Hansard -- Wednesday, October 29, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 12 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7621

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7621
	Private Managed Forest Land Act (Bill 88)
	Hon. S. Hagen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7622
	B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre
	D. Hayer
	Minerva Foundation leadership program
	P. Sahota
	Opening of financial services call centre in Surrey
	B. Locke

Oral Questions		7623
	Traffic fine revenue and funding of municipal police forces
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Flooding in northwestern B.C.
	B. Belsey
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Impact of unemployment rate increase on number of income assistance recipients
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell
	Maintenance of highway medians
	S. Brice
	Hon. J. Reid
	Comments by Agriculture minister to cattle rancher
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)		7625

Second Reading of Bills		7626
	Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)
	T. Christensen

Committee of the Whole House		7626
	Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7626
	Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr406)

Second Reading of Bills		7626
	Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)
	V. Anderson

Committee of the Whole House		7626
	Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7627
	Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr407)

Second Reading of Bills		7627
	Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)
	V. Anderson

Committee of the Whole House		7627
	Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)
	V. Anderson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7627
	Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 (Bill Pr408)

Committee of the Whole House		7627
	Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)
	Hon. G. Collins

Reporting of Bills		7628
	Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Third Reading of Bills		7628
	Manufactured Home Act (Bill 72)

Second Reading of Bills		7628
	Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 86)
	Hon. G. Collins
	B. Locke
	Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 87)
	Hon. G. Collins
	Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)
	Hon. G. Plant
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Hogg
	E. Brenzinger
	D. Hayer
	L. Mayencourt
	D. MacKay
	K. Stewart
	S. Orr
	J. Nuraney
	I. Chong
	R. Hawes
	K. Manhas
	J. Bray
	P. Bell
	B. Lekstrom
	K. Johnston
	V. Anderson
	B. Bennett

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge special visitors from Holland. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Como van Hellenberg Hubar, the Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada, and his wife Liliane van Hellenberg Hubar-Schilling. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I'm pleased he has travelled here to discover the many opportunities our beautiful province presents. He is accompanied by Joop Corijn, consul general of the Netherlands at Vancouver. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

K. Stewart: It is my honour to introduce today a guest from my riding. Dr. Frank Ervin is here today. He talked to caucus about the dangers of smoking. If anyone here needs any encouragement to quit smoking, I suggest they talk to him. He's a specialist in internal and respiratory medicine, and I wish the House would make him welcome today.

P. Sahota: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House an amazing young lady who is here in the Legislature today, spending the day with me. She's a dedicated, intelligent and hard-working young lady, who was chosen to participate in the Follow a Leader program sponsored by the Minerva Foundation. Would the House please make Sepideh Alavi welcome.

R. Visser: In the gallery today is one of the hardest-working public servants this province has. She's led a community through a very trying time over the last couple of years. She and her council have built a vision for their community, have renamed their highway the "tree to sea" highway, and have provided leadership in that community that has gone above and beyond the call. Would the House please make welcome Sylvia McNeil, the mayor of Tahsis.

S. Orr: It's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman from my riding called Bob Sorsier. Bob was a very hard worker in my 2001 campaign, and then he left town. I hope that isn't what drove him out of town. Anyway, he's now back, and we're very pleased he's living back in Victoria. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Belsey: I have the pleasure today to introduce to the House a visitor from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii. Tanis Woode is here today. Would everybody in the House please join me in making her feel welcome.

W. Cobb: It's my pleasure today to introduce a friend and, actually, neighbour. She lives in my complex in Williams Lake — retired teacher, Avis Delaney. Would the House please help me make her welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I want to introduce two very important people to the Legislature today. They are two registered nurses from HealthServ Professionals B.C., Dianne Casper and Katherine Byam. They're here today to give members and staff their flu shots. They're in room 145. I know that many members have taken advantage of this already, and I would encourage others to do so. Please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It's a pleasure to introduce Ellen Sculley to the House. Ellen is visiting here from Vancouver with Tanis Woode and Avis Delaney, and they're looking forward to a boisterous question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Managed Forest Land Act.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes to create the Private Managed Forest Land Act. This bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitment and deregulation initiative. The bill underscores government's goals of operating more efficiently. It also demonstrates this government's ability to responsibly manage the province's natural resources in partnership with those being regulated, while decreasing administrative costs and complexity.

In 2001 the core services review of the forest land reserve concluded that the reserve's land use controls did not serve a compelling public interest. The public, however, retains an interest in encouraging landowners to manage their land in a way that protects public environmental values and promotes reforestation. This bill follows through on the government's commitment to create a mechanism for the continued regulation of forest practices on private land assessed as managed forest, while eliminating the forest land reserve.

The legislation will create a new governing council representing an innovative partnership of members appointed by government and by private forest land owners. The governing council will establish and enforce environmentally sustainable forest practices on

private managed forest land in accordance with objectives set by the government in the act.

I'm pleased to present this bill in the House today. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 88, Private Managed Forest Land Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Hayer: I rise today to recognize the excellent work being done by an agency in Surrey-Tynehead. The B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre, which helps educate children who are deaf or hard of hearing, opened their new building October 30 on 92nd Avenue and 152nd Street in my Surrey-Tynehead constituency. The opening is possible because of generous support from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, through government funding and other donations. A preschool is moving into this new building, and our government also helped the preschool replace its old communication equipment for children who have difficulty hearing. On top of that, the centre also receives annual operational funding from the ministry.

The B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre helps more than 325 children and their families from all across B.C. who struggle with issues surrounding deafness and hearing difficulties. I know from personal experience how hard this can be on a family. My own nephew suffers from a severe hearing disability.

This preschool helps young children, through family-centred programs, to prepare for school years. The remedial training and support the children and family receive at this centre is outstanding. The school's dedicated staff members should be commended for all they do to help the children communicate and become productive members of our community.

Other contributors, businesses, foundations, service clubs and individual donors also deserve recognition. There are also many others who help, including those who volunteer their time. I want to say thank you and recognize the ongoing support that the Ministry of Children and Family Development offers these young children. It makes life more exciting and the future brighter for these children and their families.

P. Sahota: Earlier I rose to introduce Sepideh Alavi, who has chosen to take part in the Follow a Leader program by the Minerva Foundation for B.C. Women. Founded in 1999, the Minerva Foundation is an independent, non-profit society governed by a volunteer board representing the cultural and geographic diversity of British Columbia. The foundation's mission is to create opportunities for women throughout British Columbia and help them realize their economic and leadership potential. They want to open doors for women so other women can pass through them.

The foundation focuses on four priority areas: economic security, safety, education and leadership development for girls and women. It is the leadership development aspect that I've had the opportunity to be involved in, particularly the Follow a Leader program. This program is coordinated by the Minerva Foundation and sponsored generously by KPMG and the Vancouver Sun. This initiative provides a forum for young women from grade 12 to graduate students and introduces them to potential career paths. It provides training for both leaders and the young women in establishing mentoring relationships. As well, it's a vehicle for good corporate citizens to support leadership development and advance opportunities for women in B.C. to assume leadership roles in all facets of society.

Last week I had the chance to meet not only Sepideh, the young lady who's shadowing me as part of the program, but the other young ladies and leaders who are mentoring. It has been an honour for me in having this opportunity to be around some of our future female leaders. All the young women in the program are intelligent, articulate, dynamic, inspiring and caring. I know that for the Minerva Foundation and all the women leaders who are mentoring, they are truly proud of these young ladies. I want to congratulate all the women on their leadership and for being part of this very important process and program.

B. Locke: I rise in the House today to express my constituency's elation with the news that J.P. Morgan Chase will open a call centre in the riding of Surrey–Green Timbers. [Applause.] Yes, more good news.

As you all know, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. is a leading global financial services firm with assets of over $793 billion, and it operates in more than 50 countries. This company — which is a leader in financial transaction processing, investment management, private banking and private equity investment for consumers and businesses — announced Monday its intention to open a 150,000-square-foot call centre in Surrey's Central City building that will eventually employ more than a thousand people.

J.P. Morgan Chase is headquartered in New York and serves more than 30 million consumers nationwide, including many of the world's most prominent corporate, institutional and government clients, so I'm sure the company does not make its decisions lightly. In announcing the deal, J.P. Morgan Chase officials credited the area's deep, diverse and educated labour

pool as contributing to its decision to locate operations in B.C. and specifically in Surrey.

Hiring for the new centre is expected to begin this spring. The government of British Columbia has worked hard, putting time and energy into attracting this business to our region. Thank you to the Premier and the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Clearly, the company's announcement can be held as a classic example of how this government's policy, its directions with the economy and the favourable investment climate are attracting international business and investment to British Columbia.

This announcement by J.P. Morgan Chase is good news for the province, this country and especially the people of Surrey–Green Timbers. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Premier and the B.C. government on bringing this success story to B.C. and my hometown.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday we learned that crime is on the increase in British Columbia, reversing a downward trend under the former government. The board of trade has released its own study that calls….

J. MacPhail: The board of trade has released its own study that calls for an infusion of dollars on policing. When he was asked about the report in the House, the Solicitor General blustered and attacked the messenger.

The government takes in approximately $100 million per year from traffic fines. This same government campaigned on a promise to send 75 percent of traffic fine revenue to municipalities to fight crime.

To the Premier. He campaigned on a new-era promise to transfer 75 percent of traffic fine revenue to municipal policing. When is he going to do it?

Hon. G. Campbell: That will be completed prior to May 17, 2005, as we committed to the people of British Columbia and as we have committed to local government for the last two and a half years.

I think it's important to note that as we work with local governments, we're working to provide integrated policing, to provide comprehensive services throughout the province. That's why we're creating safer, more secure communities for everyone to live in.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting that this new-era promise may be completed in May of 2005?

We know the promise that, provincewide, about $10 million of traffic fine revenue is now sent to municipalities by this government. If this government had actually fulfilled its promise, there would be an additional $65 million that could go to putting more cops on the street and perhaps reverse the trend under this government toward more crime.

The Premier might think it's appropriate to break this promise so he can help his struggling Finance minister to balance the budget, but most of the people I talk to on the street think the Minister of Finance's political career comes second to the safety of their streets. When is the Premier going to give the municipalities the additional $65 million in funding, as he promised them, to help fight crime? And if he's going to make them wait until May of 2005, why? Why is it this promise he decided to break?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite knows, this government laid out a comprehensive platform before the voters in 2001. We intend to carry that platform out. We undertook, unlike the previous government, to provide 75 percent of all traffic fines to the local communities to help meet their policing needs. That commitment will be met — will be met. It will be met prior to May 17, 2005. There are two budgets prior to May 17, 2005, and the member opposite can know this: that commitment will be met.

J. MacPhail: Here's the New Era document, the bible of the Liberals: return 75 percent of all traffic fine revenue to municipalities to improve community policing and crime prevention. Interesting….

J. MacPhail: Under this government, crime is on the rise, homelessness is on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, and the number of people about to be

kicked off income assistance grows daily. The only thing on the way down is this government's credibility. They managed to give a tax cut of $2 billion, which has failed miserably, on day one in office. On this one, people who want safe streets have to wait until May of 2005.

The government treats the New Era document as its bible, a religious text. When will the Premier order his failing Minister of Finance to keep the faith with the province to give the municipalities $65 million more to fight crime? When are they going to stop just faking it with bills that mean nothing?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am the first to admit that it has taken us more than two and a half years to undo all the damage the member opposite created. For years, municipalities have asked provincial governments to provide them with support. We all know that the peak of property crime in British Columbia was under the previous government — in 1996, 86.7 offences per thousand. We know that it has been going down for the last number of years. We know that municipalities asked for almost ten years for support from her provincial government in the past, and they turned a deaf ear.

This government has not done that. This government has committed. We have committed to local communities. We have a Solicitor General who is working with local communities. We are providing for integrative police services that meet the needs of local communities. The member opposite should know this: unlike her government, we are committed and we will deliver 75 percent of all traffic fines to local communities for policing and for crime prevention programs, so their communities will be even safer.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. As we attempt to recover from the recent floods in the southwest of our province, there's another flooding that occurred in the northwest. Heavy rains in the Pacific Northwest have caused the Kalum and Nass rivers to flood their banks, leaving many residents of outlying communities without road access and power, and some even homeless. Can the minister tell the House what actions are being taken for these flood victims throughout the Pacific Northwest?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I appreciate the member and the other members from up in that area who have been in contact with me and the emergency response centre that's set up in Terrace with regard to this particular disaster.

We treated this the same as any other disaster. Emergency social services were on the ground immediately. We activated our PREOC centre, which is our emergency response centre in the area. I have personally spoken to the director up there who's in charge of operating it on the ground, as have my staff. We have sent sandbags. We have sent generators. We are now preparing to airlift in food, which was happening today. The bridge that's out is at the same level of priority as the one south of Pemberton, and Highways are working on that immediately.

J. Kwan: Today Statistics Canada reported that for the seventh consecutive month, the number of British Columbians receiving employment insurance benefits has increased — the worst record in Canada. That shouldn't be a surprise, because unemployment is at a ten-year high and B.C.'s economy is dead last in Canada. Given these dismal numbers, can the Minister of Human Resources tell us how many people he expects to be added to the welfare rolls when employment insurance benefits run out? No spin, no rhetoric — just the answer.

Hon. M. Coell: I know where 1,500 jobs are going to be. They're going to be in Surrey in a couple of months.

I think one of the things the opposition continually fails to realize is that times are changing in British Columbia. The Olympics are coming. We've got a convention centre being built. We've got transportation plans throughout this province. There are jobs. I think yesterday I mentioned that in the Vancouver Sun a report said close to a million new jobs over the next 15 years.

Maybe, just maybe, the opposition doesn't want to see British Columbians succeed, but British Columbians are succeeding. This government is helping British Columbia businesses to create jobs, and those jobs are going to give families decent incomes — far be it from when they were in government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: Well, the facts don't lie, and Statistics Canada has put out the information. British Columbians know the truth. They know that unemployment is through the roof, they know that the economy is dead last, and they know that this minister has an obligation to answer basic questions.

B.C. is second only to Ontario in the year-over-year increase in the number of people on unemployment insurance. Surely, the minister is aware that with more people unemployed — 200,000, more than ever in its history — and with more British Columbians collecting unemployment insurance, he's got a big problem coming.

He won't tell us how many people he's going to kick off income assistance come next April. Can he tell

us how many people he expects to add to the rolls as the economic situation becomes more desperate for thousands of British Columbians?

Hon. M. Coell: For the first time in the history of British Columbia, there are two million people working in this province. Mr. Speaker, 100,000 jobs have been created in this economy since this government was elected.

Hon. M. Coell: My ministry actually has tens of thousands of job opportunities for income assistance clients, and 20,000-plus people have been placed in job placement and training programs by this government. I think the opposition, once again, fails to realize that British Columbians want to succeed, the economy is moving, people are coming back to this province who left this province when the NDP was government, and people are starting to succeed in this province for the first time in a decade.

S. Brice: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Over the summer a number of my constituents approached me concerning the reduction of mowing on the medians on the highway. The minister at that time indicated there would be a review. Can the Minister of Transportation please tell me what the nature and outcome of that review is?

Hon. J. Reid: I did meet with many municipalities, quite a few at UBCM in the fall, and they did talk about the pride of their communities, the pride in their communities. We have worked with them on this issue and have decided that we would have a limited mowing program. We will work community by community to assess priorities.

We've had a very successful first year of our Adopt-a-Highway program. In conjunction with the Adopt-a-Highway program, working on a community-by-community basis, we will have a limited mowing program going forward this next spring.

P. Nettleton: Apparently the Minister of Agriculture was very anxious to talk to rancher Sharon Robertson after discovering that I had arranged for her to come to the Legislature tomorrow as well as to make her available to the media. Consequently, the minister phoned Ms. Robertson, whereupon she asked him why, for example, the government had no problem guaranteeing millions in funding to rebuild trestle bridges destroyed by fire but refused guarantees for the ranchers devastated by mad cow.

The minister's further comment to her was that he wished Sheila Copps had kept her mouth shut and hadn't said that. Mr. Premier, do you know anything about this situation, and can you explain the Sheila Copps comment?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I was not aware of someone coming to the Legislature. We have a policy that we have established with our staff that every call, every letter, receives an immediate phone call. We try and assist individual producers with their applications.

There are a number of programs available both for 2002 and for 2003. As I said yesterday, we'll be announcing a program shortly on cull cows. We have run a series of workshops and regional meetings for producers. I believe there's a good range of programs and assistance available to producers, and we will continue to help them in any way that we can.

Mr. Speaker: During the afternoon sitting on Monday, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of order relating to a ministerial statement made by the Government House Leader on Thursday, October 23, immediately following question period. Essentially, the member's objection was that she had not received an advance copy of the ministerial statement and was therefore not in a position to make a timely and appropriate response.

The Government House Leader, in his response to the point of order, stated that while governments try to provide advance notice of ministerial statements to the Chair and the opposition, such advance notice is not always possible and that, in any event, there's no statutory or other obligation imposing this practice. The Government House Leader further stated that the information provided to the House was, in fact, not provided to him until the end of question period and that, in any event, the Leader of the Opposition was not in the House at the time. Had she been in the House at the time and requested a right of reply, it would have been granted.

The timing and content of ministerial statements has been thoroughly examined in the earlier decisions of the House, and I refer hon. members to two decisions recorded in the Journals of the House: one on March 20, 1987, at page 26 and another on April 27, 1999, at page 231. I commend these decisions to members who wish to examine the matter further.

The Chair has examined the contents of the ministerial statement, considered the circumstances under which it was made and can find no breach of order. Indeed, the ministerial statement dealt with the matter

that had just been canvassed in question period, and the Chair feels that the ability of the House to respond promptly to matters of concern should be encouraged.

Touching briefly on the matter of replies to ministerial statements, this House has on occasion permitted a deferred reply to a ministerial statement, but clearly each case must be decided on its individual merit. The Chair encourages notice to be given wherever possible, but neither the rules of this House nor its precedents indicate that such is mandatory.

The Leader of the Opposition raises a point, and I would like to refer all members to their copy of Standing Orders. I know most of you will have difficulty finding this little book, but it's in your office somewhere. Specifically, it's section 47A, which refers to oral questions, section (b), which I will read to you. I won't read the whole thing. "Questions and answers" — note that it says questions and answers — "will be brief and precise and stated without argument or opinion." I recommend this section to you, as I would not like to have to read this at every question period in the House, but I will if necessary.

T. Christensen: I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill simply restores Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. to the register of companies.

T. Christensen: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr406, Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr406; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

T. Christensen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr406, Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

V. Anderson: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr407, Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr407; H. Long in the chair.

V. Anderson: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr407, Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

V. Anderson: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr408, Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr408; H. Long in the chair.

V. Anderson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr408, Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 72.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 72; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: On section 7, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 32 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 33 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 38 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to add section 47.1 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

As part of the plan to reform and modernize the corporate laws of British Columbia, the Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2.), 2003 makes additional refinements to the Business Corporations Act by

replacing approximately 15 sections of the current Bill 60. The Business Corporations Act will be proclaimed in the spring of 2004.

The amendments in this bill are primarily technical in nature. They correct errors, clarify language in the application of provisions and address gaps identified during the public consultation since the passage of the Business Corporation Act and the introduction of Bill 60 last spring. They also reflect further refinements in the development of the corporate registry's automated filing system and address transitional issues for pre-existing companies.

Finally, the bill contains further consequential amendments to legislation, which reference the current Company Act to reflect the change of name and the new language and processes of the Business Corporations Act. Together, the amendments in Bill 60 and Bill 86 will ensure that a solid legislative framework is in place as we implement the new Business Corporations Act in the spring of 2004.

B. Locke: I'm pleased to speak to second reading of Bill 86, intituled the Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003. This is an amendment to Bill 46, which received royal assent last year. The Ministry of Finance should be applauded for modernizing a key piece of legislation that will assist in achieving a competitive environment for constituents in my riding and throughout the province.

The prior act was significantly out of date in terms of keeping up with corporate law developments and technical advancements. Thanks to the minister's proactive ministry, it is now much easier to form and operate small businesses in B.C. Thanks to the minister's forward thinking, companies and the public alike will have electronic access to the corporate registry and will offer on-line corporate services seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

This piece of legislation reflects solid business principles. Firstly, government should be service-oriented. Secondly, government should be transparent. Thirdly, government should be held responsible for keeping public services updated, logical and modern for all constituents, including the business sector. In reading through the act, one finds embedded common sense, a rational and sensible approach.

In simple terms, we are making it easier for businesses to succeed in B.C., opening the door and encouraging investment as one more step in making B.C. the number one place to do business not only nationally but internationally. The minister deserves to be thanked for his commitment to developing this important piece of legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 86, Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 incorporates into legislation a recognition of the role of the courts and the judiciary in determining disposition of unclaimed court trust funds under the unclaimed property legislation.

The amendments provide for regulations to be established that will define when court trust funds could be considered unclaimed property and available for transfer to the non-profit administrator that is operating the ministry's unclaimed property program. Regulations will also establish the rights and duties of the administrator in relation to unclaimed court funds. These regulations will contain the process rules and will be established through further discussion and consultation with court administrators and representatives of the judiciary.

The amendments require that before these regulations can be made, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must receive the recommendation of the Attorney General, after the Attorney General has consulted with the Chief Justice or Chief Judge of each of the three levels of courts in British Columbia. This is the same process used for changing rules under the Court Rules Act.

In addition, the approval of a justice, judge, registrar or master is required before the Minister of Finance can pay unclaimed court funds to the administrator. Hence, the amendments provide for greater control by the courts and the judiciary in determining when court trust funds could be considered unclaimed and in controlling the disposition of unclaimed court funds.

The amendments provide that the non-profit administrator must make reasonable efforts to locate the potential owners of unclaimed court funds. If the administrator locates a person who was a party to a court action, but there was no order from the court determining who is the owner of the funds, then the administrator must refer the person to the court to obtain that determination. Only in cases where the court has made a determination of ownership can unclaimed court funds be paid out by the administrator. When unclaimed court funds are transferred to the administrator, they're deemed to be unclaimed money and are no longer held in trust. However, an owner's claim is never extinguished until their funds are paid to them.

The amendments to the Unclaimed Property Act also address two minor housekeeping items. One of the amendments supports deregulation by removing the

requirements for a regulation to prescribe where the administrator must keep administrative records. The other housekeeping amendment releases the administrator from the existing schedule of fees for searching for and copying records in a court registry. Provision is made to establish an alternative schedule of fees if one should be required in the future.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 87, Unclaimed Property Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 63, and we'll just await the arrival of the Attorney General.

While our justice system is broadly concerned with ensuring that there is fairness, and our criminal justice system is concerned with ensuring that we have safe streets and safe communities, the justice system has also long recognized differences in the way in which we treat young persons as opposed to the way we treat adults who are in conflict with the law. The Youth Justice Act will allow us to express these differences by creating a new act that is specifically written for young persons.

The Youth Justice Act does the following. It repeals the existing Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, which is no longer consistent with federal legislation, and it repeals the youth provisions in the existing Correction Act and then places these in the Youth Justice Act, which will leave the Correction Act as a statute that applies only to adults.

The Youth Justice Act consolidates all of the relevant and up-to-date provisions from both acts into one new stand-alone Youth Justice Act written specifically for youth. One of the main objectives of the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, which came into force on April 1 of this year, is to utilize alternatives to custody and alternatives to court where possible and where that is the best justice system outcome, and at the same time ensure that youth face serious consequences for serious offences.

I'm pleased to say that in British Columbia, we utilize alternatives to court and custody where that is the right thing to do. We have extensive diversion and alternative-measures programs in place, and we are a leader among Canadian jurisdictions in this regard.

It is also important to note that our provincial legislation and this bill will ensure that serious consequences are available as a sentencing option for six significant provincial statute offences that previously could only attract non-custodial dispositions. These offences include the offence of threatening the safety and security of youth custody centres and adult correctional centres by bringing in contraband to those places, a serious offence because it threatens the integrity of the work done in the youth custody centres and the safety of those who are in custody and those who work there.

Another offence is the offence of trespassing on school property. This is an offence, of course, that can arise in a number of contexts. Those contexts include the possibility that trespass will occur when young people are being recruited for criminal gang activity or sexual exploitation. We take school property seriously in British Columbia. Trespassing on school property is already an offence, and this act will ensure that custody is now available as a potential disposition for young offenders who commit that offence.

A third example of the offences where custody will now be available as a sentencing option is the offence of breaching a restraining order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as restraining orders can be made against young persons to prevent them from sexually exploiting children or other youth.

At the same time, offences where an adult would receive more than six months incarceration will now attract up to 90 days in custody — not the maximum of 30 days, which is presently the case in the law of British Columbia. For example, under the Motor Vehicle Act these offences include driving while prohibited, driving while prohibited by court order or operation of law, and driving while one's licence is suspended. Breaching a restraining order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act would also be included as an offence capable of attracting up to 90 days in custody.

This bill and the new Youth Justice Act that it will bring into force also support the work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which has primary responsibility for youth justice in British Columbia and, in particular, the work being done by that ministry to devolve youth justice programs and services to regional and aboriginal authorities. The changes and the work being done by that ministry include enabling communities to develop and deliver youth justice services within a consolidated, coherent, community-based service delivery system as well as building capacity within aboriginal communities to deliver a full range of youth justice services.

Services to youth in conflict with the law are an important component of the broader services to children, youth and families. Including youth justice services in the community government's model will support the continued integration of these services in the best interests of these youth. This approach is also consistent with the new federal legislation, which supports a multidisciplinary, rehabilitative approach to youth who commit offences.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Youth Justice Act is an act that is specifically written for young people — young people who need special safeguards — that acknowledges their greater level of dependency and reduced level of maturity and, at the same time, that ensures that young offenders are held accountable for their actions.

This bill will allow British Columbia to continue to be a leader in youth justice issues, to ensure that the best possible range of outcomes and tools are available for those who have to deal with young people in conflict with the law and to send a message, which I think should be heard by young offenders, that within the limits of our ability to do so in the laws of British Columbia, the Legislature of British Columbia believes young offenders should be accountable for their wrongdoing.

J. Kwan: Here we go again. Once again this government, in all of its incompetence and arrogance towards this House, brings in a brand-new piece of legislation one day and then calls second reading the next. Last week it was the revamped Residential Tenancy Act, introduced for the first time Monday and then called for debate less than 24 hours later without informing any of the stakeholders affected.

I should recall for the benefit of this House that this was a bill whose sole purpose was to amend two bills brought in by this government just last year. They needed to amend two of their own flawed bills from 2002 after ignoring what stakeholders told them was wrong with the bills the first time around.

You would think the government would learn from mistakes like that. You'd think they would put a little bit more thought into legislation and into the process of bringing legislation before this House. Instead, they brought their new tenancy bill in on a Monday and then called second reading on it the next morning.

Here we are again. Once again we have a bill that is introduced — in this case, a brand-new bill — and it is up for debate in second reading less than 24 hours later. Here's how this government operates. Yesterday morning the government announces to the media that it is bringing in a brand-new Youth Justice Act. It doesn't first tell stakeholders about the new legislation. They were just as blindsided as we were in the opposition.

When the government gets around to properly introducing the bill, the Attorney General tells the House that the new Youth Justice Act parallels the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act "by ensuring that serious consequences are available as a sentencing option." I guess this government decided that the best way to deal with this issue was to put on a good cop–bad cop act, because the job of explaining the bill outside the House was given to the Solicitor General. The message he was hammering home was that the federal government wasn't tough enough on youth crime and that the new federal legislation was too soft because it reduced jail sentences for jail offences for youth.

Come to think of it, maybe instead of the good cop–bad cop act, this is more of a partisan split we are seeing — the kind of split specific to this motley crew called the B.C. Liberals. Of course, there are the B.C. Liberals who, like the Solicitor General, have more in common with the Alliance Party than anyone else, who take great delight in stomping all over anything the federal Liberals do. Then there are those in the B.C. Liberal government who are less, shall we say, squeamish about the L-word, who find it less convenient to trash the federal government, and perhaps their Attorney General falls more into that camp.

The fact is that people who work in youth justice think the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act is actually pretty good legislation. The reason the federal justice act is well regarded is that it separated violent crime from non-violent crime at the same time as it signified a shift in philosophy away from custody for the sake of custody and towards rehabilitating youth, because just putting kids in custody accomplishes nothing, or perhaps worse.

To listen to the Solicitor General, that is his whole purpose with this bill. Even the representative of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police said, in response to this legislation: "Kids in jail aren't a good thing for anyone. It's not good for the kids, not good for society, and it's not good for the generation growing up." He goes on to add somewhat halfheartedly that it would seem that if the new penalties are seen as meaningful and a true deterrent to young people, that would be a good thing.

That's what this government has in mind, but the question is: in the real world, is that how it works? Do youth about to commit a crime ask themselves: "Wait, I wonder if this is one of those six areas of provincial jurisdiction that the Solicitor General said in the newspaper that he was going to come down on with a hammer. Gee, maybe I better rethink this"?

No one who works with youth in the real world believes that. We contacted people working in the youth justice area today and asked them about this bill. Well, first we had to tell them what the bill was called, when it was introduced. Then we went so far as to find the bill for them, because it was news for them — they

weren't contacted; they weren't advised — just as it was news to the opposition yesterday.

We talked about the bill at some length this morning with the Victoria Boys and Girls Club, because they are responsible for most of the youth justice contracts in the city here. After telling us that they couldn't really comment until they knew what the legislation was about, that they are only seeing what was reported in the media….

I must say that it's now becoming a familiar story that people actually don't know what this government is bringing forward in legislation in spite of their claim that they consult and they're open and accountable. People don't know about it, and they have to depend on the media to find out.

What the Boys and Girls Club told us is that any approach to youth justice has to be a multi-faceted approach. It has to include education, incarceration and support, and the most important piece of that is intensive support for the youth, the family and the community. The Boys and Girls Club said that if this bill is just about incarcerating kids without increasing support in the community, then it is neither in line with the new federal legislation, nor would it be a positive move.

We also talked to respected criminologist Jim Hackler of the University of Victoria, who did some radio interviews on Bill 63 today, and he also spoke to our staff. On the radio, he was asked if he thought this government's new youth justice would provide the deterrent the Solicitor General is promising, and he was very clear. He said — and he laid out what evidence has shown — that youth behaviour is influenced by peer pressure, by the push to establish status amongst peers, and that to act as if youth weigh relative penalties is a simple-minded approach on the part of the government.

He actually wondered how the Minister of Children and Family Development, a former superintendent of a youth custody centre, could let his colleagues, such as the Solicitor General and the Attorney General — and he specifically singled out the Human Resources minister — act in such a silly way. What a government should be asking, Professor Hackler stated, is: what is the best way to prevent juvenile delinquency and deviant behaviour? That showy, swaggering talk about getting tough on crime is not the answer.

The professor also said the bill was irrelevant, that it had and would have no impact as a deterrent but was instead window dressing for the public. It's not because it is completely divorced from the reality of the causes of juvenile delinquency and criminal behaviour, but also because the province has jurisdiction over such a small proportion of youth crimes. Professor Hackler reiterated the view of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, stating that we don't gain anything by putting kids in custody and that the only way to have any impact is to intervene very early — at ages two, three, four and five — when aggressive behaviour is first demonstrated.

He cited definitive studies from the United States which show that when impoverished families receive support early, 15 years later we see a reduction by roughly half in terms of risky and delinquent behaviour among youth. That is also supported by a recent report given to the government entitled Profiling the Repeat Offender: Implications for Early Intervention by Nicholson and Artz, 2003. It is a report that this government actually paid for but then is ignoring its recommendations.

These are the conclusions of a report paid for by this government entitled Profiling the Repeat Offender: Implications for Early Intervention, by Nicholson and Artz. It is a shame that this government is ignoring its recommendations.

Of course, as we know too well, this government is going in completely the opposite direction. This is the government that is refusing young people — the very target age of this bill — any assistance whatsoever unless they can prove they have been independent for two years in a row. I'm talking now about the assis-

tance for income assistance. I'll try to keep my sarcasm in check here, because somehow I think that providing some income to a 19-year-old girl might protect her from life in the sex trade a little bit more effectively than giving potential pimps 30 days in jail.

This is the government that's also reducing social assistance to young families by as much as $200 a month. This is the government that, in one of its first acts, scrapped universal child care, cut child care subsidies and made it next to impossible for poor working families to provide the kind of quality early childhood education that has been proven to be the best prevention of youth crime.

This is the government that has brought the six-bucks-sucks minimum wage, a wage that most affects immigrants — immigrant women and their families. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of B.C.'s minimum-wage earners are women over 19 and not youth. This is the government that cut an award-winning anti-bullying program that was working in our schools, that has cut funds to the B.C. safe schools initiatives and to popular, successful programs such as Rock Solid.

This is also the government that has threatened other crucial school-based programs so many times that the parents, teachers and the administrators who banded together to save these programs have been exhausted by the gruelling and shameful process. This is the government that raised tuition fees and cut first-year grants to post-secondary students, making it harder for youth to enter college and university. This is also the government — and here we are getting to areas closer to the Attorney General's own field — that slashed the Crown prosecutor's budget and cut victim services. This is the government that closed courthouses and jails and now, with this bill, will be putting greater pressure on that very system.

Does the Attorney General think this is the way to run a justice system? Does he think the Solicitor General and the Premier's tough talk about getting tough on youth will actually work in the real world — that it is actually a disincentive? Or does he not agree that this is all about politics? The nuts and bolts of the bill would appear, after the brief examination possible in the time allowed by this government, to be mainly about responding to the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, about bringing statutes concerning youth under one provincial act and making the provincial language match the federal bill's language.

The statistics on youth crime in B.C. actually show that youth crime is on the decrease, as in the number of youth in custody. I will read from the Ministry of Children and Family Development youth justice webpage that takes pride in these declines and credits its own community-based alternative programs. "B.C.'s number of youth in custody has declined steadily over the last ten years…. This decline can be attributed to a drop in…youth crime…including violent crime, to integrated case management and to the addition of community-based alternative programs and other treatment services."

The politics this government is playing here, maybe because they are a little sensitive about the board of trade's stinging criticisms over the rise in property crime, is to add some tough measures on crime to this bill and then take it to the public, hoping the public will respond positively to this kind of pandering. We don't think people are that gullible. We think people understand the real world because they, unlike this government, actually live in it. They know that what influences youth is not the tough talk of his colleagues but the kind of deep, serious cuts to the programs that vulnerable families depend on — the cuts to school-based programs and child care, the cuts to legal aid and other services made by this government that undermine support for children and their families. That is what really affects kids.

Outside of the House the Attorney General is, I guess, not trusted to carry the media show. He's not seen to be able to carry the message of being tough on crime, but I guess the Attorney General gets his chance here in the House to say what he thinks about this bill. I'll be glad to discuss the many issues that arise as a result of this bill at committee stage. If this government is sincere in addressing and wanting to decrease crime amongst the youth population, wanting to ensure that young people have a chance to succeed, then they would rescind some of their very punitive policies and the budget cuts in the areas that provide support to the youth and families in our communities.

It is well documented, not just from the report I put on record that I just quoted moments earlier. There is just a full library of research that has already been done, which demonstrates that early intervention is the key. Cutting supports for families, putting more stress on them, threatening that the government will cut families — single parents with children over the age of three on income assistance — off of income assistance, out of some arbitrary time limit, will not assist in this process. It will, in fact, put more stress on the system, more stress on the families, more stress on the community.

It would put youth at greater risk of coming into conflict with the law, of not being able to finish school, perhaps getting involved in alcohol and drugs. The solution and the answers are clear. The reports are there. Don't take my word for it. I know the government members just cast aside anything the opposition has to say, but look to the libraries that are full with the reports that tell you that early intervention is the answer.

The cuts and the deepest cuts are still yet to come in the next budget year and the year after. That is not the answer. It is not too late for this government to admit that they're wrong in the budget exercise, that they want to invest in youth and families and in these programs to support our communities in a way that would be effective for the long term and not to engage in just

The government needs to act in providing the supports that are necessary. It is time for this government to put their money where their mouth is.

Hon. G. Hogg: I was interested in the comments made by the opposition and certainly heard, as I listened through and tried to distil what I heard, some of the principles and comments being made within those. I think that I heard at least five perhaps objectives, if not principles, within that conversation, one of them being the notion of prevention. Certainly, I think all of us would agree and know that prevention is the right focus and the right place and the right direction for all of us to go in terms of issues of youth justice.

That's, in fact, why this government and this Premier have appointed a Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. That's why we focused so much of our resources on early childhood development, so that we can look at early and positive beginnings for children as they work their way through to adulthood. It is why the Ministry of Children and Family Development has focused so many of its dollars on family prevention, on family development, supporting and assisting the needs of families as they look at and manage the challenges that face them.

The member talked about consultation and made reference to the Boys and Girls Club of Victoria. It's clear that we have been an actively consultative government. In this ministry we've consulted with over 14,000 people in this province around the issues of services to children in this province. In fact, we spoke with the Boys and Girls Club just today, the Boys and Girls Club of Victoria as well, and they said they have an excellent relationship with our ministry staff and are very pleased with that working relationship and the direction and the consultation taking place.

There was discussion of the integration of services, and, clearly, what we've been doing in this ministry and in this government is trying to coordinate services so that we have a coordinated, integrated service delivery model that provides for comprehensive service delivery. We talked about wanting to harmonize with the federal legislation so that we can ensure that we are facilitating and enabling the federal legislation to do what it is focused on and intended to do. There was reference made to services outside of custody. The custody was not the right and most appropriate way of responding to the needs of children at risk. Certainly, we concur with that. However, there are times and there is research which will show that many of the children coming into custody, perhaps as many as 90 percent, have alcohol and drug issues, are actually under the influence of alcohol and drugs. This piece of legislation will allow us, for those high-risk children who are problematic — who do present a risk to the public — to be able to slow them down for a moment, to be able to provide the services to them which wouldn't otherwise be available to them.

There are so often — and the Attorney General made reference to some of those people, as an example, coming onto a schoolground who may be in breach of an order, an order under the Child, Family and Community Services Act and a restraining order placed within that…. This legislation will allow us to hold onto that person for a moment in time, to be able to provide them with some of the services that they may need access to because of some of the issues and problems which they may be facing.

I know that this government has taken a very focused, very evidence-based process and direction in dealing with the issues as they apply to youth justice. They are complex, they are integrated, but the model that we've put forward in this province is one that does that.

Bill 63 represents another step in the consolidation of youth justice services within an integrated service delivery system to be provided for children and youth. In fact, the former government in 1997 transferred youth justice services to the then Ministry for Children and Families. I trust they had a belief that integration and the model we're following is the right one to follow. In fact, when we were in opposition, we supported that transition and that change because of our belief and recognition of the need to have a comprehensive approach.

We've continued that integration by including youth justice services on an ongoing basis as part of the full range of services which are provided to children and youth. The ministry has taken this youth-centred approach to hiring and training staff. We've taken that approach in service delivery, and we've taken it in program planning, so it's a broad-based spectrum of services that looks at and responds to the needs of all children.

We have now, and I think most observers across Canada would agree, probably the most progressive youth justice system in Canada. We have taken a very positive approach. We have had a community-based approach. Most observers will say, when they look at it — many of them have reviewed it, and criminologists in British Columbia will support that — that it is the most progressive youth justice system in Canada.

Youth probation officers' caseloads are now half of what they were in 1997, allowing for better case planning, better case management of young offenders and indeed, through that process, better protection of the public. Youth forensic psychiatric treatment resources, addiction treatment resources and community-based intensive support and supervision services for young offenders have been substantially enhanced over the past few years.

A new program has just been initiated. A program of family group conferencing has been introduced as a way of using dispute mechanisms within the context of community rather than using the court systems — again looking at ways that we can integrate, coordinate and provide services that respond to the best interests of children and have the best outcomes. The number of

youth in custody is now less than half of what it was in 1997. Youth and their families are receiving better services, and most importantly, the public is now better served. This legislation represents another step in that progress.

Youth justice services have been legislatively mandated in the past through the Correction Act, an act which was primarily designed to address adult offenders. The bill before us now, the proposed Youth Justice Act, ensures that provincial legislation regarding youth justice is youth-focused. It emphasizes rehabilitation and integration of youth in conflict with the law and thereby better serves the needs of youth, their families and the public interest.

E. Brenzinger: I'm standing today in the House to support Bill 63. I want to applaud the minister, the Attorney General, for the bill, because he has actually shown that he listens to the public, and this is what the public wants.

We want to be clear that tougher consequences are for those youth who know right from wrong. However, today I would like to highlight that the number of inmates may be decreased in the future with more early intervention. I refer to children at risk who have mental health issues or who are developmentally delayed but are not identified while young.

One thing this government has done is create a ministry for mental health and a ministry for early childhood development. I was listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I have to say…. Working in this field for ten years prior to becoming an MLA, I can tell you that the past government did not have those ministries and watered down the services to these children at risk.

Education on mental health disorders is important for caregivers, parents, educators and professionals to be very knowledgable to ensure that children at risk are identified and given the support they need while they are young. Perhaps the frustration, the lack of acceptance in school, fears, low self-esteem and social skills — just to name a few — turn some of these teenagers or youths to drugs or alcohol because it's so difficult to function in society with disabilities. If we can identify those youths — or children, before they become youths — and give them the supports and the security of knowing that they're okay, we could probably cut down on the number of youth going into the criminal system, because they would be able to have the support systems there that they need.

I support this bill because I believe that the youth who know right from wrong should know that there are hard consequences for them when they do something wrong. I think the public has made that very clear. Certainly, in my office in Surrey-Whalley it's been very clear that we would like to see tougher penalties. The other side of it is that we do a lot of early intervention to identify the kids. I know there's a high number of FAS children who grow up and end up in the system through frustration, etc.

I just want to applaud again the Attorney General for this bill — I think it's going to be a really successful bill — along with the other ministries: the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development and, of course, the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

D. Hayer: I'm very happy to rise to speak in favour of this act. I agree with the basis of this act, which calls for a greater deterrence for young people to commit crime. You know that more than 90 percent of our kids are good, hard-working students and law-abiding, but it is those few who flaunt their disregard for the law or for society. They have no respect for any authority, for private property or for lives they impact with their criminal activities.

One of the biggest problems we have with youth crime and violence is that they think they are protected under the law. They think they can get away with it, doing whatever they want. This bill will change some of that attitude, because now some of them won't be getting away with it scot-free anymore.

Too often we hear of young criminals who are caught by the police again and again, but because there is little the police can do to these young offenders, they're back on the street right away, looking for more trouble to cause. I'm a firm believer that if you do the crime, you should do the time. Bill 63 provides for greater time for youth offences. That is good, and perhaps it may make some other young troublemakers think twice before they infringe on the rights of others. This act is as much about respect for others as it is about increasing penalties for crime, and that is a good thing.

I support Bill 63 because it will contribute to safer communities. It will help make our schools better and safer places to be in. I believe it is one more step toward a reduction in youth crime. That is one more tool we have to change the attitude on the street today that kids can get away with anything because there are no deterrents. Only with acts such as this will we be able to convince renegade youth that there is some punishment waiting for them, and if they break the law, they have to pay the price. This act is one more step in returning respect to the victims, and that is good news.

L. Mayencourt: It's an honour to be able to rise and speak on Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. When we got elected, we had a New Era document. It had a lot of promises in it, and many of those promises we have met, and there are others to fulfil. One that has been particularly close to my heart is the one about creating safer communities and safer streets.

Over the last week we've had a lot of conversation in this House about safety, community safety, crime and all of those issues. Today the Premier, in response to a question, once again reaffirmed his commitment to safer communities for all of British Columbia. This is something that is very fundamental to our government. It's very, very important for us, because most of

the people who live in British Columbia are good, law-abiding citizens. They are people who deserve to live their lives free of fear and free of the tragedy that so often is accompanied by crime. It's a really important promise that we made and one that I work on virtually every day just to ensure that we in this House put our minds to this in a very concerted way and face and make choices that we need to do to provide that safety for people.

Bill 63 is the result of a lot of work and a lot of consultation. It comes, really, out of some changes to the federal Young Offenders Act, which was recently changed — in April of 2003, I believe. The introduction of that bill gave us an opportunity to take a look at our Young Offenders Act. It gave us an opportunity to take a look at it in terms of what we're trying to accomplish for British Columbia in terms of community safety and in terms of looking after young people. It gave us that opportunity to have a conversation with many individuals here in this chamber and also outside of this chamber about some of the challenges we face when it comes to youth crime.

The bill here fulfils some very important objectives. It brings us into line with the new federal act. It matches the terminology they've used in the federal act. It gives us an opportunity to be consistent from the federal act to the provincial act, and I think that's a great benefit to British Columbians. Part of the problem you have with provincial statutes and federal laws is that sometimes people aren't really clear on what the message and consistency are. That consistency is achieved with this act.

It also parallels some of the federal legislation in terms of the types of punishments or the consequences that are available to us when we are faced with the unfortunate circumstance of a young offender. It allows us to increase some penalties for, I believe, six different offences in British Columbia that are more in keeping with the kind of spirit of what the province is feeling and is concerned about. I think that's the very important work we are undertaking here today.

I listened to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the member for Surrey-Whalley, the member for Surrey-Tynehead and also the Minister of Children and Family Development. All of them started to reference some of the things we do. All of them mentioned things we could be doing, and everyone starts at the very beginning. At the very beginning is a little baby — a little baby that, if we invest in, if we nurture, if we provide opportunity to…. If we provide the kinds of resources that they need in families, and what have you, those kinds of things we can do at the beginning of a child's life really have a profound effect on how they turn out as adults. It has a profound effect on how a family looks and how a community looks and how a province looks.

There are many things we can do. One of the things we've done in this government, which was referenced by other members here today, was create a Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. That speaks volumes about the kind of commitment this government has to children and families in this province. It's something I'm really very proud of. When I speak to the Minister for Early Childhood Development — we had a meeting in my office in Vancouver just on Saturday — I know I've got someone there that's compassionate and understands the issues and that knows it's really important to move forward and to protect children, to provide families with the kind of mentoring and the supports they need so that their children can grow up and live successful lives.

The Minister of Children and Family Development has talked about some of the initiatives that he's going through right now. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is moving the model of service delivery into regions. Why? Well, it just happens to make very good sense for the people of, say, the northwest or the interior to be able to deal with the issues in their communities in ways that make sense for those same communities.

The minister has gone to great lengths, and he's been applauded by youth service providers all across this province for the intensive consultation he has engaged in, for the planning he's put into this, for his ability to come up with the right amount of money to support children and families in British Columbia. It is another measure of this government's commitment to kids, to families and to communities. It's something that is very, very important and something that we need to remember.

We're talking here about crime and punishment, but really we're talking about: how do we fix a problem? Those two ministries are all about getting ahead of the problem, and I think that's a really important thing that we sometimes forget in this House, or maybe the public forgets — that we are doing things to protect children before they have a problem. That's important.

We've also created a Minister of State for Mental Health. I know that minister very well. We've met on many occasions to talk about the variety of things that we can do. You know, we look at the Youth Justice Act and often…. I mean, I look at it and I go: some of those kids have mental health problems, and what are we doing for them? What can we do for them? How can we make their life better? We do, because we've put our minds to mental health as addiction services, as something that is deserving of a minister — an advocate for all of British Columbia. His passion for the job he has before him, for his ability to reach into the lives of British Columbians and protect those who are less fortunate than us and who live with mental illness….

It's a fact of life. There are a lot of British Columbians who face those kinds of challenges, and so we've put some energy towards that — some real people to work on this. I know that as we work through the regional health authorities, we're actually making a profound difference in the lives of people with mental illness and, in particular, of children who live with mental illness — children who live with their own mental illness or live in a family where mental illness is

an issue. We do those things because we know those are things that are going to make a difference when the child is six, when the child is 12, when the child is 18 and to the time when they become adults.

It's very important work that we do in this Legislature. Community safety has got to be just the most important thing in my work here. I really, really believe in this kind of work, because I think so many people have kind of walked away from calling people on their stuff, on being responsible. This act is really about letting kids, parents and ordinary British Columbians know that they have a responsibility. They live in a society that has rules, and those rules are there for the benefit of all. Those rules are there to protect the children, to protect adults, to protect communities and seniors and what have you. Those laws are there.

This act is an opportunity for us to communicate with the children and parents of British Columbia that these are the things we believe are important and true. I look through this act and I look at…. For the benefit of people that are not sitting in this Legislature, we look at these acts, and they're a bunch of paper. They have words on them of course. I look at section 8, which is about changing the rules here, about changing the rules for dealing with criminal activity with kids. I think it's important that we send a strong message to these kids that we care about them, that we're there for them at the beginning of their lives and all through their lives, and we still expect them to be responsible, whether they are 14 or 15 or 16. We expect them to be responsible for their actions, and we expect them to understand these laws and these rules.

We can do lots about that. I know that when this act is proclaimed, when it's brought into force, there are good and wonderful people who work in our community who will work to communicate these laws, who will translate these sections, subsections and subheadings and all of those things into English, into words that make sense to kids, that make sense to families, that make sense to communities — all who deal with creating a better and safer community.

I look at one of the sections, and it talks about a particular crime. It says: "Subject to section 14, if the young person is found guilty of an offence under section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the court must make an order prohibiting the young person from driving a motor vehicle for a period of 2 years." That's really heavy; that's big stuff. It means that if you're 16 and you have your driver's licence, you've yanked it. It's been yanked; it's gone. You won't be driving until you're 18. That means a lot to young people. I can remember how important my driver's licence was to me. What does that mean? It means we're serious about protecting people in our community.

What is section 100 of the Motor Vehicle Act? It's a prohibition against driving for failing to stop. What's that about? Well, in our province we've seen many, many examples of police chases — 100 kilometres an hour, 150 kilometres an hour. We've seen them throw out those belts that pop all the tires. We've seen Mustangs wrapped around telephone poles because they were running from….

This is important stuff. Those kinds of tragedies break the hearts of moms and dads. They affect people that aren't just the immediate family of those young offenders. They affect other families profoundly. They make a huge difference in the lives of people, so there ought to be serious consequences for that type of crime. There ought to be some reckoning, some sober thought, some time to sit down and go: "Oh, I shouldn't have done that. I hurt someone and maybe their circle of friends or their family. I hurt my community." So it is serious stuff. It's really important stuff.

I've had the opportunity to work on the safe schools task force and had the opportunity to travel the province and meet teachers, students, community leaders and moms and dads — all about the issues of bullying, harassment and intimidation. That doesn't happen just in schools. It happens around schools. Schools are a good place to do that sort of stuff.

I can remember one community I went to, and we talked for a long time about bullying and harassment and what have you. Over the course of many, many hours with students coming forward, I learned that in that community one of the chief concerns they had was people coming and recruiting their girls and their boys to be in the sex trade, people coming onto a school property where kids are vulnerable. They may have been adults or they may have been kids, but the fact of the matter is that they trespassed. They came into a place that's supposed to be safe and secure for kids, and they recruited them out of that — out of their community, away from their families — and brought them to God knows where — perhaps the downtown east side, perhaps downtown Kelowna. I don't know.

Those kinds of things are very serious crimes. Those are things that will alter children's lives forever. I have the greatest respect for groups like PACE, which works with young people that have been induced into the sex trade, and WISH, which is in the downtown east side and works with young prostitutes as well.

I went to a conference not long ago that was sponsored by the Minister for Women's Equality. In that meeting we had a number of people who worked in the sex trade, who came forward. I sat beside a young girl — I won't use her name — and she was 15 years old. We talked for a little while. She was talking about her dog, and she was talking about what she was doing in school and whatever. I thought: this is a really nice young lady.

Midway through the conference a name was called to come to the front to make a presentation. The young girl, the 15-year-old girl beside me, walked to the front of the room and talked about being induced into the sex trade, talked about being lured in by an older girl in the school who'd told her that this was the ticket to glamour. You know, this is how you get makeup. These people will treat you really nice.

There are sick people in our society who actually get off on young sex-trade workers. There are people

who think it's cool to go and do that sort of stuff, so there's a cycle that happens where maybe a 15-year-old recruits a 12-year-old. It's a great tragedy. It's something that really changes and impacts lives for a long, long time. This young girl is moving out of the trade, but she talked about how once you're on that train, it's so hard to get off it. This act talks about making that a crime, about making it more of a crime so that we can actually punish people for it, and I think that is truly, truly important.

This bill, of course, is attempting to balance two very important things. It's attempting to focus on the value of rehabilitation for young people and providing increased consequences for youth who pose a serious risk to public safety. This balance is really essential. It's so important. We need to recognize the needs of these young offenders and be able to offer all we can to prevent their lives from turning into ones filled with violence and despair and agony.

We need to protect our communities. People shouldn't have to worry about being robbed or being attacked in their homes or in their communities. I spoke a couple of days ago about Christina, a 100-year-old woman in my community who was followed into the elevator by a young girl. The young girl demanded money from Christina. Christina said no and was pushed up against the wall with her walker crammed up against her. She's 100 years old. She's an old woman, and this young girl is snatching her purse. That's the kind of thing we don't want in society. That shouldn't happen to Christina; it shouldn't happen to anybody.

But there was another victim in that crime. Well, actually, there were two other victims in that crime. The first was an 11-year-old girl that I know by the name of Cassie. Cassie happened to be at the Ocean Inn — I think it's the Ocean Inn — on Denman Street one day, and she and a girlfriend were using the ladies room. Cassie found a purse that belonged to Christina. She took it home and told her mother she had found this purse, and she and her mother made efforts to return the purse to Christina.

Now, what does it tell an 11-year-old girl when a 100-year-old woman can be mugged in her elevator? Cassie is a victim too. For all of us that witness these types of crimes, these are assaults on us. These are assaults on our community, on our families, on our co-workers. These are attacks that need to be addressed.

The other victim in this crime is the young girl that committed the crime. I don't know her life circumstance — I really don't — but dollars to donuts, it was miserable. It was bad. Maybe she didn't have the kinds of things that we are building into our government today, like a Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, like a Ministry of Children and Family Development, like a Minister of State for Mental Health — the things that provide value to families, the early interventions that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant speaks so passionately about.

There are not many things we agree on, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, but I believe in early intervention, and I believe in protecting our kids. I believe in doing all we can to protect them, and I also believe in protecting our communities. I believe in protecting our schoolchildren. I believe in protecting our school grounds. I believe in protecting our streets. I believe in a safe community for all British Columbians.

The new Youth Justice Act will protect public safety. It will mean safer communities by ensuring that youth face serious consequences for crime. Creating a stand-alone comprehensive act, written specifically for youth, will provide greater clarity and accessibility while ensuring a better fit with the federal legislation. The new act strikes a balance between serious consequences for youth for serious offences while acknowledging that youth should not necessarily face the same penalties as adult offenders.

Most importantly, this act helps me to fulfil a promise to my community that I made when I was elected in May of 2001.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased to stand up today and support Bill 63, which was introduced by our Attorney General. Part of the reason I'm supporting this new legislation is going to require me to go back to 1962, while I was with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I came out of policing as a young rookie and was stationed in British Columbia. In those days and for the next 28 years, I saw lots of changes in society. When I first started policing in this province, we dealt with young people through the adult court system. They were dealt with in the adult court system. There was no difference made between young offenders and adults. If you committed a criminal offence, you were dealt with under the Criminal Code of Canada, regardless of your age.

Mr. Speaker, you know what happened over the years. We as a society changed, and we acknowledged that children are different. They have to be treated differently. They're going through some tough years when they're growing up and they're youngsters, and they do some things sometimes for whatever reason. We did, as a society, make some changes to deal with those people when they broke the laws that govern us as a society.

I can recall when the Young Offenders Act first came out. I was still serving with the RCMP in British Columbia, and I was pleased that we were able to deal with young people differently. We took them out of the adult court system and dealt with them differently.

It wasn't perfect. It wasn't perfect by any means, because society continues to change. The demands on society change. Young people still continue to grow up. They won't listen to older people; they have to learn the hard way. Sometimes they make mistakes — honest mistakes but still mistakes — that we as a society find offensive, and we have created legislation to penalize people when they do violate some of those conditions we learn to live under as a group of people.

Today we are introducing another change. The Young Offenders Act, as we knew it, has been repealed, and it's now being replaced by Bill 63. This is a

companion bill to the federal legislation that was introduced in April of this year. We want to make sure we don't do anything differently than what the federal government has imposed through its federal legislation. We want to make sure that the provincial legislation has a companion piece to deal with it. It does give the province some different means of dealing with those young offenders.

Now, one thing that we have to remember, when we're dealing with young offenders, is that we're talking about children between the ages of 12 and 18. On your eighteenth birthday you become an adult and you're dealt with in adult court. Between the ages of 12 and 18, if you commit a crime, you're going to be dealt with as a youth. When this bill passes, you're going to be dealt with under this new piece of legislation. I'm pleased we're doing that.

There are still some challenges as we move forward, and that is dealing with young children under 12 years of age, because a lot of crime is committed by children under the age of 12 years. That's a problem we're going to wrestle with for years. To deal with young people not punitively but effectively…. That problem is not something new; that's been with us for years. It was with generations long before we walked on the earth, and it will be with us long after we're gone: how to deal with young people.

I was sitting in my office listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talk about how punitive this new piece of legislation is. She talked about how it was going to take away the ability of youth to get an education, how we're looking at punishing children only. I would suggest she probably didn't look at the act, nor does she understand it, because within the act, this new piece of legislation…. I keep calling it an act because I suspect it probably will pass through this House in due course.

There are two sections in this new act that deal with young offenders and their education ability. One of them deals with conditional discharge, and one of the sentencing provisions in there is that the judge must consider the educational opportunities for that youth. Even in the case where a youth is sentenced to a period of incarceration, there's an appeal process available after a period of time. One of the conditions that the youth can make an application to a court for a new hearing on is his inability to get an education in the place of incarceration. When I heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talking about the inability to get an education as a young person under this act, she does not understand the act; nor has she taken the time to read the act.

In that act there are numerous things that will help young offenders deal with the problems that got them in trouble in the first place. It's difficult to understand why young offenders do commit crimes. There are a number of reasons why they do it. One of them is probably peer pressure at school. That's a hard thing for us, as we get older, to understand, but I can recall a few years ago when I was in school. I was probably called in, and I probably had a beer because somebody said that when you get older, when you're 15 or 16, that's what you have to do.

Peer pressure is a big influence on young children growing up in our school system. To go in and steal something from a school or from a drugstore: "If you want to be part of our crowd, you have to do that." That's peer pressure. Normally, a lot of children wouldn't commit a crime like that, but if they want to be part of the crowd, be part of the group, the initiation rite says that's what you have to do. Peer pressure is a big influence.

There's also the problem of addiction. Some of our young offenders have addictions. They have alcohol addictions, and they have drug addictions. That's another reason some of these crimes are committed: to support those habits they have. There are provisions in this new legislation here to deal with those, if they have addiction problems or alcohol problems.

There are social conditions, another reason why young offenders will go out and commit crimes. The conditions under which those young people are raised send them out into the world to fend for themselves, and to fend for themselves means they need money, and money usually comes from the proceeds of crime. We shouldn't forget that.

Then there's just the thrill of going out and committing a crime and not getting caught. How many times have you watched on television lately youngsters videotaping themselves as they're committing crimes? They're driving around, they're shooting people with pellet guns, and they're videotaping it. It's the thrill of the crime. All those conditions have to be looked at when we try to understand why young people commit crimes in the first place.

When I heard the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant say we were going to punish young people…. Well, living in a society, if you decide to break the laws we live under, there's got to be some punishment. I want you to stop and think for a moment about the emotional trauma that victims of crime suffer when they become victims of crime, when their house is broken into — the emotional trauma those people go through because their personal effects have now become public, because somebody broke into their house. How about the store owner going to work morning after morning and finding a huge store window broken? Eventually the insurance says, "I'm sorry; it's costing too much for you," and they cancel the premium, and this continues.

There's a financial cost associated with some of those crimes committed. That broken-window one is something I experienced so many times. I felt so sorry for the victims of crime. I saw cars, hundreds of cars on car lots, vandalized by kids looking for something to do in the evening.

For the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to say that this new legislation is punitive…. That is part of it. There's got to be some punishment attached to this. I also got the impression that she doesn't want to

see any changes made to the Young Offenders Act or the way we treat young offenders in this province. As I said, society changes; we change.

I guess if we followed along the theme of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, when a young offender committed a crime we would put them in the stockade downtown. That's what we used to do with young offenders. We used to do that with criminals. They were put in stockades for people to stare at because they had committed a crime. We don't do that anymore. We treat our young people differently. We have all sorts of social programs available for youngsters who have addiction problems.

What we're doing, as I've said, is repeal the Young Offenders Act. We're now going to replace it with some new legislation, and it's a companion to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That begs the question: will this be the end-all? Will it bring to an end the problem of how to deal with young offenders? Well, I suspect it won't. We will never find the answer to effectively deal with young offenders because we continue to change as a society.

As I said, children under 12 can't be charged with a criminal offence, even though they do commit a great number of offences. But we — perhaps not our generation, but the next generation — may say: "Enough is enough. If you're under 12 years old and you commit an offence, you might be responsible to the rest of society for your acts." To say we shouldn't change legislation — I can't support that. Young people have to be held accountable for the offences, for the violations of statutes that we have developed and continue to develop so we can live in a peaceful society.

Our homes. We shouldn't have to worry about whether we locked the door or locked the windows. It shouldn't matter; years ago it didn't matter. Times have changed, and we now have to do that when we leave our homes.

We have to make them accountable to society, and we do that in a number of ways: conditional sentences, absolute discharges or incarceration if it's serious enough. This new legislation actually increases the period of incarceration that was previously allowed under the old act. For six offences we can now actually incarcerate young offenders for a period of 90 days, which is up from the previous allowable period of incarceration of 30 days for offences — for example, driving while prohibited. I think that's a step in the right direction. We've heard about and seen the tragedies of young offenders who continue to drive and ignore the laws, who drive while prohibited. Well, this new legislation is going to allow for longer periods of incarceration for offences such as that.

This act has provisions in there to help young offenders with their social and addictive problems and to help them educate themselves so they can be meaningful and productive people in our society. But they do have to be punished, should they step out of bounds, because everybody else is. Somewhere along that line we have to start telling people: "You can't do that." I think this act is a step in the right direction.

As I said, the provisions in the new legislation, Bill 63, allow for the incarceration for a number of offences that were not there before. There's some new legislation coming in, telling people these are a couple more things that we as a society do not approve of.

You can no longer trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Previously, there was no penalty for that. There is under this new act. You cannot trespass on school property for the purposes of gang activity. Before, you could go ahead and do that, and the Crown and we as a society were powerless to prevent that from happening. Under this new legislation there are now provisions that have a penalty attached for behaviour like that.

You can no longer bring contraband into a jail or a youth custody centre. If you do, there are now penalties associated with that type of behaviour. Previously there weren't. As I said, this act now allows for jail time for six serious provincial statute offences — jail time. For someone to be sentenced to jail in our period in this world, you have to commit a pretty serious offence, so I'm pleased that young offenders who decide they want to step outside the bounds of normal activity and commit a criminal offence or a serious provincial offence like driving while prohibited are going to pay a pretty severe penalty. There are provisions for that now.

Previously the Young Offenders Act only allowed for probation in a lot of cases. That has now changed. A good example of one of the changes that has now been made is that the period of incarceration for driving while prohibited has gone from 30 days' incarceration to a maximum of 90 days. That's tripling the time a young offender can now be incarcerated for a serious provincial statute. That's long overdue, because a lot of these driving offences we're seeing today are being committed by young people between the ages of 12 and 18.

I certainly have no problem standing in this House supporting what we're doing and what will continue to be done in the years ahead — that is, make changes to the way we deal with young offenders. The Attorney General, the Minister of Children and Family…. We have great programs to deal with young people who step beyond the bounds of normal behaviour for whatever reason. The bottom line is that if you're going to commit a criminal offence or a serious provincial offence as a young offender in British Columbia, there are going to be some serious consequences for your behaviour.

K. Stewart: I'm pleased to support Bill 63. Having worked in the criminal justice system for a number of years in a previous life, it was interesting to see the changes in the act — and, I think, for the better. I go

back to the old Juvenile Delinquents Act prior to the Young Offenders Act, which was brought in, in 1977. We've seen changes in the way we deal with youth as we see changes in our society, but the two are definitely connected. How our society operates clearly shows how our youth are going to act and how responsible they're going to be. Really, crime is a by-product of us as a society, and it's hard to draw clear lines of distinction between crime and other social activities.

A person that's involved in crime…. It can be quite complex. There can be many other components of their life which cause them to gravitate towards that negative peer subculture which causes us so much difficulty today and in the past. There are the components of disabilities, educational deficiencies, abuse in the home, afflictions that are caused by genetics and poor mentoring. I've seen on other occasions where we have a child that appears to come from what we would consider a very stable, good family home, and they end up in crime. There are all kinds of pressures on youth, but what we have to be clear on in the end is that somewhere along the way, they're held accountable to the level of responsibility they can manage.

That's why we see youth under the age of 12 not included in this act. I believe most of us would concur that a youth at the age of ten or 11 wouldn't have the same level of maturity as some at the age of 16 or 17, although that varies. We see some youth who are extremely responsible at ages 13 and 14 and fully accountable and knowledgable as to what it is they're doing, and they're just doing it because they believe they can get away with it.

So as complex as these youths are, we have to be as complex in the amount of different resources and types of resources we have to deal with that. As in anything in government and in life, we're not a limitless supply of funding. Our ability to deal with youth in a criminal activity — as in dealing with youth with social problems, youth with health problems and seniors with health problems…. There are limitations to what we can do, so what we have to ensure is that we utilize the resources available to us to maximize the outcome for that. I believe we're moving in the right direction for that.

We see an act here that is now framed with the federal act, so we're working under the same terminology. We have the same ages we're dealing with. It adds some stability to the act. We're looking at a situation where we're trying to integrate the case management of a youth. As I mentioned earlier, quite often a youth that's involved in crime may be involved with not just a probation officer. It could be a social worker, a school counsellor, a school tutor or someone that's involved with a community organization. The case management is very important.

I think it's important that we also look at the youth in a holistic approach to deal with those components of their lives and have the flexibility to deal with the youths as individuals as they come before the courts by way of an interaction with a law agency. But again, I certainly don't believe that youth should be given carte blanche to go out and do whatever they feel because of some immunity with age, and I believe some of the tightening up from the Young Offenders Act to the Youth Justice Act accounts for that.

Another thing I've seen in my trials and tribulations in dealing with youth over the years is the importance of being consistent. One of the things I think is important through an act is how the courts interpret it. That will be the interesting component that comes out of this: to see how that area deals with the options that are put forward in this act, how the courts deal with the intervention programs, how the courts deal with a youth that has a multitude of different components in their life that are conflicting and how flexible the courts are going to be in dealing with that youth as an individual. That's the challenge that I think is before us.

We have some tools to do that, and I'm pleased that the act supports the usage of that. There are many good organizations out there in our community — public, private, non-government organizations — that are prepared to work with the youth, given the constraints of the act, to try and bring a sense of community to their lives, a sense of responsibility.

I believe we've made some bad choices in the past in how we've dealt with youth and specific types of crimes. I believe that the way breaking and enterings were dealt with over the years made it commonplace, made it that it wasn't such a big thing. As a result of allowing those types of actions to be accepted, it just moves the level up. I don't believe, if we were more consistent in our dealing with those breaking and enterings during the eighties and early nineties, we would have seen that escalation in home invasions that we saw. Fortunately, that seems to be a trend that isn't as high profile as it was previously, and it seems to be falling off. Hopefully, there's been an equal amount of effort put in on the crime prevention side to alleviate that.

Car thefts, too, for years were viewed almost as misdemeanours. I think the significance of the escalation of that to the more serious carjackings, which fortunately we haven't seen too much of in British Columbia…. But we have seen a trend towards that. Hopefully, by the crackdown with the car-theft programs, we're going to see similar reductions in that and bring it down to a level that becomes more acceptable.

What does that have to do with the Youth Justice Act? Well, quite a bit. It's the application of the tools that are there for the court system and the people who work within the family justice area to implement the appropriate actions that are needed and the appropriate penalties in cases to get the youth to understand what it is they've actually done and take responsibility and accountability for that.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I believe this is a step in the right direction. It's not the end-all and be-all, but it's a component that's going to help us move towards at least the options for the courts to ensure that not only are the youth who are involved in criminal

activities dealt with in a fair and accountable manner, but that the other considerations in their lives that may be out of their control in some ways be dealt with in a reasonable way too, so that they can turn their lives around and become productive citizens that will make us all proud in the future.

S. Orr: First of all, I represent a riding that has many social issues, and I have youth in my riding that have lived very challenged lives. It's from no fault of their own, and unfortunately we've all seen this. They've had bad home environments — just bad environments. They've had bad parenting and, consequently, bad choices. That leads them to a life of crime.

Now, I believe that this really is a small percentage of youth. That particular percentage of youth are sad souls, and I get quite frustrated when I watch everybody lump everybody in together. These are indeed a small percentage. I believe that these kids really need special care. Some kids who get into trouble do deserve to be accountable for their actions. I have no problem with that at all. Many responsible parents pull their hair out in frustration when their kids go off the rails and would probably be pleased to have some kind of support.

When I was growing up and I did something wrong, my parents punished me, because they were responsible. I knew the difference between right and wrong because I had been taught that by my parents, by my grandparents, by my family. For these parents, being able to say to their children: "Think twice before you make a bad choice. If you do the crime, you'll do the time, and that's the law…." You need to be able to do that as a parent. You need to be able to say to the kid that's going off the rails: "Listen to me. This is going to happen to you." This piece of legislation will actually help them. You know, it's wonderful being a parent, but it also can be very, very hard. For those parents whose children are seduced away from them by elements that they just cannot fight, this is another tool.

Now, it's interesting. There are many sections of this act that are already in the Young Offenders Act, so I find it interesting that the opposition are setting their hair on fire. This actually has a whole bunch of stuff in it from before, but what it has is updated. It's updated, and it has now got the reality of today and not ten years ago. Times have changed in crime, and this bill reflects that.

However, the concern I'm hearing from my constituents over this bill is: what does this bill do for those very disturbed youth who never had a chance? Does putting them in custody really help them? So, on behalf of my constituents, it is my duty to read this bill, understand it and be satisfied that the issues of this segment of youth I have talked about are being addressed.

The Attorney General has made it clear about this act supporting the work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and it's that that gives me comfort. The Minister of Children and Family Development stood here just a while ago and spoke to this issue, answering clearly the concerns I have.

It's about the concerns of my constituents and the new model that is being put forward. The new model that is being put forward by the Ministry of Children and Family Development in devolving youth justice programs and services to regional and aboriginal authorities will, in my opinion, deal with those children I have been talking about — that small segment of lost souls who are there not from parenting but from bad parenting. They did not ask to end up the way they did.

I recognize that young people in conflict with the law should be accountable for their actions and that the general public should feel safe. That is their right. Unlike the opposition, I certainly do understand what this piece of legislation is all about, but as I said at the beginning, it's those kids who never had a chance that we have to be sure this bill, Bill 63, takes into account — their issues and their problems. This bill and the AG, in my opinion, have covered that, so I stand here and will support Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act.

J. Nuraney: It is my belief that any legislation that comes forward in this House comes forward because there is a need. There is a need that has been demanded or asked for or is evident in our society. As we are told in this House, this bill is now being updated and being put in harmony with the one the federal government has put in place. The fact that the federal government moved on this issue is also the proof that there is a need to make some changes in the law as it stood.

This bill, in my opinion, is not a solution. It is simply a deterrent. Our society is asking that something be done to bring in these kinds of penalties so that the youth in our society are deterred from committing the kinds of acts they do. Perhaps sociologists could tell us what has happened to our society over the years. Why are we seeing this increasing evidence of violence in our youth?

A week ago we heard of this grotesque act that took place in West Vancouver where a 13-year-old boy slit the throat of a 16-year-old boy — an act that was totally inconceivable, in my opinion, ten years ago. I would never have thought that a boy of that age could bring himself to commit an act of this nature. However, as our society evolves, for various reasons these kinds of offences have become preponderant among youths.

This bill enhances and perhaps gives more leeway to our justice system for dealing with the problems that come before it. Incarceration that has now been increased in terms of its length is perhaps deemed necessary only if that is a lesson we need to teach our youths — that they cannot really get away with committing these kinds of grotesque crimes in our society. It is my opinion that as times move along and societies evolve, so should the duty of the legislators to make sure we do come into times that are current with the situations we face.

It is my belief that this bill will protect public safety. It will mean safer communities by ensuring that youth face serious consequences for serious offences. I also believe that creating a stand-alone comprehensive act written specifically for youth will provide greater clarity and accessibility by ensuring a better fit with the federal legislation. This bill also strikes a balance between serious consequences for youth for serious offences, while acknowledging that youth should not face the same sentences as adult offenders.

Once again, I do rise in support of Bill 63. I think it is a very timely adjustment that our Attorney General has brought before this House.

I. Chong: Like so many of my colleagues before me, I rise today to offer second reading remarks on Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. At the very outset I say that I fully support this piece of legislation. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of this legislation at this juncture in time. It provides a very important balance, a balance between the more serious penalties for youth while recognizing that adult offenders should have stronger penalties.

We live in different, if not challenging, times. We cannot, nor should we, continue to promote laws and enforcements that do not meet the challenges of these changing times. A case in point is that earlier this year when the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General introduced Bill 12, the Police Amendment Act. This introduced PRIME into our province, a real-time information management system that will assist our provincial police force or our municipal police departments to combat crime, because as has been said over and over again, criminals do not respect borders. That legislation, Bill 12, was a first step or an important step forward to ensuring for our communities that safety is a priority for this government.

Criminals have sophisticated ways of promoting crime, so our law enforcement agencies also need the tools to fight that crime. We're going to get there. We see this happening all the time. But it's not just the commission of a crime; it's after that occurs. After an offence has occurred, how do we deal with that? Our citizens, our communities, expect us to uphold the law because they, generally speaking, respect and uphold the law. If we do not bring in legislation that strengthens that fundamental belief, then we have not done our job. I know that all members in this House want to do their job, part of which is to ensure that we have a voice here in this Legislature where we can bring the concerns of our citizens to this floor and say that public safety is one of their key priorities.

Yes, health care is important. Yes, public education is important, and we're dealing with that. We're making reforms in that area, because it was time to do that. Here is another area: public safety. That's right up there with health and education.

I did have a moment to hear the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the opposition member, speak earlier. I guess she will always have her views and her philosophical beliefs, and it's unfortunate that she has not grasped the bigger picture here, because the bigger picture is about safety. It is not the small individual items she says may happen, because no matter how much we try, there could be those instances. What's important is that we put out a message that we're listening to our constituents, our communities, and that we're prepared to act on that.

This is not a wholesale change of justice in this province. The federal government has brought in legislation recently. We are, at a provincial level, trying to do our best to reflect and respect those practices. We're not creating any new offences, and that's important to note as well. Offences already exist in the current acts. It does mean that youth are going to face some time in custody, and it means that our youth have to listen.

As has been said as well, the majority of youth are law-abiding. I have had the good fortune of working with young people in my constituency in the seven years since I've been elected as a provincial MLA. I go to the high schools. I go to the elementary-school levels. The students are receptive. The students want to know more, and they want to participate, as well — believe it or not — in changing the laws. I've always encouraged them to share with me their ideas. Some have, and they've given me their perspective. Their underlying message to me has been: "Well, seeing that this affects me, I want to have a say." We are listening to that.

Youth have for too long been lumped together in a category where they have not been respected when one person — as they say, one bad apple — spoil its for the rest. This legislation will send that message out to those few — and I do want to stress few — bad apples who, for whatever reason, have been lured into a life of criminal activity, who have been exploited or who have just not had the opportunities some of us have had the benefit of having. To say to those young people that there will be a consequence and that the consequence is not going to be as lenient as it has been in the past…. To say to those parents, too, who are honestly trying and believing in their children, that those consequences are going to come to roost….

As I said, for the most part the youth in our communities are all law-abiding. They want to know, though, that when there is that one bad apple, they will be dealt with. If it is not dealt with seriously, it will perpetuate others who may wish to follow, believing those kinds of consequences don't exist.

We do need to treat our youth differently than we treat our adult offenders. I know recently — last year, I believe — we were even looking at other kinds of ways to assist our young people. It's not always about an incarceration. There are things that are being worked on in our communities, like restorative justice. I know that in Oak Bay, Restorative Justice Oak Bay is happening. I know the member for Chilliwack — I have to be careful; I think it's Chilliwack-Sumas — brought up this topic some time ago, again advocating that we have to take a look at different ways of enforcing the laws that now exist and how we can make them better for all citizens.

This new Youth Justice Act will protect public safety. I have no doubt in my mind. It will mean safer communities will occur, because we are going to ensure that the youth who do commit some serious crimes will face serious consequences for those serious crimes. By creating this stand-alone comprehensive act that is written specifically for youth, it will provide greater clarity. People will know that we're serious. People will know that here in British Columbia we are serious about what happens in our community.

As has also been said by my colleagues, this act does fulfil one of our new-era visions for safer streets, safer schools and safer communities. I would urge all members to stand up and hold their heads high to support this very important legislation.

R. Hawes: Like my colleagues, I too stand to support this piece of legislation that I think sends a very, very important message. For me and I know for most of my colleagues, this is about accountability, and this is about appropriate consequences.

The word "consequences" was used several times by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I think it's really appropriate that we talk about consequences and particularly appropriate consequences. I know if you speak to the average person throughout this province — and certainly all of us are in touch with our constituents on a regular basis — one of the most frustrating things that people repeat over and over is the lack of consequences. They turn on the 6 o'clock news and see the carnage that's often portrayed there through things like kids in stolen cars running from the law, this sort of thing, and the police saying that these are repeat offenders over and over — the same group doing the same crimes with no real apparent consequence. I know for most of us that have raised kids…. We've tried to raise our own kids, for the most part, understanding that there are consequences both good and bad for your actions.

I think this bill is very appropriate. It's not a draconian bill, as was portrayed by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant earlier today. This bill lays out a series of options that can be selected by the sentencing magistrate, so I really don't see this as being anything draconian.

I'm reminded that in my own community a few years ago, there was a young offender who regularly stole vehicles. In fact, when a stolen vehicle was reported, the police often knew where to go to look, and they would find these vehicles usually within half a mile of this young offender's home. He lived in a rural area just outside my community of Mission. Very frequently, whenever he needed a ride, he would just pick a vehicle, and off he would go. He would park it close enough to his house so that he wouldn't have too far of a walk. The police knew who was doing this. He had been apprehended a number of times, each time being released. Ultimately this young lad, in a stolen car, ran from the police and crashed his car into an innocent young housewife with a young family and killed her. This was just a few years ago in my own community.

Now, if that young fellow had been dealt with through the kinds of punishments that would be available here early in his car-theft career, there's just a chance that that young housewife would be alive today, and her children would still have a mother. I really think these are the kinds of things that a bill like this, if applied correctly through the judicial system, can help straighten out with some of the youth who are causing some difficulties.

When I listened to that member opposite speak earlier, she spoke of the draconian cuts we're making and how, rather than bills like this that are so terrible — an attack on our youth — we should be restoring all kinds of things that she claims we're doing to the social safety net. Every time I hear that, I keep thinking about consequences, good and bad, for your actions — and accountability. That's what always comes to my mind when I think about this.

I keep thinking about the culture of dependency that was built over the last decade and that we're trying to erase, because I personally believe there is nothing like the pride of earning one's way that can be replaced by a gift from anyone…. Earning your own way is something that I think all of us…. Some people call it the work ethic. It's something that we need to instil in our youth. They need to strive to be employed. They need to strive to be self-sufficient. They don't need to be dependent. Those who have been sucked into that culture of dependency need to be weaned off it. I just find it philosophically offensive to listen to the two members opposite continue to talk about this.

I've talked in this House several times about Riverside Centre in my own community. That's a school run by the local school district that tries to take youth that are troubled — who are identified early in their school career as potential dropouts or who have dropped out and are, in some cases, living on the street — and reconnect them with education and with society to get them into a productive mode and into employment.

The last time I went there, there were a number of kids taking various apprenticeship or pre-apprenticeship courses that had been street kids, living on the street. They were kids who would have, under this kind of an act, likely found themselves in a place where they would have been facing sentences like this. Because they were given an opportunity to take some pride in what they're doing, to gain some self-sufficiency, they've disconnected from that former lifestyle, have reconnected with society and are now out employed. They have graduated, many of them last year. They are employed at this time in useful, functional employment, and they're earning their own way. I can tell you they will never face consequences under a bill like this, because they've left that lifestyle.

It's not a handout these kids are looking for, nor should their parents be looking for a handout. They are looking for an opportunity to gain a useful lifestyle, a useful place in society. That's what this government is working so hard to create: those kinds of opportunities. I'm really proud of what our government is doing with

the social welfare programs, with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the wonderful work we're doing there and bills like this that would bring some accountability, some consequences for inappropriate behaviour that are a little more severe than what was there before. I believe society is crying out for that.

I only hope that as this bill passes through this House and becomes law, there are magistrates who will look at this and will understand that there are times to use the maximum penalties here. They will impose those penalties in a way that will be useful to all of us and will help some of these kids be guided back on the proper road, the road we're trying to establish for all kids in this province. We are showing great success and are really moving forward in developing not a social safety net or a culture of dependency but, rather, a pride in self-sufficiency. That's where we're moving.

I'm very proud to support this bill, and my colleagues in this House, I'm very confident, will support this unanimously.

K. Manhas: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill and stand up in support. This bill reflects some of the changes in the federal legislation that many people may now have heard of. The Youth Criminal Justice Act came into force earlier this year to replace the old Young Offenders Act. I think it's fair to say that restorative justice is a very strong theme in this act, in this new legislation.

Of course, one of the major changes was to allow the full strength of the justice system to come down on those youth committing the more serious crimes but also to allow and, if I might say, encourage a greater use of restorative justice by the court system as a whole. I think this is a very positive change for our society and particularly our youth in it.

I often have a chance to deal, in my own community, with folks who are worried about crime that is happening in the community and with youth themselves. Sometimes I have to sit back, and I cringe when I listen to some people talk about the societal problems being caused by and stemming from and perpetrated by youth in the community. I have often heard that if we had the police to deal with the youth who are causing problems in the community, the community would be better off and safer because of it. I think it is certainly not everybody who has these attitudes, because there are people who I work with…. There's a great group — members of the community — involved with the youth matters program in the Tri-Cities who try to go out and change that attitude, but there's no question that youth in the community do feel that as well.

When I talk to youth, there is a feeling that they are looked at as problem causers. I think one of the cultural changes we need to have occur is to recognize when we're dealing with youth and teenagers that this is a time that is a very pivotal point in their development — in their life. When we're dealing with crimes amongst youth, I think it is most appropriate to look at ways to connect to those youth and ensure that they understand their boundaries and the consequences of the actions that they were involved in.

I want to give an example. A woman came into my constituency office a few months back, who was worried about a group of youth that the neighbours in the area knew were causing problems, including identified break and entries in the local area. She came to me and said she would like to find out about how to deal with the halfway house in the community. Doing a little bit of digging, I found out that it wasn't actually a halfway house and that these people she was dealing with were actually teenagers. So I mentioned to her: "Well, those are probably not criminals. Those are actually kids." She said: "Yeah, that's right. They're kids. But they're ravaging the neighbourhood, and they're out of control. They're causing a lot of problems, and we need to come down and lock 'em up and put 'em in jail for as long as need be." When I asked her if she had ever spoken to these youth or if anyone in the community had spoken to these youth, her response was: "Oh no, no, no. Nobody would ever speak to those youth."

One of the problems we find is that those youth who do travel down the wrong path often don't have a connection to society. They come from backgrounds where that connection hasn't come either from the home or from the social environment that they grew up in. They get involved in an area where they find other kids who they get a social connection from, and they get involved in areas that would probably not be what we would consider very positive choices in their own life.

I fully support any kind of a move — including the moves that symbolically and through legislation we are causing, and the federal companion piece — to encourage the court system to understand and to connect to those youth. We need to step back from a situation and realize that when we're dealing with youth, we're dealing with an individual's life, an individual who isn't completely formed in their thoughts and thinking.

I want to step back and say I don't believe that youth should not have consequences. I think the consequences should be clear; they should be strong; they should be punishments that are strong enough that young people understand the severity of their crime. We need to ensure that the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong are very, very clear. But while we do that, we need to ensure that these are young people who are going through a lot of transitions and changes in their lives and have the ability to move beyond this. That strong punishment may not mean that we give them a long sentence. Maybe it's a shorter sentence that is stronger, and that has more interaction and more engagement of those youth to get them to understand what they caused, what the consequences of their actions were — to find out if those youth, those lives, can be turned around. That individual's life is worth something, and I think we have a responsibility to ensure that we try to connect with as many of those individuals as possible.

I believe that in some of the cases where punishments are not severe enough, the consequences and the

boundaries are also looked at as fuzzy by the youth growing up. If they see an area of weakness, they will respond to that. As a young person, a human being is very elastic in response to the degree that they feel they will actually, as an individual, be impacted by it. So we need to ensure that those consequences are very strong. But we do have a responsibility, within that context, to try to find out if those youth can make the positive choices to lead productive lives after that.

There are many, many youths that I have dealt with and have spoken to who have gone through the criminal justice system and are making positive impacts on the community around them, because they found an adult or they went through a system where someone connected to them — where someone actually went up to them and said, "You're important. Your life actually means something. What are you interested in?" and actually engaged them to do something.

We have to realize that not every young person grows up in an environment or a household where they get that. I think every one of us can remember as we were growing up who that person was that engaged us and engaged us to be interested in something in society and to actually want to go on and pursue something. In the cases of young people who have gone their entire life without having any of that engagement, I think we have a responsibility to try to see if we can provide or facilitate that type of engagement.

I don't want to go on too long, but I do hope that those are some of the things that we can try to remember and achieve as we move forward in dealing with the young people, that we don't take one or the other stance and that we don't say, "Well, it's a young person; they're not responsible," or we don't say: "They committed a crime. They should go to jail, and they should have to deal with it just like anyone else." Both sides of the equation exist.

We do need to create those consequences, and we do need to deal with youth to ensure they do lead productive lives. I hope and believe that this bill will help get us there. I believe it's responsible of legislators to show leadership in this area, and I think this is a first step in that direction. With that, I will sit down and show my support for this bill.

J. Bray: I'm pleased to rise and support Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. Sometimes we actually vote on the title of a bill, and the concept of the title of a bill is to actually give some concept of what the bill is about, so people can have a quick idea of what it's about.

A lot of the debate has been talking about, quite frankly, youth crime. Certainly, I'll be talking in a minute about Victoria's situation, and youth crime is an issue. But what we're talking about in this bill is actually youth justice, and to me that's a critical difference. Youth crime happens, and the mark of a society is how we react to that and how we deal with that reality. You're not going to stop every crime or prevent every crime, but what do we do with that young person once that crime has been committed? I am very pleased that the Attorney General has brought forward Bill 63, because it does some specific things but allows us to also focus on youth justice and how we handle that as a society.

I think it's clear, as I start this debate, just to remind the House that this bill isn't creating new offences. We're not going out there and creating a bunch of new laws and new crimes. We're making some changes, but we're taking the same offences forward into this new bill.

It does recognize what I think some of my constituents have talked about, and it's a frustration. Part of it is an emotional frustration, but part of it, I think, is an empirical frustration; that is, the way we deal with youth in the justice system seems to be so light on the penalty side sometimes or so far removed from a consequence side as to not serve one of the purposes we have in our justice system. We have a justice system to deal with punishment, to deal with victim support, to deal with protection of the public, to deal with rehabilitation of offenders. When we deal with youth, I think there's a frustration and a perception and in some cases a reality that we've removed some of that from the justice system for youth.

By providing some custody for certain statutes where previously there was none, I think we're starting to bring that balance back a bit and to remember that among young people who commit crimes — the much smaller percentage that commit serious crime and the smaller percentage still who repeatedly commit crime — we need to raise the bar. We need to make sure there is a sense that we are going to progressively deal in a disciplinary manner with those behaviours. We're going to continually move in the area of ensuring that victims feel that the justice system works for them, and we continually work forward to make sure public safety is actually part of the youth justice system.

Bill 63 does bring in some custody issues, some detention issues, and I think that's critical. It recognizes that custody and duration of sentences for young people should be different from adults for a whole host of reasons, but it brings that balance in a little closer.

Here in Victoria…. You've heard me speak many times about our general issues in our downtown core and how the city police, the Victoria city council and the Vancouver Island health authority are working together in a comprehensive manner to deal with the various issues that are faced on our downtown streets. We're making sure health professionals are actually providing health services to people with mental health issues and addictions, and we're ensuring that there are facilities for progressive steps of intervention — from outreach workers to second-stage housing and housing for those who are hard to house because of mental health issues. We have a made-in-Victoria progression of services that provides a continuum of services for people at various stages in their life.

We are also making sure that the police here in Victoria focus their attention not on dealing with people

with mental health and addictions issues, because that's not their specialty. There are people in our downtown core — pimps, drug dealers — who prey on those individuals and who create havoc for the community and for those people's lives. That's where the police should focus their attention, and that's part of this plan. That's why Victoria city police are to be commended for participating and for really making a visible difference in our downtown core. It doesn't solve all the problems, but when they deal with youth, they need to know that the justice system is going to be evenly balanced between punishment, protection of the public and rehabilitation of the young offender. I think Bill 63 moves us further along into that balance.

Now, there's another frustration in Victoria that I think Bill 63 can start to address. Many of my colleagues in the House have talked about the difficulties that young people who are involved in the criminal justice system have — the difficult lives they've had. Often they've been children in care, bounced around from family to family without any real attachments or roots; with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, a completely preventable neurological birth defect but such a significant impairment for people's ability to apply the knowledge they may have; urban aboriginal youth who are in between two cultures; and those that have suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse and end up on the street. That's one group of young people, and I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't feel we should deal with them in a comprehensive and compassionate fashion for their safety and for the safety of the community.

In Victoria there's another group of youth. You'll see them walking downtown. They're sitting in front of the Shoppers Drug Mart; they're sitting in front of other places. They've got very expensive tennis shoes on. In the summer they like to camp downtown. They have other options. They're not dealing with some of these serious issues that our winter homeless population are, but they are making a choice. There is no curfew when you're living on the street. There are lots of services around. You can kind of have some fun, and if it gets really bad, you can go back home. That's a frustrating reality for us here in Victoria, because it's hard to distinguish who requires those comprehensive services — to move them forward in their lives and make them safe and healthy — from the other young people who seemingly have other options but are making this choice to live on the street.

When the youth justice system does not respond to their choices and the difficulties they create in the community, there's no incentive for them to make any difference. There are no tools for the police to deal with those individuals so that the health system and the justice system can deal with those who have the more complex issues. So when we start to raise some of the sentences and contemplate custody in issues, it starts to send a message to the police that they can deal more effectively with those who have other options, and it starts to move us down to the population that has suffered tragically and therefore are not able to make some of those same decisions.

I think we really need to address the public's perception that youth justice is weak on punishment. I want to draw now, as we go through Bill 63, to section 28…. I think that some penalties, some recognition there are consequences, can deal with those youth who can make other choices, because they're in fact capable of doing that and have the options of a home or other services they can access and move forward.

For those youth that have the complex issues, although this is not a brand-new concept, I think it's important for us to look at. This is not new, as opposed to previous legislation, but it focuses us on what youth justice is. It's section 28 that deals with programs for young persons, and it says under subsection (1): " The minister may establish programs or services for or related to young persons, including but not limited to one or more of the following…." It talks about:

Justice provides the opportunity for the state to provide a structured series of services to take somebody who is making, in many cases, poor life choices and inject them into services that can help them have more options in their life, to make different choices in their life, to get the services they need — educational; perhaps a structured shelter for a while; perhaps just simply a roof over their head; perhaps a contact with a health professional that can look after some of their health needs, mental health needs and their substance abuse issues; a counsellor that can help them deal with some of the trauma they've experienced in their lives.

Perhaps the stability of having the same place to go or the same place to be detained for a month allows them to get some focus when they're not worrying about whether they're going to get rolled in the streets tomorrow, where they're going to get their next meal, whether the friends they met last night — finally thinking they've found some friends — are going to desert them.

It's critical in youth justice that we continue to look for the innovative ways we can deal with children and young offenders for two reasons. We want them to stop offending, and we want to improve community safety. When we find effective programs that the minister has available to him or her, we need to sing their praises. We need to duplicate them. We need to use best practices.

Youth justice isn't just about punishment, and it isn't just about detention and custody. It is also about

services, comprehensive services that improve the lives of people who come into the youth justice system. It doesn't ignore what they do and doesn't reward repeat offenders by simply giving them a slap on the wrist, but it provides comprehensive services that allow young people to move forward.

Now, section 35 deals with when you have a youth in a program that has a detention component to it. It talks about reintegration leave and day absences, and what it recognizes is that it's not enough just to put somebody in a youth detention centre and say they're there for 30 days or 60 days or 90 days or a year: "We'll see you in a year, and off you go. Here's the local income assistance office. Go apply. You're on your own."

These are young people that have not had the structure or the ability to learn life's lessons like most of us have, coming from stable families, stable homes, stable neighbourhoods and stable communities. They may be 16 or 17 and may not have learned some of the basic life skills we learned at 12, 13 or 14. They're going to need structure. They're going to need guidance, and they're going to need monitored activities as they move from the detention system back out into the community.

Section 35 recognizes that there are a lot of areas in which you're going to want to let people who are in detention start to move back out into the community. It includes supervised and non-supervised, and it includes programs recognizing that they're going to be back out in the community. Again, this is where you go from public protection and punishment into some form of actual rehabilitation. It's a critical component for youth, so it recognizes we have a responsibility.

The act is very clear that we have a responsibility. When a young person is in our custody, they're in our total care, and just locking them up for a period of time isn't good enough. We have to provide them integration back into the community, so I'm pleased to see that, of course. This is not any different than what we've had before, but it's a good chance for us to remember the responsibility we have.

Section 36 recognizes that for some young people, if they have housing, that's the most critical need they have. If they are dealing with mental health issues and addiction issues, that's the most critical need. For others, the stability of employment is the most critical need. Section 36 talks about how with somebody in detention who's getting day passes to go to a job, their wages are monitored, and they're going to be responsible for some of the costs of their care. They're going to learn the responsibility of collecting a paycheque and what a paycheque goes for. Any residual amounts left over, they'll have in a bank account that will be accounted for when they are discharged from custody.

It provides them a structured way to learn what the rest of us learn quite easily, which is that you get your paycheque, you pay your rent, you pay your hydro, you buy your groceries, and the 85 cents you've got left, you put in the bank. For young people here who may not have had much employment experience and have not had a paycheque very often, it's a critical skill for them to learn before they're out in our society so they don't get themselves in trouble and revert to the decision-making that got them in trouble in the first place.

Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act, allows us as a society to remember that we have a responsibility to create a system that protects the public. We have a responsibility to have a system that administers punishment when people commit crimes, but it also has a responsibility. We as a society must ensure that we create the supports for people who haven't had those supports before so they can make different decisions in the future.

I am very pleased to support Bill 63, and I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to talk about how we deal with youth justice, how it applies to my community in Victoria and how we can make progress in that area.

I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill 63. It has been firmly embraced by constituents in my riding in just the brief time since it was originally presented to this Legislature by the Attorney General — yesterday, I believe. I've had a number of very positive comments from constituents. I believe it addresses the need for us to align more closely with the federal act and bring us into line with people's thoughts and concerns around how we treat youth offenders.

Certainly, one of the common themes I hear in Prince George and surrounding communities is the frustration felt by our law enforcement agencies and by citizens in general about how we have treated youth offenders in the past. In fact, I have a constituent in the community of Mackenzie, which is a relatively small community of slightly over 5,000 people north of Prince George, who has found the way we have managed young offenders very difficult. He has been a victim of youth crime a number of times, and he's found it very frustrating that these young offenders are simply given a slap on the wrist and kicked out the door after they have performed some form of crime in the community. He doesn't see that as being fair and reasonable.

This is a real step forward in terms of moving towards a better representation of how society feels about how we should treat young offenders. Ultimately, this really is about protecting public safety. Youth justice and dealing with young offenders is about creating a safer environment. It's about creating a safer society, because most crime originates in youth originally, and then when they learn that trade as they move up in life, of course they carry it on in adulthood. I really think if we are pre-emptive in our strike in terms of dealing with youth crime, we'll be much more successful in terms of managing crime in society.

According to all the psychological theories that I have heard, safety and security is the number one priority for all individuals in society. If you cannot attain a safe, secure environment, then all of the other services

We said very clearly in our New Era document that we would provide for safer streets, safer schools and safer communities. I know my constituents embraced that vision when we brought it forward in the 2001 election. I know we had lots of positive comments. This represents a fulfilment of that commitment. It is certainly a step in the right direction of fulfilling that new-era commitment. I am very pleased with this piece of legislation. It's a step in the right direction. I think if a youth is going to participate in some of the crimes we have addressed in this particular piece of legislation — you know, in gang activity, on the schools — there's just no place for that in today's society.

Regardless of what community you live in, whether it's a larger metropolitan community or a smaller rural community, certainly this is a serious issue. It's been addressed, I know, in the safe schools task force report. I think that report was commendable. There was a lot of good work done in that report. This piece of legislation, I believe, addresses that. What we're talking about is not moving to a model where youth would have to spend the same type of time for the same type of crime as an adult would, but we're moving in that direction, and I think that's an appropriate step to take.

This, as I see it, is the fulfilment of another new-era commitment — our commitment to safer streets, safer schools and safer communities. I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill.

B. Lekstrom: I, like my colleague from Prince George North and my colleagues before him, stand to support this bill. I would like to commend the Attorney General for bringing this bill forward. This is an issue that isn't new to society. It's not new to British Columbia; it's not new to our country.

It was interesting hearing the member from the opposition earlier saying that this bill wouldn't help. This leads me to believe that that member had to believe that what we were doing before was working, when in fact it wasn't. I think it was clear to each and every one of us in this Legislature and out in society that we had work to do. It doesn't mean everything was wrong before, but it meant to me there was a lot of room for improvement. We're trying to make that improvement. This new bill that's before the Legislature today is a step in that direction, and I believe it's going to help tremendously.

We talk about youth. We're dealing with youth that are 12 years old and older here, 12 to 18. I'm a believer that regardless of family background…. Many children do come from some horrendous family situations that we try and improve with our investment in early childhood intervention through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and we're making progress. Regardless, I believe children, when they're at that age, do know right from wrong. They know that when they do something, there will be consequences. It's not a matter of saying: "I know I'm going to jail if I do this or if I don't." We've reached a point in society where many of our youth who are involved on the criminal side or in violent activities know they'll get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. That's not a deterrent.

We have to work beyond the issue of politics. This is not a political issue. This isn't just a federal issue or an issue for British Columbia; it's a societal issue that we're trying to improve. The issue, when we talk about the severity of what's taking place with our youth and the violence that goes on, is astounding.

We all grew up, and I'm sure there were school yard fights when we grew up. You know, it hasn't been that long since I've grown up, I was going to say, but I've been grown up a long time, Mr. Speaker.

When I was a youth going through school, we faced many of the challenges the youth today face, but it went to a certain point. Beyond that point, people knew where the line was. I know I say that, and it's a debatable point, but there doesn't seem to be a line in society anymore with many of our youth. I say "many" in a somewhat reserved way.

I'm going to go with the premise — I believe this in my heart, and I think most people would — that the majority of our youth are great. They're upstanding youth contributing to our communities, going to school and doing the best they can to further themselves, further their education and further the communities they live in. A select few are the ones we have to deal with. It's unfortunate that there are those few, but the reality is that there are. There have been for many, many years, from the beginning of time, and we have to look forward at how we deal with that.

Community safety is what this bill is all about, as the member for Prince George North and many before him so rightly indicated. We have gone away from the issue of saying: "You're going to be accountable for your actions." As a youth growing up and a young lad, there were many times when I watched many of my friends go beyond what I thought was acceptable, and they paid the consequences. Many times they did not get back into that trouble.

Today we've heard many, many talks on this — emotional, pointing to the facts — saying we're all here as legislators, regardless of political belief, to make our communities and our society a better place. Again, I want to commend the Attorney General, because that's the job he's doing. He's not bringing forward a piece of legislation to further political beliefs. He's bringing this piece of legislation, Bill 63, forward to make our communities safer, to offer alternatives for our justice system, to implement sentencing that may act as a deterrent. Only time will tell.

Again, I want to go back to one of the first points I raised. What we were doing previous to this wasn't working. It needed improvement, and that's what this bill is all about. It's about improving the ability to provide safer communities, about giving tools within our justice system that can move our society ahead.

I'm not going to take a lot of time, but I want to reiterate. We're working on our early childhood inter-

vention, which is vitally important. Our Ministry of Children and Family Development is doing some very incredible things to make sure the family environment can foster the type of society we all want. Do we have work to do in these areas? You bet we do. I've said before in this Legislature that if we ever reach a point where everything is perfect, then there's no need for any of us to be here.

I would love the point where society was a caring, kind society, where there was no violence, no criminal activity, but there is a reality that that probably isn't going to happen.

In closing, I want to reiterate. Whether you're 12 years old, 14 years old or 16 or 18, you do know right from wrong regardless of your background. It isn't hard to know what's right in society and what's wrong, what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. I think it's time we quit allowing some of these decisions and some of those points of view to be used as a crutch to avoid the actions that do need to be taken in some cases. These are rare cases, but if we can move this ahead, and create a safer environment for our communities and for our children and families, this is the right thing to do. I stand here, and I commend the Attorney General for bringing this legislation forward.

K. Johnston: I really appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. I'd like, firstly, to say that I, too, would like to echo the comments of the member for Peace River South when he talked about the youth of British Columbia and how it is only a very small majority that this act will ever apply to. Most of our youth are extremely positive, extremely vibrant and a real credit to our society. Sometimes in the debates I think we tend to overfocus on those that may be across the line or get out of bounds a little bit.

The new Youth Criminal Justice Act on the federal side came into effect, as many have said, in early 2003. This replaced the Young Offenders Act which, of course, had many weaknesses and in the public eye was just a horrible series of words, because the public did not believe that the act in any way protected society from various young offenders. After years of consultation, the federal government brought this act in. I'm talking about this a little bit on the federal side to start with, because I think it's related to the direction the government is taking here today with regard to the B.C. act. I think there are many similarities and crossovers.

The new federal act is a strategy based on three key areas that work together to protect the public: preventing youth crime, ensuring there are meaningful consequences that encourage accountability for offences committed by youth and improving rehabilitation for youth. The changes the federal government made share a number of important features — flexibility for the provinces in dealing with youth crime, treating violent and non-violent crimes differently, and focusing on crime prevention in youth.

The federal act is an important issue here today as well, because it reflects the direction taken by Bill 63 in dealing with youth justice. Core principles are extremely important on the federal side, and I believe they relate to this act here today. The principle is that protection of society is the paramount objective of the youth justice system, which is best achieved through prevention and rehabilitation. Young people should be treated separately from adults on a criminal law, and measures to address youth crime must hold the offender accountable.

The end result gives the youth justice court the power to impose adult sentences in appropriate cases. It allows an adult sentence for any youth 14 years old or more who is convicted of an offence punishable by more than two years in jail and expands the offences for which a youth can be given an adult sentence. I provide this information because the public is often confused — and understandably confused, I would say — and has a hard time figuring out who is responsible for the youth criminal justice system — specifically sentencing. That's what all the press has been over the years. Actions under the Criminal Code dealt with the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Bill 63, B.C.'s new Youth Justice Act, will give the justice system the ability to impose sentences on youth who violate provincial statutes. You know, this government has taken many positive actions with regard to youth over the last couple of years. I reflect on the initiatives by the Solicitor General in terms of street racing and the fact that this street racing initiative has worked. Many of those street racers are in fact youth and, I believe, are starting to get the message that if their vehicles can be impounded, maybe they should cease the activity. So there's a direction there.

I had the pleasure of attending the graduated licensing announcement out in Richmond probably about a month ago, where the Solicitor General was. It was a moving experience to actually meet the parents of some young folks that had been killed in a tragic, tragic accident. It wasn't really street racing; it was just excess speed. It was one of those situations where there was a bunch of kids in a car. Certainly, the faces and the story told by those parents led me to believe that the government did the right action in the graduated licensing initiative and program. That's just another example of this government looking at the actions of youth and trying to help them out.

Of course, we had the PRIME initiative, which is an information-sharing initiative that this government came forward with, in which all police agencies will be coordinated under one information system in order to possibly share information on all crimes, youth crimes included — breaking and entering, car theft and everything else. The ability to place into custody youth who have violated the Motor Vehicle Act and who have violated their prohibition is a tremendous step.

For me the most relevant part of this act is the part that talks about youth that trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation or gang activity.

Now they can face custody instead of fines. In the riding I represent, Vancouver-Fraserview, we have two of the largest high schools in Vancouver, with roughly 2,000 students in each school. We also have 11 elementary schools. I believe it's unbelievably important to have the ability to give greater sentences for those that prey on students on school grounds and specifically for gang recruitment.

You know, when you visit these schools, often you will see an awful lot of cars hanging around — cars that I wouldn't have driven in my day, certainly very expensive vehicles. You get the sense that there are a lot of, I would say, predators — folks hanging around and preying on these kids. So I think this is an absolutely tremendous initiative, and this is the part that I really think was the best of what's being put forward.

About a week or so ago the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and myself met with an inspector of a Vancouver police department to talk about issues in southeast Vancouver with regard to gangs. We got into talking about gangs and kids being recruited. We talked about grow ops and kids working in those grow ops. I can tell you that keeping young people out of those gangs will help us really start to win the battle on crime. More importantly, it will probably change a lot of life outcomes for those kids that aren't recruited into those gangs. The ability to shut that activity down will be a profound thing for the area.

I, like most people, was not overjoyed at the report released last week by the Vancouver Board of Trade, talking about property crime. We as a society, of course, must do more in the community to address the property crime issue. Nothing makes people angrier than the violation of people's homes and especially the violation of seniors — and so many incidents we've had in that regard in the last years. I know it angers everybody to the point that they all want to do something. The seniors, being the most vulnerable people in our society, certainly need more protection and more support. I believe that curbing the participation in gang activity will have an impact on the reduction of property crime as well — again, going back to the whole thing of recruiting at schools.

I believe this act sends the message to a small minority of kids who operate outside the rules of society that the province is serious about dealing with those that pose a risk to public safety. Bill 63 parallels the federal legislation, intent and direction in ensuring that serious offences can attract very serious consequences in the case of youth crime. We will always prefer rehabilitation for young persons in trouble, but this government is committed to safe streets and safe communities, and actions must be taken to achieve this safety. I believe this bill does that.

V. Anderson: In speaking to Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act, speakers who have gone before me have referred to many different parts of the act. When we're talking on one hand about youth and about justice…. There are two sections of the act that I would like to comment on in the brief period that I have at this moment to highlight what I think is the significance of the act and the challenge of the act.

When it talks about youth custody, we're talking about youths who have come to the attention of the government or of society because there has been a problem, a problem that could have many roots. It could have many explanations. But the reality is that there is a problem, and someone must act to deal with that circumstance. The youth comes into a system which is there to protect society but also to protect the youth himself or herself.

It's interesting that when the person comes into the process and when those who have responsibility for making a decision that this person must be taken into custody…. It's at that point that I'd like to read the section of the act that begins to apply. A lot has gone before in the life of that young person to this particular moment. I quote: "29 (1) The person in charge of a youth custody centre is not required to accept a young person into custody under a warrant of committal unless a certificate of a medical practitioner certifies for that young person all of the following: (a) the state of health of the young person;(b) that the young person is fit for transfer;(c) that the young person is free from infectious or contagious disease."

The key point here that came to my attention is that before a young person can be taken into custody, regardless of what they have done or accomplished, there must be a certificate indicating the state of the health of that young person. I think it's very important for us to ask: what is the content of that certificate?

In my understanding, health has many dimensions. There's an emotional dimension, there's a mental dimension, there's a physical dimension, and there's a spiritual dimension. Those together indicate the health of a person. Unless all four of those dimensions are considered, then we have missed the whole point of trying to find a new direction and a new purpose for this young person's life. Something has gone wrong, whether it was their fault, whether it's society's fault, whether it was a fault in their genes, whether it was physical or mental or spiritual or a disability. All of that to me should be summarized and capsulized in that medical information. It would be, then, on the basis of that medical certificate that one would highlight the particular need of responding to that youngster in order to prepare the program which would go before.

That's highlighted, in the next section, section 30, which gives the responsibility of care:

In other words, the responsibility of a parent or guardian to care for the well-being of that individual is now undertaken by those of us who have placed the

person in what we loosely say is the control of the state. It is a parental-guardian responsibility. When I link that to the medical certificate, a parent or guardian who takes a youngster for examination then has the responsibility to take the results of that examination and to say, "Where is the need — the spiritual need, the medical need, the mental need and the emotional need?" and to develop the programs and responsibilities that will meet the need.

This act, at least in theory, is to provide the opportunity for the young person to discover themselves in a way that to that point they have not been able to do. Until they are able to do that, they're not in a position to make the kind of free choices and decisions we would expect of them. We need the basic framework of how that kind of care and concern of a parent and guardian can be undertaken collectively by us as a community.

The act, though, does not specify or give direction as to the programs and care of the guardian, so I'd like to highlight that this is but one part of the continuum. It's either a key that closes the door on a person's life or the key that opens the door on the person's life, and it depends which of those keys we wish to follow up. To me there's a responsibility for us, when we have undertaken to say this is an improvement, to demonstrate the programs, the keys that are in place, so that this person has the opportunity that we collectively have the power and the authority and resources to provide.

On the difference, I think I would use only this one example. When we see pictures of persons who are incarcerated, as we use that term, we often see under them a number. If we see that person, and any of us who have had passport photos taken know the difference in those pictures…. One can tell us who we are, and one can tell us who we aren't. Many of the pictures that are taken tell us who we aren't.

The picture that tells us who we aren't can have a number under it. The picture that tells us who we are can have our name under it, and that name means there are relationships and personalities and qualities and characteristics. There is not a single person who does not have good qualities and good characteristics and good opportunities, except for the circumstances in and outside their life.

So I highlight that this act does not solve our problem, but it gives us the opportunity to solve the problem by focusing in on that medical certificate and highlighting the need and the program and the responsibility we collectively undertake as parent or guardian. That's so we may say, when the person has gone from our care — whether it's 30 days or 60 days or 90 days — that they have a better opportunity than when they came into that process. Otherwise, the promise of this act has failed. The act in itself gives us an opportunity. The results are the responsibilities upon ourselves.

I had the opportunity in 1990-91 to work in two prisons in Kingston when I was going to law school at Queen's University. It was my second year, and I had an opportunity to take a clinical corrections course that provided me with a chance to work with inmates in both a maximum-security prison and a minimum-security prison. It was a very interesting experience. One of the things I came away with was that warehousing people in prisons, whether they're maximum security or minimum security, is certainly not the most effective way to deal with those who are convicted of offences in this country — at least for many of them. I speak particularly of those who are there for non-violent crimes.

However, there's more to justice and more to sentencing people who are convicted of crimes than what is best for them. In fact, there are at least three principles that we use in society to sentence people who have been convicted of offences. First, of course, is rehabilitation. We talk a lot about rehabilitation. I think we believe, in our society, that we do a reasonable job. But my experience is that rehabilitation, of adult offenders in particular, is extremely difficult, extremely expensive and has probably a fairly low rate of success. With youth, it's different. I support the notion that if youth are sentenced to incarceration, a very strong effort should be made by society to rehabilitate those youth.

The second principle of sentencing that judges use is the principle of deterrence. Deterrence applies both to the person who has been convicted — society would like to deter that person from committing that offence or that crime and future crimes or offences — but it's also deterrence for other people who may notice that someone has been given six months in jail rather than perhaps a suspended sentence or some other lesser sentence such as being on parole. It's important, I think, to most people in society that our sentences do deter other folks from deciding to break the rules.

The third principle I want to just mention, which I think should be used in the sentencing of all offenders — whether they be youth offenders or otherwise — is what's known as denunciation or social repudiation. This is a principle that, in my opinion, has lost its lustre in the courts. I believe that society looks to the justice system to send a signal when someone breaks the law, and I think over the last few decades the signal has been becoming weaker and weaker. Society looks on and watches how many people who are convicted of offences are not punished as stringently as the majority of people in society think they should be. Then the message is that you can get away with it and really not very much will happen.

In balancing what I suggest are the three principles — rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation — it seems to me that one of the things Bill 63 does is recognize the importance of sending a signal to the offender: "You've broken the law. You've done something serious." We're not talking about minor things here. It also sends a signal to the rest of us that if you break the law in a serious way — it's always serious — that involves harm to others and that sort of thing, you're going to be punished by being put away. That is a serious thing. To

take anyone's freedom away from them is an extremely serious thing for any society to do, but it's necessary both for the offender and, I suggest, just as necessary, just as important, for the rest of us to see that that is done.

I noticed earlier in this debate that the opposition…. Maybe it was earlier today in question period. I honestly can't remember when it was, but the opposition was talking about how this B.C. Liberal caucus was right wing in their views on criminal justice and on youth justice in particular. I took the opportunity to look at some of the provincial statute offences that can now, under this new act, result in custody for youth just to see for myself whether or not these criticisms had any validity at all. I'll just reference for the House a couple of these offences that now have the option for our courts to use custody.

One is youth who trespass on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation or gang activity under the School Act. They can now face a maximum of 30 days in custody instead of fines or instead of community service or probation. It seems that someone who trespasses on school property for the purposes of sexual exploitation or gang activity should get some sort of a serious reprimand, and that would be 30 days in jail. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. It seems like a good signal to send to that person, to his or her friends and to the rest of society.

Another example is youth who bring contraband into a youth custody centre or adult correctional centre in violation of the Correction Act. They can now face a maximum of 30 days in custody instead of fines, community service or probation. There again, it seems like a reasonable change to allow courts to levy a 30-day sentence.

There are other examples. There's an example under the Motor Vehicle Act where a youth who was convicted of driving while prohibited or suspended from driving can now face 90 days in custody instead of the maximum 30. There again, with all of the street racing and all of the mayhem in our towns and cities with youth these days, it seems that's not an untoward change either.

This act is a fair balance between focusing on rehabilitation for young persons while at the same time making it very clear that if youth commit the kinds of offences that I just talked about, they will go to jail. I was young once…

I can say for sure that the threat of incarceration, the threat of actually going to jail, is a deterrent for any young person, particularly a young man at the age of 17 or 18.

There's a lot of noise in the House right now. I'm having a hard time collecting my thoughts, but I'm getting close to the end now. I'll just close by stating that I do support the act. I do want to make very clear, however, that I think incarcerating young people is a very serious step. It should only be done in the most serious of situations, and I believe that is accomplished with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 63, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, no, in fact, Mr. Speaker. Noting the continued interest of members in this subject, I move adjournment of debate.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY