there have been those committee chairs, and the

committees in each of the regions of the province have been very active in their

participation and involvement in gathering input from the communities. They are

the groups who actually involved some 14,000 people across this province in the

consultation process.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister provide the opposition with a list of the contracts and their

amounts to organizations to which services have been contracted out related to

this in the non-aboriginal as well as the aboriginal sectors?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We can provide a comprehensive list of the community youth justice,

both aboriginal and non-aboriginal programs, and I will ask the assistant deputy

minister to compile that list. I assume that the member's not interested in the

contracts, because they would probably require a truck to deliver those.

However, we could list the contracts, what area they are in and the amounts of

each contract.

J. Kwan:

Yes, that would be much appreciated. The final question under this

section that

I have for the minister — and I'm not sure if I heard the answer earlier —

is the role for the probation officer, in that the role used to be that the

probation officer can recom-

[ Page 7793 ]

mend whether or not to go to trial with a particular case. Is this still the

same now, under this

section of the act, as before?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, it remains the same and is captured under subsection (5).

Christensen: I did have a question on subsection (5). It certainly reflects

that a prosecutor can request that the youth probation officer prepare a report,

recommending whether or not to proceed with a prosecution, and then the

prosecutor presumably makes that ultimate decision. Can the minister comment on

the accountability in that scenario where…? Obviously, the prosecutor can

choose whether or not to accept the recommendation of the youth probation

officer. But is there any opportunity for review of that process for folks that

are concerned about it, or is it simply within the prosecutor's discretion, and

that's where it's left?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, it is the prosecutor's decision with respect to that. They have

the final say in that, and there are examples where there might be alternate

measures which would be proposed. The victim may be concerned about that and may

go to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor would want to include it rather than

going to alternate measures. The responsibility and accountability is vested

with and remains with the prosecutor ultimately.

Christensen: That accountability rests ultimately with the prosecutor,

regardless of whether it's a youth probation officer or perhaps an outside

agency that is requested to prepare that report?

Hon. G.

Hogg: That is correct.

Section 6

approved.

On

section

[1600]

Stewart: On

section 7(2), it says "Despite subsection (1) (b)…."

I'm assuming that in subsection (2), the person is still found guilty, and it

says they may "dispense with a pre-sentence report if the court is

satisfied that the report is not necessary." Let me first clarify with the

minister that this is subject to a person first being found guilty and, second,

that they may dispense with the pre-sentence report. What would be the rationale

behind that, and what are some examples where a pre-sentence report, after a

person is found guilty, may not be necessary?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, you are correct, if a finding of guilt has already been

determined. Two instances or examples where they may not require a pre-sentence

report would be if one had been completed in the very recent past or if a youth

was already in custody and there was a great deal of information known about

them, and they had been convicted of something or a proceeding occurred whilst

they were in custody. There would be a great deal of information in place and

therefore no further information required with respect to assistance in

disposition.

Stewart: Just to clarify, the minister is indicating that the information

would already be there — so not to duplicate the process. It's not that they

would do it in the absence of that information.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, that's correct.

J. Kwan:

Under the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, there were predisposition

reports and dispositions, and in this new Youth Justice Act there are pretrial

examinations and reports as well as a pre-sentence report in this section. Does

this signal a change in terms of the process, in terms of how one goes about

dealing with these issues, or is it just a language change?

Hon. G.

Hogg: There is simply a change in terminology; no change in process. This is

to ensure we remain consistent with the changes in terminology that have been as

a result of the changes in terminology in the federal act.

J. Kwan:

Is it the same probation officer who would provide the pre-sentence report? Are

they the same individuals who would actually do that work — the probation

officer who would write the pre-sentence report?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes.

J. Kwan:

Am I correct in reading

section 7(2) that if the court gets the consent of the

prosecutor and the young person, without necessarily involving the young

person's counsel, they can dispense with this report? Why is it the case that

the young person's counsel is not necessarily included? One would expect that

legal counsel for the young person is pretty important and should be included.

Why is it excluded, and how does this compare to the rules under the Young

Offenders (British Columbia) Act?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The wording is the same under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and so

it's again to be in concert with that. There may be some rare instances where a

youth would not be represented by counsel, but that would be extremely rare,

where that instance may occur.

J. Kwan:

The language of 7(2): "Despite subsection (1) (b), the court may, with the

consent of the prosecutor and the young person or his or her counsel, dispense

with a pre-sentence report if the court is satisfied that the report is not

necessary." So the minister is saying that one can proceed without counsel,

although it's a rare instance. Am I right in understanding that?

[ Page 7794 ]

[1605]

Hon. G.

Hogg: You are correct that they require the consent of the prosecutor and

the young person or the prosecutor and the young person's counsel. Obviously,

the young person informs and gives direction to the counsel in these matters,

and so the member is correct in that instance.

Section 7

approved.

section 8.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I'd like to move an amendment to

section 8 that is on the order paper

in the name of the Attorney General.

[SECTION 8, in the proposed subsection (2) (e)

(

a) by adding "or" at the end of subparagraph (iii), and

(

b) by deleting subparagraph (iv).]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

I've just found the amendment being referred to by the minister. I wonder,

before we pass it so very quickly, if the minister could just advise if there's

anything substantive with respect to this amendment.

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, there's nothing substantive. There is an inconsistency between two

paragraphs, and it just corrects that inconsistency.

J. Kwan:

I'm just reading through the amendment, which says that under

section 8(2)(e),

by adding the word "or" at the end of the subparagraph (iii)…. Oh, I

see. It just gives an option of sub (iii). I see. Okay, it is not substantive.

Amendment

approved.

section

8 as amended.

Christensen: In respect of the court's ability to impose a fine, which is in

subsection (2)(b), does that include any…? My recollection is that the court

typically has an ability to impose, essentially, an additional levy that can

assist victims, or in some cases a court can impose a restitution order — in

property matters, for example. Are those embodied by this act as a whole, or can

you find them somewhere else? Are they in any way precluded by this $1,000 limit

that's in subsection (b)?

Hon. G.

Hogg: This does not deal with victim fines or surcharges, because these are

victimless crimes. These are crimes against neither property nor person. The

restitution is contained in separate sections.

Section 10 makes reference to

restitution provisions. We will soon be getting to that portion.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

Section 8 establishes tougher penalties, including custody, that the government

has trumpeted in presenting Bill 63 to the media and to the public. Can the

minister tell this House how many youths were charged over the last three years

with specific offences that the government is increasing the penalties for?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We don't have for the past three years, but I can go to 2001-02 and

the Motor Vehicle Act. Driving while prohibited or suspended, there were 146

charges. While driving prohibited, there were six. The School Act, failure to

leave school premises after directed by an authorized person, 69. The Young

Offenders (British Columbia) Act, refusing to comply with a disposition order,

four — for a total of 225.

We have

year-to-date in 2002-03, and the year-to-date total is 136. One of those is to

contravene protective intervention order, 81 are driving while prohibited or

suspended, two are driving while prohibited, one is committing an offence while

licence under suspension, and 51 are instances of failure to leave school

premises after being directed to do so by an authorized person. That's

year-to-date 2002-03, and that goes to October 29 of this fiscal year.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister have the stats on how many youths charged with crimes — or

have been charged per the stats the minister provided — are in the care of the

ministry?

Hon. G.

Hogg: If the member's question is with respect to the intervention that was

provided and the admissions to custody and probation, then in 2002-03 there were

two admissions under the trespass of correctional centre who were placed on

probation — one for four months and one for six months. Driving while

prohibited, licence, there were 20 admissions. Eight of those were placed on

probation, and 12 received custody — seven days each for the 12 in custody.

The probation orders were in lengths from three to 12 months. The year-to-date

for breaching a Child, Family and Community Service Act restraining order, there

was one person who received a one-year sentence of probation. Trespassing on a

school ground, there was one custody for one day. Driving while prohibited,

licence suspended, there were two placed on probation — one for three months

and one for six months. There were 13 custody sentences for driving while

prohibited or licence suspended, each for seven days.

J. Kwan:

I appreciate the information that the minister has provided. What I really

meant, though, was in terms of youth charged or have been charged with crimes

who are in the care of the Minister of Children and Family Development. That is

to say, they're youth under the care of the ministry in that sense but not in a

custodial, probation or sentencing sense.

Hon. G.

Hogg: We do not have that data. That would have to be searched on an

individual name basis to be able to break down these instances of charges to see

how many of those were, in fact, children in care.

[ Page 7795 ]

J. Kwan:

Would the minister have a rough idea, Mr. Chair?

[1615]

Hon. G.

Hogg: The most educated guess, which I have just received, suggests that

they would be very minimal and that these are primarily driving offences —

driving while prohibited or licence suspended. Because of the propensity of that

to occupy these numbers, the expectation is that there would be very few

children in care who would fall into that category.

J. Kwan:

And that would include the School Act component in terms of suspension as well.

Hon. G.

Hogg: That is unknown, but it's very likely that it's a very, very small

proportion.

J. Kwan:

Following

section 8, the court must impose one or more of a list of sentences,

including a fine of $1,000, community service of 240 hours, probation of six

months, sentence the youth to 30 days in jail, sentence the youth to 90 days in

jail, prohibit the youth from driving for two years for a failure-to-stop

offence under

section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act. How many of these sentences

can be combined?

Hon. G.

Hogg: In theory, all could be combined. In practice, that does not happen.

In practice, they try to cater a response that appropriately meets the needs of

the individual and the offence. If it was a driving prohibition, it might

typically be some custody with some probation appended to that, rather than

trying to look at combinations with respect to the custody orders.

J. Kwan:

What rationale did the government use in choosing the offences it would apply

these tougher penalties to? What research was done to form the basis for this

policy decision?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The consultation involved an internal review of all provincial statute

offences, looking at and consulting with staff at the Solicitor General

ministry, the Attorney General ministry, the Ministry of Education in looking at

issues with respect to school trespass and of course, the motor vehicles branch

with respect to those instances. The common theme within that was a breach of a

sentence or failure to comply with some order that was made or some condition

that was placed on behaviour. The sanctions provided and the list developed are

being driven by that principle, by a direction being given and a failure to

comply with that type of direction.

J. Kwan:

What rationale did the government use, then, in choosing the offences that would

require custody?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The principles were protection of the public and integrity of the

justice system. The offences which were most serious under those criteria were

the ones that received the strongest sanctions.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

If you look at the cases the minister cited earlier in terms of those in

violation of the Motor Vehicle Act and those in violation of the School Act

particularly, those tend to be the higher numbers even though, relatively

speaking, the numbers generally for youth crime are low. None of those cases

actually deal with gang activities, it appears to me. If I'm wrong in

understanding that, the minister should correct me, if he will, please. It

appears that none of those offences actually deal with sexual exploitation,

which is really the thrust behind this bill that I know the Solicitor General,

the Premier and the Attorney General had touted in terms of the tougher

penalties that would apply. It's mystifying in terms of that.

Well, let

me just put that question to the minister first, so that I understand correctly

in terms of the decision on the penalty and deciding to apply the tougher

penalties and choosing the requirement of custody, relative to the actuality of

how many of the stats the minister provided have to do with gang activities and

sexual exploitation.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The School Act may involve but not necessarily involve coming onto the

school grounds and issues of gang recruitment, of sexual exploitation, of drug

trafficking. All of those instances could be covered within the School Act and a

principal making an order or giving direction with respect to that, and this is

providing a sanction or support for that position taken by the official at the

school.

J. Kwan:

Well, does the minister know actually how many of the School Act violations

have to do with gang activity concerns or sexual exploitation concerns? Those

could also be a suspension — not to minimize the issue, but for other reasons.

How many of those actually have to do with gang activities and sexual

exploitation?

Hon. G.

Hogg: No, we don't know the specific numbers. However, if there is, as a

result of this legislation, one fewer young girl who is sexually exploited, then

the legislation is worth it. If there is one fewer person who is recruited by a

gang or intimidated for that purpose, then this legislation, I believe, serves a

unique and appropriate purpose.

We don't

know the actual numbers, but we do know it has taken place, and we do know the

schools need this and want this as a support and a sanction for that. We believe

this will provide the lever or the tool to assist in that matter.

J. Kwan:

That's troubling, in understanding that the minister doesn't actually have the

facts before this legislation and the penalty provisions which we're now

debating in this House are established. One would have anticipated that the

minister would know, par-

[ Page 7796 ]

ticularly when it's being touted as a highlight in the press release from the

government that deals with the issues around gang activity and sexual

exploitation.

The

highlight of the Youth Justice Act — I quote from the press release:

"Youth who trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual

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

service or probation." We don't know how many youth in the past have been

charged as a result of sexual exploitation issues and gang activities, yet the

minister and this government deem it fit to actually bring in legislation to

deal with that. It's perplexing to me.

The

minister also advised earlier that he's consulted across government — the

Solicitor General, the Ministry of Education and the Attorney General amongst

other ministries — to get that information. Yet he actually doesn't know how

many cases have happened in the past in relation to this.

[1625]

Then it

brings the question: if we don't know how many cases are involved in these very

serious matters related to gang activities and sexual exploitation, then how do

we know the penalties that are being brought forward actually justify that call?

Do we know that those penalties, going in the other direction, are actually

tough enough?

One would

expect, though, that in coming to that determination, one would have a sense of

how many cases are actually occurring related to these matters and, therefore,

would be able to more appropriately come up with the penalties that should

apply. If the minister doesn't know that information, how is it decided which

offences would involve a sentencing of 30 days versus 90 days? How did the

minister come to that decision?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I just want to reinforce that the numbers were provided, and I assume

the member's asking for a breakdown within the School Act. We know the numbers

of offences and charges under the School Act. I gave those numbers earlier: in

2001-02, 69, and under the School Act in the 2002-03 year to date, 51. We don't

have the breakdown specifically of what each one of those constituted.

With

respect to the specific question around how we differentiated between 30 and 90

days, the 90-day sanctions are for the two provisions that are deemed to be the

most contentious or most egregious in the process — those being a breach of

protective restraining orders under the Child, Family and Community Service Act

and, under the Motor Vehicle Act, driving while prohibited or suspended. Those

are the two offences for which there is a 90-day offence, and again, those were

deemed to be the more serious in the regime of offences.

J. Kwan:

Yes, the minister gave me the stats on the breakdown of how many were

involved with MVA violations and how many were involved with School Act

violations and the YOA violations for the respective years 2001 and 2002 and the

year-to-date number.

The issue I

take with the minister when I asked the question is: particularly with the

violation of the School Act, which is the trespass provision, how many of those

69 cases involved gang activities or sexual exploitation? The minister did not

know the answer to that.

I raise the

concern here in relation to the press release that was sent out by the

government, which was dated October 28, 2003: "Stronger Measures for Youth

Enhance Public Safety." In it: "'We're working with the police and the

communities to keep kids out of gangs and make sure B.C.'s schools and

communities are safe,' said the Solicitor General." Then he goes on to talk

about how we need to be tough on crime. Then it highlights in the Youth Justice

Act, "Youth who trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual

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

service or probation," as one of the highlights of the Youth Justice Act.

[1630]

One would

expect that if the government is going to highlight a particular penalty for a

particular crime, they would know how many incidents have taken place in the

past related to that crime. The issue I take with this government and this

minister is that they do not know that information. They don't have the facts

before them, and they are just sort of riding along and going along and making

it up as they go. That's troubling because we're debating a serious bill here on

a serious issue.

The

government highlights the notion that you need to be tough on crime,

particularly related to these crimes, yet they don't even know how many cases

have actually occurred. They don't even have that very basic information.

Really, how can we have a proper debate when the government doesn't have these

basic facts to form their decisions? It would appear to me that instead of

informed decisions being made by government, they are just perhaps engaging in

political pandering — with public anxiety, with a message of getting tough on

crime when they don't even know how many cases actually involve youth in these

very serious matters in terms of gang activity and sexual exploitation.

The

minister says, on the question around 30 days versus 90 days, they make the

determination on the basis of how serious they determine the offence to be. Can

the minister outline for me, with offences such as failure to comply with a

youth sentence or the possession of drugs or other contraband or trespass at a

custody centre, what penalties were applied before for these offences?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the righteous indignation over not being able

to break out specific cases, I would submit on behalf of this ministry and this

government that the numbers are irrelevant. What is important is the fact that

one person has been sexually exploited and there's an opportunity to respond to

that. What's important is if there's been one person

[ Page 7797 ]

who has been recruited at a school for a gang activity, we need to have a

sanction to be able to respond to and look at that. We know the numbers in terms

of gross numbers. We haven't broken them down into individual numbers with

respect to that, but I contend that that is irrelevant.

What is

relevant is that this government is giving an opportunity to respond to and look

at and deal with issues of sexual exploitation and gang recruitment. That's

what's important. It's important that we're taking a stand and making some

direction and giving some focus on that — not that we know exactly what those

numbers are, because that's not relevant. The fact that one person is being

offended or sexually exploited in a school and there's no sanction or that

they're breaching an order and there is no sanction is what's relevant.

With

respect to the specific question with respect to what the sanctions were

previously, failure to comply remains the same at 30 days. There was no custody

available for trespassing previous to this, and this is proposing that there be

30 days added to that. Our sanction changed from no custody to 30 days.

J. Kwan:

What nonsense from this minister who tries to claim he's doing the right thing

to protect children. In fact, it's this minister who's actually made a mess of

his own regionalization plans, cutting budgets in his own ministry, hurting

children. He knows very well that's exactly what's happening under the Liberal

watch, under this minister's watch.

[1635]

Then

further, to say it is not relevant for the government to draft laws they have

brought in that we're now debating under Bill 63 — penalties that apply for

youth that violate some of the most serious crimes, including gang activities

and sexual exploitation of other youth. He says it doesn't matter whether or not

we know that prosecution is actually taking place and whether or not there are

successful prosecutions taking place and what is actually happening on the

ground. He says that's not relevant for debate and that we shouldn't have that

information. We should just simply go in with our eyes wide shut and somehow

justify that it's the right way to make laws with this government.

I find

that, quite frankly, shocking. It is absolutely astounding for any minister of

the Crown to say, "I don't have the basic information and knowledge about

what is happening out there on the ground, but that is not relevant. I'm just

going to create laws anyway, and I'm just going to say penalties apply, and

we're going to be tough on crime," when he doesn't even know whether or not

these laws and these penalties are, in fact, effective and when people on the

ground are saying the minister is better off putting forward preventative

measures rather than penalties.

For the

minister to suggest that not knowing the information is something he should be

proud of and, therefore, justifies the government making laws on that basis is

shameful. Nobody's suggesting that we shouldn't have these laws in place. I'm

not suggesting that, but I am questioning: on what basis is the minister coming

to these conclusions? I'm questioning: on what basis and what factual

information does the minister have to determine that this bill needs to be

before us? How does he go about setting the penalties he has brought in place?

It is unbelievable for this minister to suggest that not knowing the information

is somehow a good thing and to try to suggest otherwise in seeking that

information from the opposition is somehow not relevant to debate.

The

offences in terms of sexual exploitation and gang activities…. In terms of how

many people….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Would the member address her comments through the Chair, please.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I have not even directed the question yet. I have actually just been

putting forward the background with respect to my question. You know what? When

a person speaks, looking at other places in this chamber does not mean that the

person is not directing the question through the Chair to all of the hon.

members. For the members to be heckling me while I ask these questions, and they

take offence…. When I look at them in response — with their incredibly

insulting approach to debate in this House — that is somehow offensive to

them.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Wow. An

opposition of one in this House raising questions related to this bill, asking

fundamental questions on how this minister and this government came with the

decisions around the penalties they have brought forward under this

section of

the bill, based on experience and knowledge and facts.

The facts

related to how many cases the minister has cited in the years 2000 and 2001 that

relate to the gang activities and sexual exploitation, and the minister could

not answer that question. He did not have the information. Yet the government

deems it fit to bring forward a press release to say it is a highlight for this

government to bring forward Bill 63, because they must get tough on youth crime,

and they must get tough on gang activities and sexual exploitation with youth,

when they don't even know how many of those cases they have actually prosecuted.

They don't even know how many actually involve gang activities and sexual

exploitation. That is a shameful display from a government, bringing forward a

piece of legislation as we debate this matter in the House when they don't even

have the fundamental, basic information.

I asked the

minister the question about previous penalty. Let me ask the minister with

respect to a previous penalty: in terms of possession of drugs and other

contraband or trespasses at a correctional centre, what was the previous penalty

for these offences?

[1640]

The

Chair: Member for Chilliwack-Kent.

[ Page 7798 ]

Penner: I can't resist the temptation to get into this discussion.

The

Chair: Member, if you're following this debate, I'd like to have the

minister respond to the question first of all before you stand up, please.

Penner: As you wish.

Hon. G.

Hogg: As I said earlier, the sanction previously for trespassing was

probation. This is proposing 30 days. I don't want the member's comments to be

misleading this House. We do know exactly how many charges were laid. I read

those into the record previously. The question that the member is asking with

respect to specific contraventions within those — and the members will recall,

as I read into that, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, contravention

of the protective intervention order…. There was one charge or one charge so

far this year. In compiling this data, we are using sheets which have been

available and have been used by the previous government in terms of compiling

this as well.

It is part

of the position we've taken that even if there is one person who is sexually

exploited, if there are no sanctions, we want to be able to respond to and

answer that parent when they come forward with respect to those instances to say

that we actually have taken action and are able to provide a sanction which is

not consistent with probation but does provide a sanction with respect to some

custody time. That's what is being referred to, I think, when the member makes

reference to a report that she is reading. We have the exact numbers with

respect to the acts and the description of those. We do not have the breakdown

of the subset within those, but we do know that they have taken place.

J. Kwan:

I asked the minister very specifically: of the violations under the School Act,

of those 69 that the minister had reported, how many involved gang activities or

sexual exploitation? The minister said he did not know. That's on record from

this minister. The issue that I take with this minister and this government is

that they do not have the fundamental information, the basic facts — something

as basic as to say, under the violation of the School Act, how many of those

involve gang activities and sexual exploitation.

It is this

government who brought forward a press release highlighting the need to bring

forward this law under the Youth Justice Act that youth who trespass on school

property for the purposes of sexual exploitation or gang activity can now face

custody instead of fines, community service or probation. It would make sense to

me, even though it appears it makes no sense for any of the government members,

to find out that basic information and then to assess how the government arrived

at these tougher penalties — whether or not that makes sense.

Then,

further than that, to try and determine if of those kinds of offences….

Perhaps there are other offences. If the minister doesn't even have the

breakdown of those offences, what other offences might be deemed by the public

significant enough that would warrant tougher penalties?

We don't

know. We don't know because we don't have the breakdown of this information. The

minister can get up and sort of play this holier-than-thou act to say, well, if

we can prevent one event from taking place on the school grounds, then it's

worth it and this piece of law is therefore effective and important. He can play

that holier-than-thou and play God if he wanted to with this piece of

legislation, but that's not the issue. The issue is about getting the facts

before us, being informed about decision-making and debating this bill and the

questions that arise from them with knowledge. That's what it's about.

[1645]

Quite

frankly, Mr. Chair, the minister has failed on that. All he can do is display a

holier-than-thou attitude on this instead of answering the questions and not

having the information, instead of actually seeking to get the information so

that he, too, would be informed. Instead of doing that, he wants to engage in

some showmanship that we have just witnessed earlier, and I think that's just

shameful.

When I

asked a question around trespass at a corrections centre relative to a previous

penalty, it's different from the question I asked about trespass at a custody

centre. The minister says the penalty previously is the same for the trespass at

a custody centre. Then I take it that for both categories, the penalties are the

same. Is that correct?

Hon. G.

Hogg: That is correct.

Penner: I just want to respond to some of the things I'm hearing here. Maybe

I can help add some context to these provisions that are before the Legislative

Assembly.

It might

interest the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to know that her colleague

actually voted in favour of this bill at second reading. Viewers might be

surprised to know, after witnessing this holier-than-thou demonstration of mock

indignation and gnashing of teeth, that their party actually supported this bill

on second reading.

There's

good reason to. In fact, I am not in the least persuaded by this member's

argument that somehow inaction is the right course when it comes to protecting

our young people. This….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Would you please take your seat for a second.

Member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I will not tolerate you correcting the Chair. The

member for Chilliwack-Kent has the floor. He's entitled as much as you are to be

part of this debate in this House. I've given him the floor, and he will proceed

with his questioning.

[ Page 7799 ]

Penner: If the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant had been paying

attention during second reading debate, she would have heard the comments I made

about my previous experience dealing with young offenders in the criminal

justice system and where this lack of….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, would you come to order,

please.

Penner: I am appalled that the member of the opposition is playing politics

with the future of young people. I represented a young girl who in her early

teens had been sexually exploited on a school ground — repeatedly. It was well

known in the community among certain evil-doing people that this young girl had

a mental disability, and she was being taken advantage of on a school ground.

There was no provision in the School Act to put that kind of a person who was

taking advantage of my client into a custodial setting.

I heard the

member opposite saying that a custodial sentence is not appropriate. I disagree.

For what was done to my client, that person should have gone to jail. I am proud

to stand here today to say I'm going to vote in favour of this

section and this

bill so that what was done to my client isn't done to any more young teenage

girls.

Shame on

the member opposite. The time for dithering is over. The time for action is long

past. Yes, it's true the previous government didn't do anything for ten years to

help young clients like the one I had — young teenage girls. We're not going

to take her excuses for inaction any longer. It's time to get behind this

section and vote in favour, like your colleague did on second reading of this

bill just a few days ago.

J. Kwan:

I find it shocking in terms of what goes on in this Legislature. I actually

don't mind the member for Chilliwack-Kent interrupting.

The

Chair: Member, we're talking about

section 8. Proceed with your questioning

section 8, please, or I'll pass the section.

J. Kwan:

I will move on to

section 8 in terms of questioning, Mr. Chair.

I also want

to make this statement, Mr. Chair. The protocol in this House is such that you

do not interrupt the flow of questions from members. I didn't mind yielding the

floor to the member for Chilliwack-Kent when he interrupted my flow of questions

with respect to

section 8. I don't mind that. But on

section 8, it is shocking

where these members from the government bench would rise up and act as though

they are the only people who care about justice, youth crime issues and safety

in our communities when it is far from the truth.

[1650]

The

opposition voted for this bill in second reading, and I'm not disputing that.

What I'm questioning through legitimate debate in this House is asking the

minister for some factual information, which nobody in this House has. That is

to say: how many cases that the minister cited last year, in 2001-02, relative

to the School Act — the 69 cases that the minister quoted — involved gang

activities or sexual exploitation matters?

The

minister did not know the answer. None of the members in this House care to know

either. You would think that's basic information one would want to know as we're

talking about tougher penalties for those offences. You would think the

Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Premier and the minister would want

to have those basic facts before they sent out the press release saying that

they will now pass legislation to impose tougher penalties related to sexual

exploitation and gang activities. They do not have that information, Mr. Chair,

but somehow it is okay. It is okay for us to engage in debate about tougher

penalties for these offences when nobody knows the background of how many

offences that the minister cited actually involved these activities.

Maybe it's

just me. Maybe it's just me who finds that shocking. Maybe it's just me who sits

down and says, "As we're debating this bill, I want to be informed about

it; I want to know some basic background information before we enter into this

debate" — but not so. Not from the government bench, not from the member

for Chilliwack-Kent, not even from the minister…. That, to me, is

unbelievable.

The

previous penalties I asked the minister about with respect to possession of

drugs and other contraband…. The minister did not answer the question in terms

of what the previous penalty was for this offence.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Previously, there was no custody. Now, if this passes, it will be 30

days.

J. Kwan:

What was the penalty? The minister says there was no custody, but what was the

penalty? Was there no penalty at all?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The options included probation, fine or community service.

J. Kwan:

What about for offences related to unlawfully assisting or counselling a patient

to leave a mental facility?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The same previous sanctions and now 30 days.

J. Kwan:

What about for someone who commits an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act for

which an adult would be sentenced to a minimum period of imprisonment? What was

the previously outlined penalty for that? What was previously outlined as an

offence and the provision in terms of penalty for the MVA violations?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The member will recall that paragraph 4 was deleted by way of the

previously passed motion.

[ Page 7800 ]

J. Kwan:

Sorry, I didn't catch that answer from the minister.

Hon. G.

Hogg: The member is going through these one by one. That

section was the one

that was deleted by way of the amendment motion.

J. Kwan:

The question is: what was the previous penalty for this violation?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The maximum was 30, and should this pass, the maximum will be 90.

J. Kwan:

How about trespassing on school grounds contravening

section 177 of the School

Act?

[1655]

Hon. G.

Hogg: The same sanctions as listed previously. Now it would be increased to

have a 30-day custody as the maximum.

J. Kwan:

What would constitute an offence under

section 177?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The breach of a principal's order to stay off school grounds.

J. Kwan:

Is that the only provision?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes.

J. Kwan:

There are several distinctions made between different kinds of offences under

the Motor Vehicle Act and different pen