Hansard -- Thursday, October 30, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 14 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		7669

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7669
	Community planning and development in Victoria
	J. Bray
	Doreen Lawson
	R. Lee
	Remembrance Day
	I. Chong

Oral Questions		7670
	Youth crime
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Traffic fine revenue and funding of municipal police forces
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Changes to laboratory services
	B. Locke
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Traffic fine revenue and funding of municipal police forces
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Mountain pine beetle infestation
	P. Bell
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Government aid for B.C. cattle industry
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Tabling Documents		7673
	Cross-government expenditures under September 2000 federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement, annual report, March 31, 2002 to March 31, 2003

Second Reading of Bills		7673
	Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) (continued)
	T. Christensen
	R. Visser
	B. Penner
	S. Brice
	M. Hunter
	R. Nijjar
	G. Trumper
	A. Hamilton
	Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		7691
	Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 83)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	R. Nijjar

Hon. G. Collins: I would like to introduce somebody who is probably no stranger to these buildings. Michael Geoghegan is in the audience today. He is now the president and CEO of the B.C. Construction Association, which represents over 1,700 construction companies across the province. He's joined today by his executive assistant, Lyssa Marcil, who is also no stranger to this House. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

I. Chong: Joining us today in the Legislature, I am pleased to introduce five very special guests: Victor E. Wong, Gordon Quan, Paul L. Chan, Philip Young and Frank Lee. These men served in the Southeast Asia Command Force 136, a special service, during World War II. They were chosen because of their Asian background and appearance. Due to the nature of their unit, secrecy was vital, and consequently few people knew of their existence. They were required to operate out of uniform and were therefore not under the protection of the Geneva Convention. Would the House make them all feel very welcome.

P. Nettleton: We have here today a number of ranchers, including Judy Nicholson from Grassy Plains; Levi Knapp, a young rancher also from Grassy Plains; Sharon Robertson, a rancher from Grassy Plains who has two children and six grandchildren, all involved in ranching; and Denise Fawcett, representing the Central Interior Feeders Cooperative Association, a third-generation rancher from Vanderhoof. Please give them a big welcome.

S. Orr: We have with us today 23 wonderful grade 4 students from a school in my riding, St. Andrew's School. With them is their teacher, Mr. K. Pollard. Would you please make them very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the House today is a very special friend of mine who enjoys outings on my boat. She is active in cross-country, soccer and gymnastics. I refer to Emily Driedger, the daughter of Melissa Nowakowski, one of our hardest-working caucus assistants. She's here with her fourth-grade class, which has just been introduced, from St. Andrew's School. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray: I notice in the gallery somebody else who is no stranger here and no stranger to anybody who calls to speak to government MLAs. It is our wonderful caucus receptionist, Lisa Johnson, who really helps us keep things ticking here. I would ask the House to please welcome her in the gallery.

L. Mayencourt: Some of us from the west wing of this Legislature have had the pleasure of working with a legislative assistant by the name of Christine Lewis. Christine is here today with her mother and her grandparents. Her mother is Nancee Lewis, and her grandparents are Marian and Reg Ward. What makes this day a very special occasion is that it is their sixtieth anniversary.

J. Bray: Recently Victoria city council voted down a proposed new development in an area of my community known as the Cook Street Village — this after much work by the Fairfield Community Association of Victoria and the neighbourhood. I must say, the developer also worked hard to try and meet the neighbourhood's expectations and meet the spirit of the Fairfield community plan. It was not that the Fairfield Community Association is anti-development; it is just that they felt the scale of the project was too big for the Cook Street Village and that it did not conform with the 15-year-old neighbourhood plan.

Given this, I say that democracy was upheld and the community won, but this process highlighted for me some serious problems. Revitalization of Victoria, and especially downtown, will be dependent on new development. That fact is inescapable. In order for Victoria to maintain our services and therefore our tremendous quality of life, we must expand the tax base.

I'm not saying Vancouver-style development. We can have a made-in-Victoria solution, but density will ultimately be the key. The community plans are in some cases almost 20 years old. We must look to new plans to recognize the emerging needs of our city to maintain and expand our tax base. I support neighbourhood planning. It is a key to how our community operates, but the plans must be linked to overarching goals. No neighbourhood should bear the full brunt of new development, but no neighbourhood should expect to be exempt from development. All cities that have reinvigorated their downtowns and improved their services have done so in large measure by welcoming high-density development.

We need to increase the tax base and make use of previously developed lands to avoid continued urban sprawl and to stop the loss of additional taxpayers to other areas of the region. Am I simply being pro-development for the sake of the economy? No, but to maintain our quality of life, all neighbourhoods should consider completing new plans that are linked to citywide goals. In my opinion, to do otherwise is to threaten the sustainability of our quality of life.

R. Lee: Today I rise in remembrance of Doreen Lawson, a former Burnaby councillor and longtime community activist. Doreen was a remarkable individual who devoted her life to the betterment of her community and to teaching others about the importance of preserving the environment we live in. It was Doreen who lobbied for years to have the Burnaby Lake area designated as an official wildlife sanctuary, earning her a well-deserved nickname as the Lady of the Lake.

She was passionate about every challenge she took on in life, especially municipal politics. Doreen served on Burnaby city council from 1972 to 1985 and again from 1991 to 1999. Even in her mid-seventies, Doreen was still going strong, working behind the scenes during the last municipal election. But what I respected the most about Doreen was her lifelong commitment to teaching and learning. When I first considered entering provincial politics, Doreen took the time to show me the ropes and gave me a real sense of what I would be going into.

I remember the day she and I took a canoe out onto Burnaby Lake so she could explain to me why the wildlife in that park was an important issue to the residents of my community. I also understand she recently enrolled in numerous art courses to obtain a degree from the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design and held several exhibitions of her paintings of wildlife and nature.

I think that sort of dedication to expanding one's horizons in the latter years really speaks volumes to the character of the Lady of the Lake. She will be remembered and sadly missed not just by those who knew her but by all those who in the future will visit Burnaby Lake to enjoy the natural beauty that thrives there today. That is her greatest legacy.

I. Chong: We have reached that time of the year when Canadians everywhere will soon be wearing on their lapels, jackets or other clothing an international symbol for those who died in war — the poppy. Every year approximately two weeks before Remembrance Day, November 11, the Royal Canadian Legion conducts its annual poppy and remembrance campaign, a campaign whose object is to raise funds for the needy Canadian ex-service members and their dependents as well as Commonwealth veterans of World War II.

The poppy is the symbol of tribute to the more than 117,000 Canadians who have died in the service of our country in the military, the merchant navy or other wartime agencies that supported the war effort. To that end, I would like to pay special tribute today to a particular group of veterans: the Chinese Canadian veterans. These were a special class of young men whose desire to serve their country, their place of birth, was much greater than their desire to be treated as equals.

Those young Chinese men who enlisted back in the 1930s could not before that time call Canada their homeland in terms of citizenry, yet that factor did not deter them. They were born in Canada but not acknowledged as Canadians until they enlisted and served. Their sense of pride and belonging to Canada in working alongside other Canadian soldiers became very real and very important, and when they returned home, they were welcomed as heroes. But now they faced another challenge: to assist other Chinese born in Canada with full Canadian citizenship and full voting rights. By 1947, the Chinese people were indeed granted that right, and we are indebted to those Chinese Canadian veterans whose courage and pride paved the way for so many others.

Remembrance Day shall remain and be reverently observed on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of each year as memorial services in communities across the country honour and commemorate the sacrifices of men and women who served and died in military service and the merchant navy.

We are indebted to all veterans and all those who have served and to the fallen, to whom our debt can never be repaid. We shall honour all veterans — and for me especially, the Chinese Canadian veterans — lest we forget.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General and Solicitor General went to a meeting this week with an announcement about how they were cracking down on youth crime. Will the Solicitor General please tell us today how many youth have been found guilty of driving without a licence in 2002 and how many youth were found guilty of trespassing on school grounds?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have those numbers at my fingertips, but I will get them to the member.

J. Kwan: Well, it's not surprising, actually, that the minister doesn't have the facts. It's a pattern this government has established, a pattern of actually hiding the facts or ignoring the facts — whether it's increasing unemployment, a failing economy or closed residential beds. Either they don't know, or they're not saying it.

Can the minister, then, at least tell us if he's satisfied that all youth who have driven without a licence or trespassed on school grounds have been caught and successfully prosecuted?

Hon. R. Coleman: I said I would get the member the statistical information. You know, what we've done in

the last two and a half years is actually listen to communities and law enforcement, and we've started to build the tools that are necessary for us to push back at crime in our communities, whether it be youth justice, whether it be issues in and around street racing or whether it be issues around how we will handle information management and modernize our police infrastructure in this province — something that was never done under her government, something they completely ignored. They spent their time not worrying about these issues. We're spending the time worrying about these issues, and I'm proud of the fact that this government is taking some stands on behalf of communities.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with another supplemental.

J. Kwan: Well, this minister is unable to say how many of those offences go unapprehended, but clearly he thought the problem was bad enough that he needed to introduce tough deterrence measures this week. Will the minister then confirm today that no matter how tough the law is, if you don't have enough police on the ground, on the streets, to capture the criminals, the toughest laws in the land are of no use?

Hon. R. Coleman: Isn't that incredible? The member used to be a member of the Vancouver city council and actually is aware of the fact that the city police in Vancouver are paid 100 percent by the city of Vancouver and that they set the priorities and the numbers for the police in Vancouver. She's also aware of the fact that in British Columbia, the law enforcement community has not had its budget cut. She's also aware of the fact that this government has stood up against crime and will continue to do so on behalf of all the people of the province. She's asked for some statistical information, and we'd be glad to get it. But you know what? If you don't give tools to fight back at crime, you're making the mistake of ignoring crime and destroying our society, and we're not prepared to do that in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Well, we're just trying to figure out what the heck the Solicitor General does know about. We agree that you need to give people tools. That's absolutely right. Yesterday the Premier, in one of his rare appearances in the House, confirmed what the government's own documents have intimated: the 75 percent share of traffic fines that he promised would go to municipalities won't be included in the 2004 budget. If it does happen, it won't be until the 2005 budget — just days before the next election. The Solicitor General says they need tools, but I must say, giving it to the municipalities in '05 sounds like the worst kind of CYA exercise ever.

Maybe there's another explanation. Can the Solicitor General please tell this House what he sees in his crystal ball that would make him think we will need more police on the street in 2005 than we need on the streets today? Why do they get the tools just days before an election and not today?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've actually built a police plan in the province. We're actually funding that police plan in the province. We're actually looking for enhancements to police in the province. We actually work with all our member communities to look at things like integration and amalgamation of services, the improvement of communication — all of the things that were ignored for ten years while you were in government, hon. member.

You sat back and never did a thing with police in this province. You never built a plan. You never had a discussion. You never built the criminal justice system, and now today you think you can question it.

I'll tell you what. We said we would give back 75 percent of fines. We said we'd give it back in the New Era document, and it'll be given in this mandate. That's meeting our commitment to a new era. At the same time we've made a commitment to make our communities safer and stronger and better places to live, because we've actually sat down with law enforcement to build a plan to protect our communities, and we'll continue to do so.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. On July 9 the government announced plans for laboratory service reform, which has resulted in concerns being raised by my constituency. Many fear that these reforms will lead to labs being closed, reduced patient access, and that doctors will not be able to receive test results promptly. Can the Minister of Health Services outline how the government's position of laboratory reform will benefit patients?

Hon. C. Hansen: Lab reform is something that virtually every other province in Canada has gone through, certainly west of Quebec. B.C. is finally getting to the point where we're addressing that issue in this province.

We have a system in this province that costs 50 percent more per capita than the Canadian average, and we have a per-capita cost of about $115 compared to Ontario, for example, which is in second place at $90. It's not just about getting better value for the taxpayer so that money can be redirected into other patient care needs. It's specifically about making sure that patients get better service as a result of better information systems in terms of lab results, faster access to the test results that come by and reducing the unnecessary duplication of tests that we so often hear patients in this province complain about.

J. MacPhail: It took this government less than 24 hours to give away billions in corporate and high-

income taxes. They didn't have to calculate, equivocate, obfuscate, negotiate. They didn't even cogitate. With one flick of the pen, it was done. After two years, what's the result? Highest unemployment in years. We have the worst economy in the country and the biggest deficit in history.

But the Premier and the Solicitor General are taking their sweet time to help communities fight crime. In fact, the Solicitor General doesn't even know what crime he's fighting. He can't tell us. If they actually delivered on their promise today, communities would see an immediate infusion of at least $65 million to fight crime. Why is $65 million in additional funding to fight crime a good thing in an election year but not a good thing today?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the member whose government cut over $100 million in community grants and downloaded resources onto communities. This is a member who ignored the requests by law enforcement for years to upgrade the technology in the province. We are actually putting in place the only jurisdiction in North America, or any jurisdiction you'll find, where we'll have a real-time information management environment for police…

Hon. R. Coleman: …that will tell us what's going on in our streets, so we can have the information that interacts with itself, so we can solve crime in every jurisdiction in the province. That is a breakthrough. That's an incredible breakthrough.

I'm proud of the fact that we have the guts to make the tough decisions with regard to crime. I'm proud of the fact that I'm prepared to stand up, and this House is prepared to support me. My colleagues support me in building an infrastructure for policing that modernizes policing so we can protect our communities.

My question is for the Minister of Forests. As British Columbia has faced many disasters this year, including the winds and the rain and the fires, we can't forget that we face another major disaster in our interior forests — that of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Released today, the chief forester shows that the size of the beetle infestation has nearly doubled since 2002 to over 4.2 million hectares in the province now infested at some level or state. This means the province could face a dramatic reduction in the long-term sustainable timber supply. Can the Minister of Forests tell this House what steps are being taken to assist the communities in the heartlands affected by this epidemic?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is true that communities from Vanderhoof to Kamloops are now in the midst of this devastating infestation, and it is growing. It's seven timber supply areas, a number of tree farm licences.

As the member knows, we embarked a couple of years ago on a program of concentrated harvesting activity on the leading edge of the infestation. We created emergency management zones that would allow for quicker access to the leading edge of the infestation. Though there has been some impact, it has been a limited impact, and the infestation continues to grow.

The chief forester released his report, and it is a very troubling report. According to that report, inside of three years 50 percent of the pine in the affected areas could be dead. The AAC in the affected areas could be reduced, 15 years from now, by upwards of 19 or 20 percent.

We are going to have to, in my view, increase harvest activity, and that is one of the options that will be considered at the symposium the Premier has called for later in the month of November — I think November 12. There are strategies in place, and they'll be discussed at the symposium — how to improve those strategies and take account of what is the worst infestation in the country's history.

P. Nettleton: B.C. rancher Sharon Robertson, who I introduced to the House today, has taken issue with the minister's statement that the main solution to the ranchers' and producers' dilemma is to have the border open or to fill out yet more forms for slow and meagre federal assistance. This is what she has to say about that: "In my own personal situation, the border cannot be opened tomorrow. It will do nothing for my situation or any other feeder member who purchased cattle. I am still out $49,000 for all of the operating money I put into those cattle, still out the shortage of the feeder loan and the loss of my 5 percent deposit, and with this I will soon be out of business."

I ask of the minister: from the time the border opens, in his estimation, how long will ranchers like Sharon Robertson — here today — have to somehow survive before business recovers to the level prior to the mad cow disaster and shutdown? In other words, has the ministry estimated how long the recovery will take, and what will the provincial effort be towards alleviating their financial hardships?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, I've spoken the last two days about some of the details of the provincial initiatives, including opening the border, which as I've said

is the only permanent solution. We are working through an adjustment period. I want to assure the member and I want to assure the ranchers who are visiting today that we as a province are making major financial commitments to the assistance of the ranching community.

We have sought to maximize federal dollars; that is correct. I want to say to this House that we have budgeted for and expect to pay out up to $25 million under the CAIS program. We have budgeted for and expect to pay out, under the BSE recovery program and the proposed national cull cow program, another $10 million.

We expect that if ranchers fill out their application forms in a timely manner, they will receive hard cash from both the provincial and federal governments. We have seen cheques issued. We are issuing cheques under the CAIS program. I can only encourage ranchers to fill in their applications to work with us.

Hon. J. van Dongen: …August 27. I met with about 350 ranchers there. I encouraged them to look at all of the programs. We had a workshop in Vanderhoof on September 20 to assist them, and I'm certainly more than willing to meet with Sharon Robertson and Denise Fawcett and the other ranchers today, with their member, right after question period.

We will do whatever we can to help get this cash out. There are major commitments. We will get it out to the ranching community.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I inadvertently misled the House. The symposium I was referring to takes place on November 21, not November 12.

Hon. L. Reid: I rise to table the annual report on cross-government expenditures under the September 2000 federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement for the period March 31, 2002, to March 31, 2003.

Early this spring British Columbia will be the only jurisdiction in Canada to have a provincial snapshot of the learning readiness of every single five-year-old in our province. My thanks to Dr. Clyde Hertzman for his outstanding research in this area, and I know we will continue to go forward from the base of the best possible science.

T. Christensen: Just prior to lunch I was speaking in favour of what Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act, will do in terms of providing the framework for addressing youth justice issues in the province. The gist of my comments has been that what Bill 63 does is provide this broad framework and what I believe is a broad and comprehensive foundation that will then allow government, on a broad scale, to address youth justice issues.

In listening to the debate over the last couple of days, I did certainly take notice of comments by a number of members. I guess what stood out to some extent was some of the comments of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. She spoke at some length about the need to support youth, and I think all members of this House agree that we need to find the means to support youth, particularly where it's in the interests of…. It always is in the interests of society to assist youth in overcoming particular challenges they have at one point so that they can become productive members of society. That is certainly the case, perhaps in many ways more than it's emphasized in the case of youth who come into conflict with the law.

I was struck in particular by some of the specific comments that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant brought forward about some of the groups she had talked to. She referred to the Victoria Boys and Girls Club. What she said was that any approach…. What the club had said was that any approach to youth justice has to be a multifaceted approach, and I couldn't agree more. 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. Certainly, if we look at the Youth Justice Act and section 28 of the act in particular, it's clear that what this bill does is provide a broad mandate to the minister to develop and provide programs that will broadly support youth.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant brought forth comments from the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police that suggest that we don't gain anything by simply putting youth in custody. Again, that's certainly in line with what this bill does. This bill provides custody as an option where that's appropriate, but custody goes hand in hand with a focus on rehabilitation. Anyone who's at all familiar with our youth custody facilities will know that a major emphasis in those types of facilities is rehabilitation of the youth who find themselves there.

Further to that point, what Bill 63 does is support and confirm the role of the Ministry of Children and Family Development in providing youth justice services right from the start — in terms of youth probation officers and the critically important role they play in reviewing the circumstances that a youth in conflict with the law finds himself or herself in and providing

assistance to the court in dealing with that youth — through to the actual treatment programs, for lack of a better word, that the youth can benefit from, whether they have a custodial sentence or otherwise.

I think the one thing that was sorely lacking in terms of the comments that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made was…. There was no discussion of public safety, and that's really what we must…. While we strive to deal with the challenges that youth in conflict with the law face, we have to recognize that a justice system is also there to ensure that there's protection of the public. What Bill 63 does is provide a very critical balance between those two needs when we're dealing with youth justice.

Bill 63, as I've said, provides the foundation for doing both. Given the concerns, I think if the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant reads through her comments in Hansard and realizes what she said when she spoke to this bill, she should have no difficulty when it comes time to vote on this bill to support it. The reality here is that Bill 63 provides the foundation for everything we need to be doing to properly deal with youth justice issues here in the province of British Columbia.

I'm incredibly proud to be able to stand in the House in support of Bill 63. Certainly, those clear-thinking members of this House will support it wholeheartedly, and we should have unanimous support for this bill here in this House.

R. Visser: I wanted to spend some time today talking about Bill 63 and the Youth Justice Act. Unlike some of my previous colleagues, I have actually little or no experience — personal, as a lawyer or otherwise — with the youth justice system. I was a stellar young man growing up and continue on those paths of goodness.

But it is something that has been drawn to my attention on a number of occasions, and it is one of those topics that is in the public domain on an all-too-regular basis. I think it often is one of those things that is a headline-grabber — something that gets talked about around the coffee rooms, coffee shops and in other places, the living rooms of British Columbia and indeed across Canada. What are we going to do about youth crime? What are we going to do about those young kids who get into trouble, and how are we going to help solve some of those problems? When are we going to get tough on crime?

I think this act actually speaks a little bit to that by addressing some discrepancies or eliminating the disparity between the federal and provincial statutes, and brings us into line. It gives us a chance in this chamber to just spend a few minutes collectively thinking and talking about something that I think we see oftentimes. Whether it's young people street racing or sex offence–related crimes with young people, there are some issues that have provincial consequences. I think it's okay that we as a Legislature start to come to terms with the notion of serious consequences for serious offences and that we do have the opportunity to see some of these young offenders spend some time in a custody facility.

Fortunately and unfortunately, I have had the opportunity to tour a facility. We recently closed the Lakeview Youth Custody Centre in Campbell River. It was a place I'd visited a number of times and met with the staff, and we had been through it and met with some of the youth that were there. We spent a lot of time talking about the programs and what they were giving to those youth.

There are some rather startling statistics out there that speak to the capacity we have in this province to house youth in custody. The number is now half of what it was in 1997. In fact, the number of kids on probation is half of what it was in 1997, so we had some extra capacity that we had to take out of the system. When you have only 13 kids in a centre that can hold 40 or 50, you are not using your plant wisely. We needed to address some of those issues and try to provide services in a more managed and effective way. Now, nobody likes the notion of closing, but I think there were some important efficiencies to gain there.

One of the tracks that our country, our nation, has taken over the past few years is to explore concepts of alternative justice, to provide a broader range of alternatives to regular incarceration. Restorative justice, healing circles and all of those kinds of things we do where we connect victims and offenders and families and offenders, and we bring them together in a supportive environment, have helped us to produce those reductions in numbers of youth in custody.

Those kinds of things are important to us. We need the broad spectrum of tools. There are going to be offenders out there. We see them in the newspapers; we see the crimes they commit in the newspapers. From time to time there is a sense out there in the public that we aren't doing enough to be tough on crime. So it's okay to move, in some cases, from an offence structure that does not provide the state or the justice or the courts with the ability to pull people or hold people in custody. It's okay to go from that place to a place where they may have 60 or 90 days to intervene with those youth. In our facilities today, as we have consolidated them in the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the youth detention centres, we do have those supports. We do have the counselling. We do have the ability to intervene. We do have the ability to reach out to them in a number of ways.

The numbers of these kids that come into the system, who have been touched by alcohol or drugs, is incredibly high. The numbers of these kids who may have a dual diagnosis, where there is an alcohol or drug problem in combination with a mental health issue, is high, and we need a way and a place to intervene or to access or to provide those supports. Perhaps it's going to be that ten-, 30-, 60- or 90-day period where, in some of these kids' cases, we can actually reach some of them with those supports, where we can actually make a difference in their lives, where we can actually steer them a little bit.

You know, in these facilities they have schools. Maybe that's the place where some of these kids get back to school. Maybe settling some of them down for a few days provides them that opportunity to slow down, think about life and then try to make some achievements. We don't try to teach them physics, although some of them are perfectly fine at physics. But you do try to intervene in things like wood shop, reading skills, literacy skills — all of those things that some of these youth have missed in their formative days, in the days leading up to the point where they find themselves in trouble.

I think youth justice is something we need to spend quite a bit more time thinking about and talking about as a government and certainly as a province. I appreciate the work that the Minister of Children and Family Development has done. He's been up to my area and visited with those folks, and he continues to be involved in the process of making the youth justice system more supportive. He continually tries to reach out to those providers and challenge them to be innovative and creative.

In the separation of the Ministry of Children and Family Development into authorities and the new approach to the aboriginal authority for children and families and protective services, there's an opportunity here to introduce a cultural component — really, something that I think as a province we should always be concerned about and always be talking about — to the number of young people in our system that need intervention who are of aboriginal origin. We need, perhaps, to think about new cultural ways to intervene, new ways to approach them. I think we've got a long way to go — there is no doubt in my mind — but we're well on our way.

Anytime we get the opportunity to harmonize or to be compatible with federal law that makes sense for British Columbia and for British Columbia statutes, which gives us more tools to intervene with youth and to provide for safer and more secure communities, that's a good thing. I think that's something we should pursue.

I'm pleased to support this bill. I think we'll have lots more to say on this subject over the next few years in this province. We've done a great deal of work. The work that the Solicitor General has done, the Attorney General has done, the Minister of Children and Family Development has done — and certainly the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, where we're intervening as early as possible with youth — is all providing some long-term solutions to these problems.

We're generating a long-term vision, because we know there isn't one right answer to this stuff. There isn't one thing we can do today that will solve all these problems tomorrow. They're going to take time, they're going to take creativity, and they're going to take innovation. They're going to take a collaborative approach by the government across ministries and, frankly, across jurisdictions — federal and provincial and now down into first nations and municipal governance. I think that if we can all work on these issues together over time, we'll build a better system that serves our communities and our youth very appropriately. Thanks for the opportunity.

B. Penner: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I've had a chance now to listen to the remarks of a number of my colleagues, and I want to salute them for their thoughtfulness in approaching this very challenging topic of youth crime. It's one reason I'm so pleased that this government has seen fit to not just talk about youth crime but to actually do something about it. As indicated, this bill, Bill 63, will provide our law enforcement agencies and the courts yet another tool in their arsenal to try and get a handle on what in some communities is a very dire situation.

Specifically, I'd like to just start with an overview of the act for those people in the general public who may be just tuning into the debate. As you may know, the Youth Justice Act, Bill 63, repeals the existing Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, makes changes to the youth provisions of the Correction Act and consolidates relevant provisions from those acts into one new Youth Justice Act written specifically for young offenders.

Three main objectives are fulfilled by this act. First, it ensures that our provincial statutes are consistent with federal terminology and are up to date with current practice. Second, the act parallels the federal legislation by ensuring that serious consequences are available as a sentencing option for six serious provincial statute offences that previously could only attract non-custodial sentences. Third, the legislation increases the maximum custody sentence available for serious provincial statute offences, where the maximum penalty for an adult is more than six months, from a maximum of 30 days to a maximum of 90 days.

By focusing on the specific needs of youth in conflict with the law while increasing the use of custody for the most serious provincial statute offences, this bill balances the need to focus on rehabilitation of young persons while providing increased consequences for those youth who pose a risk to public safety — another of the actions taken by this government to ensure we have safe streets and communities.

There have been other initiatives undertaken by this government. I'll touch on them in due course during my remarks today, but I want to just reflect on what it really means to be able to impose a custodial sentence for a number of these offences I've just mentioned, as opposed to mere probation.

Mr. Speaker, as you and others will likely know, I spent a fair bit of time in Provincial Court, not as an accused but as a participant in the process as legal counsel. A major part of my legal practice involved young persons alleged to have committed various forms of wrongdoing. It was my observation that for many, but not all, of the young people, a period of probation was seen as a slap on the wrist. It was seen as

getting away with it — whatever it was they were alleged to have done. So I think there is a salutary effect that will come from young people knowing that for certain types of offences now, probation is not the only form of sentence available to them.

There was a Provincial Court judge that I spent a fair bit of time with before — his name is Derragh Vamplew, now retired — who I thought was a very wise and astute man. He had an ability to size up a young offender, look them in the eye, judge them by their demeanour and at certain times impose a jail sentence on them when they were not expecting it — not a long one, not lock them up and throw away the key, not that kind of approach.

I can recall one occasion when I was there representing a young person who, among other things, refused to take off his baseball cap in the courtroom and appeared to be joking with his friends from school who'd come along to watch and to — I don't know — cheer him on or support him. Judge Vamplew realized what was happening — that this young person, rather than taking the process seriously, was actually showing off to his friends and thumbing his nose at authority. He said to me: "Mr. Penner, we'll stand this matter down, and we'll resume this afternoon at 3 o'clock. Mr. Sheriff, please take Mr. Penner's client into custody." Well, you should have seen the look on that young person's face. He couldn't believe he was actually being taken into custody and locked up in a jail cell, but that's what happened to him. It didn't take more than a few seconds for that brave façade, that youthful bravado to crumble and collapse and disintegrate right in front of his friends' eyes.

That had a very salutary effect. About an hour later I made my way back into cells to interview my client and get some instructions from him, and he was in tears. Just a few moments before, he had been acting brave and tough, like he wasn't afraid of a thing in the world, and here he was in a jail cell, not a very comfortable place to be — not in shackles but just sitting in a jail cell — and he was crying. I asked him why he was crying, and he said: "Because I can't do anything I want to do now. " He had lost control over his life, at least for that temporary moment.

Without divulging too much, I think my comments to him went something like this: "If you're not careful with how you conduct the rest of your life, you will lose ultimate control over the rest of your life, because you can expect to see a lot more jail cells like this one if you carry on with your current attitude and conduct." Well, when that young person was led back out into the courtroom at 3 p.m., his friends had left. He was left to stand alone in front of the judge, and he had a very different attitude about what he had done and about the process that he was involved in, being before the courts.

The effect of these amendments in Bill 63 is that in the future, judges will have that opportunity for a greater range of offences to impose a custodial sentence — whether it's one day or an afternoon or a couple of days — on a young offender to get their attention, to take that smirk off their face when they're trying to show off to their friends about how uncaring or unconcerned they are. This will give judges an important tool.

I know, back in the 1970s, it was fashionable in England for people to talk about a short, sharp shock to catch people's attention, and I think there is some merit in that attitude. It doesn't work for all. I'm not advocating a one-size-fits-all solution. But this legislation, Bill 63, provides the flexibility so that in certain circumstances, judges can size up an individual and determine if in fact they think it would be beneficial for the young person to say: "I think you're going to spend some time away from your friends, locked up in a jail cell, so you can be alone with your own personal thoughts and decide what you want for the rest of your life."

I think that is a beneficial response to certain types of offences and for certain types of young people. My studied view is that that does not take place often enough in our system. Too often young people are given probation repeatedly for consecutive offences so that they get accustomed to breaking the law, they get accustomed to getting a slap on the wrist, and they get accustomed to being reinforced by the joking gestures of their friends and getting that peer support for: "Look what I'm able to do and get away with it and thumb my nose at the world." If we can interrupt that process before they get too accustomed to the praise of their peers for breaking the law and thumbing their noses at our judicial system, I think we can set those young people on a better course for the rest of their lives. That's one reason I'm so proud to stand here today and support this initiative.

I heard the previous speaker, the member for North Island, talk about some of the programs that young people may or may not be entitled to — or that are made available to them when they are in custody. There are situations where, in fact, at these detention centres they receive education — often better than what they were receiving before they were incarcerated. Why is that? Very often they tend not to attend school when they're out amongst their friends and getting into trouble. They skip out. They'll miss extended periods of school. When they're incarcerated, they have really no option but to attend class.

I know a little bit about this, because for the last few years of my father's teaching career, he taught at a juvenile detention centre in the Chilliwack River valley. He told me there was a remarkable difference in attitude that he saw even from the junior high school he used to teach at in the Chilliwack area to the juvenile detention camp. I anticipated — and frankly, the rest of our family was a little concerned — that my father would have a more difficult time handling the students in the juvenile centre than he did in the junior high school he had taught at for many years. In fact, the students in the juvenile detention centre in some cases had a better attitude. Their choice was that you participate in the classroom activities and stay on track and

focused in terms of the school work, or your alternative is to be locked up in a cabin by yourself, separated from your peers. There is no penalty greater for a young person than to be separated from their peers and their friends.

Those students my father dealt with were well motivated to focus on their books and the assignments and to do well at school. For some of them it was a life-changing experience. Again, I don't advocate a lengthy custodial sentence for all young people. Hopefully, the majority of them get the message early on that it's not acceptable and not conducive to their own self-interest to engage in that type of illegal activity that gets them in trouble. If it takes a longer sentence, then I support that in order to get that message through.

The Solicitor General talked about other things that he has done. Frankly, I was shocked listening to question period. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was somehow criticizing the Solicitor General and this government for introducing new measures to get a handle on youth crime. I understand that there are bleeding hearts out there who think we shouldn't impede anyone in their desires to do whatever it is they care to do. Well, I'm not one of those people. I believe there are limits, and I believe society requires us to uphold standards. Without standards and without those standards being enforced, we lose a civil society that we all desire. I was just appalled to hear the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and, frankly, the Leader of the Opposition criticizing the government for trying to get a handle on crime.

Now, this isn't the only tool we've introduced over the last two years or so. I remember that shortly after the election, this government introduced, in the summer of 2001, a new piece of legislation that allows for legal action against the parents of young people who have committed various crimes where those parents have not been sufficiently responsible in terms of monitoring the conduct and activity of their children. Again, there are complaints from some quarters, usually from the same quarters we're hearing from today, but it was one more step towards getting a handle on a problem. It's a tool.

The bill was called the Parental Responsibility Act, and the act functions pretty much the way it's described. I understand from media accounts that there may now be a court action underway in the province relying on that piece of legislation we brought in — just one more tool to try and get control over what could be a serious problem by making parents that much more responsible for the conduct of their young people.

PRIME-BC was an initiative of this government in this session, back in the spring. I don't think it's received the kind of publicity it deserves. It's really bringing policing into the modern era. Today we talk about information technology. Well, information is absolutely crucial if we're going to effectively respond, in a timely fashion, to crime. Criminals don't wait. Organized crime doesn't wait to hold government meetings or to do all kinds of long-range planning or to get permission to operate across municipal boundaries. This tool we've introduced through PRIME-BC will allow police to obtain information from beyond their own municipal jurisdictions and boundaries to respond quickly to crime and keep up with the conduct of certain evildoers, to quote a certain U.S. politician, before they can inflict more harm on our society. I support that.

Our government is finding the resources necessary to implement the modernized computer-based system so that right in their own police vehicles, police officers will be able to have access to that information in a real-time way.

Before I conclude my remarks on this topic, I'd like to talk about one other aspect of Bill 63. Specifically, Bill 63 amends section 177 of the School Act, which for many years has prohibited certain types of activities on school property. I think the general public supports extra restrictions on what can take place on school property for obvious reasons: we treasure our young people, and they are our greatest resource as a province. Until now, for various violations under the School Act, the maximum penalty consisted of probation or community service or fines and/or 30 days in custody. With this amendment, we are now increasing the penalty to 30 days in custody for violations under the School Act for things such as sexual exploitation or gang activity.

One of the more troubling cases I was involved with as a lawyer prior to ending up here was representing and working on behalf of a troubled female young person who was the victim of repeated sexual exploitation at her school by kids older than her. My client had a mental disability and was easily taken advantage of. It was, frankly, heartbreaking to hear about what was happening to her essentially beyond her control.

This bill, in many ways, I see as a tribute to my client, and I'm very eager to vote in favour of this bill if it comes to a vote, if for no other reason than to — however late in the day — provide some assistance for people similar to my client, who were exploited in ways that most of us don't even want to imagine. So I think it's about time that we get on and we support a bill like this.

I'm sorry that the opposition maybe feels differently. Hopefully, they will have a change of heart and realize that it's time to leave politics aside, leave partisanship aside and do what's right for our young people by providing them with an extra measure of protection while we still can — before it's too late, before their lives are ruined, before they embark on a life of criminal wrongdoing. It's time to do the right thing, and I call on the opposition to acknowledge that fact.

S. Brice: I, too, take pleasure in standing in support of this legislation. I'd like to commend the member for Chilliwack-Kent for his very comprehensive overview of the legislation and also the anecdotal contributions he made to actually put a face on this legislation.

It is interesting how many of us have risen to speak to this particular bill. One always asks when con-

fronted with legislation: who are the stakeholders? Well, in this particular case, I would say the stakeholders who have a stake in this particular bill are the youth, their parents, the teachers, the police, the corrections community and then the public at large. Youth obviously do, by dint of whom this legislation is directed toward.

As has been mentioned, the youth who find themselves in conflict with the law are starting down a path, which we as a caring and civilized society must deal with, with all seriousness. We cannot afford to toss any young people out. Every single one of them needs the full measure of the public resources in order to save their lives.

This particular legislation, of course, deals with an aspect of youth in conflict with the law that is of very serious nature and therefore provides for some very serious consequences. Some of the issues that are brought to our attention in terms of youth in serious conflict with the law deal with very, very high-risk behaviour and some very nasty consequences. Youth who are in this position have to be given the widest range of consequences in order to correct it.

Parents have obviously got a big interest in this legislation. All of us who have raised children know that even good kids do dumb things. I think that for those kinds of situations, generally speaking, the family, community policing and all other resources are there to support them when they start to stray and to assist their families in helping them make the very best of their lives.

One can only imagine what it must be like to be a parent who has a child that has been charged with a very serious offence. For parents, it must be an absolutely stabbing experience to realize that your child — the child that you held in your arms, the baby that came into this world looking to all intents and purposes like every other baby — has somehow gone through some evolution, some experiences, and has come out and is doing things that are dreadfully hurtful to other people. I can't think of anything, as a parent, that would be more devastating.

For those parents as well, we need to have this type of legislation so the law can assist in bringing this youth into some kind of compliance so that the family doesn't have to endure the absolutely hideous, hideous consequence of having to stand beside some of their family members when they ultimately — either as a youth or as they grow into adult life — are confronted in a courtroom with a charge of manslaughter, murder or some other offence. We see this. We see families being absolutely dragged into the depths, having to stand beside a family member who has committed some of the worst offences against society. Parents definitely have a stake in this legislation.

Teachers have a stake in this legislation. As a former teacher myself, I know it can be heartbreaking when you see a kid going off the rails and you know that you have to tap into all the resources possible in order to make sure this kid does not continue to escalate until eventually some kind of act is committed that cannot be just papered over — that in fact they've gone off and committed some truly negative offence.

Teachers will find now that this protection, which will allow persons who are officially trespassing on school property to be dealt with seriously, will be of great assistance to teachers. School boards, I would think, would find this particular legislation very helpful, because they know, too, that they've got to protect the children in the schools and that there are people — perhaps even other youths — wanting to come onto the school property in order to approach young people, particularly in crimes where they will be sexually exploited. Up until now, the police, school boards and others have not been able to invoke the full force of the law, so this legislation will be of assistance to them.

Certainly, the police will be interested in the fact that we as a Legislature have taken seriously their calls for tougher penalties for the very serious crimes that youth commit. If you talk to the police, they're committed to community policing. They know where their resources have to go, but they also know they've got some real tough characters out there who, if the police are not supported by the assistance of being able to give some real tough sentences out…. I mean, these are not even what I would put into the category of tough sentences. They are another opportunity, yet another tool to allow the courts to assist the police in keeping our communities safe.

I want to commend the Solicitor General. I've had many discussions on my community of Saanich South and the Saanich police, and I know the Solicitor General totally supports community policing. He knows this is the best way to harness all of the tools within the community to support all members — the youth and the adults and children. Obviously, the corrections branch will have good interest in this legislation and, I dare say, will support what we are attempting to do here.

I say "attempting," because absolutely no document…. We don't simply take printed words, all well-intended, spend time deliberating on them and ultimately pass them in this Legislature and feel that's a panacea. If only life were that simple. Obviously, it is not that simple. It is far more complex than that. This document will provide yet one more opportunity for that safety net as we try to make our communities safer for all citizens.

Finally, as I say, the public at large will have an interest in this. You can point to statistics and say that youth crime is going down, but the very nature of some of the crime that is taking place — the severity of it — sends a signal out to the whole community that perhaps they're not safe. I find that seniors in particular have a perception or a reality, depending on the area in which they live, that they're not safe.

If people don't feel safe, it's almost as bad as them not being safe, because then they start to make their world smaller, to lock themselves into their homes, to be fearful about going out, to be reluctant to interface

with youth. They sense there aren't serious consequences for serious acts. I think that portion of the public that we represent, the seniors, should be heartened by the fact that we have taken their concerns seriously and are putting more tools out there for those dealing with these youth who are causing serious crime.

I see these amendments as appropriate, balanced and timely. It has been mentioned that we are harmonizing now with federal legislation. Just as the document passed here doesn't guarantee anything, even harmonizing it with yet another level of government's legislation doesn't guarantee anything either. It's enabling, though, and it will allow, particularly for those situations where youth are incarcerated, for some other professional to make contact. As kids go off the rails, you never know when that moment is going to be that somebody can speak to them in a way that they will hear.

I found, when I was chairing the school board, that when kids got into trouble and you'd bring all the people together who had been involved, there were oftentimes the parents, the probation officer, the teacher, the principal, the counsellor, the family doctor. Many, many people had touched this young person before they got into a situation, before they were being suspended from school. Sadly, it's the coordination of these professionals that is lacking. They're oftentimes working in isolation.

I know that a lot of work is being done through the Ministry of Children and Family Development. By putting the services out into the community, there's a greater chance that all those who are interested in the future and well-being of our youth will have a chance to work together. The amendments will, of course, as has been mentioned, give another opportunity for those who want to make a difference in the youth's life to come in and interact with yet another level in the corrections system.

Public safety is hugely important. When you talk to folks, they want to not only be safe but also to feel safe. We want to keep our children safe, want a sense of well-being. That is probably as much as anything a health issue too. I mean, if our community feels safe, then everybody experiences a higher level of wellness and security. Whenever we hear of any of these hideous situations, be it a youth or be it an adult who has perpetrated some kind of a violent crime, there is a reverberation throughout the entire community. Everyone's life is altered, oftentimes negatively.

After one of these events and after some publicity, there needs to be a coming-together. The community needs to feel that not only is this youth going to have a chance to get the kind of help they need, but also the community needs to feel safer. Some of these young people who have had lots of interface with professionals get pretty hardened. They can slough off a lot. They cannot react to all of the usual efforts made to try and assist them. When that is the case, there must be an opportunity for a longer period of incarceration, and this will allow for that.

Safer schools, safer communities, safer streets — that is a commitment we have made to the public. In its own way and in harmony with a lot of other initiatives we have taken, this legislation before us assists in that. That is why I will be pleased to support it. I urge all members of this House — both on the government side and the opposition — to come together and support our legislation, which will give a greater sense of safety to our public.

M. Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I've got a bit of a frog in my throat today, so if I have to pause for water, I hope you'll excuse me.

I'm actually quite pleased to stand here today to address an issue that has to do with the matter of public safety in our province and indeed in our country. I was quite offended about question period today and the trivialization of this very important issue that the opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant put on this subject. The timing of my intervention is, from my point of view, appropriate, given that trivialization and, I thought, shocking intervention an hour or so ago in this chamber.

We are debating the Youth Justice Act, Bill 63. The reason we're doing it, of course, is because the government of Canada, in April of this year, amended the federal Young Offenders Act and replaced it with the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That allows opportunity for us here in British Columbia to update our own legislation, to bring it consistent with the new federal bill and its terminology and indeed, and perhaps more importantly, with current practice in the area of dealing with youth offences.

In a sense, I'm not sure if I should say I feel uncomfortable, but I will say that I must either have lived a sheltered life or I came from a generation and a place and circumstances — family and economic — where youth crime, in my recollection, wasn't an issue. So it's a little difficult, quite frankly, for me to understand some of the forces at play in our society that have created the problem we have and why we have to deal with this apparently on a continuing basis. I mean, my recollection of crime was the odd stolen apple from across the neighbour's fence. It was, I will admit — and this is not a confessional…. But I will confess that I may have broken a window or two with a cricket ball, because that was the sport I played in my youth. I may have run off and left some poor homeowner with a bill that I should have paid.

M. Hunter: The member asked mid on or mid off. That shows his knowledge of cricket. I'm grateful for that. In my case, it was probably silly mid on, member.

I guess as young people we are rambunctious. We all probably did things our parents would have died over if they had known about. Most of us got a lesson. We learned lessons with relatively little personal effect or personal injury and, hopefully, limited impact on

others in our society or our families. The fact is that more and more today, we see that perhaps those days I remember through rose-coloured glasses a little bit…. Today I don't think young people who are growing up in our society in many cases could stand where I am 45 or 50 years later and say that what I experienced was their experience. We've had members of this government do substantial and quite alarming work on bullying in schools, for example, and recommendations made on that issue — a situation which goes way, way beyond anything that I think any of us would have imagined until we saw the work our caucus colleagues did in looking at that report.

We've had to take action. The Solicitor General has had to take action during this term of our government to deal with street racing, which in the lower mainland seems to be more and more of a problem with younger and younger people. There are drugs on the street that, frankly, weren't invented during my childhood. That's literally true. The chemicals were not being put together the way they are today.

These are disturbing trends. They are trends which have troubled Canadians for well over a decade. The federal Young Offenders Act, which has been amended and repealed and replaced, has been the subject of a very intense national debate on the subject of how to deal with youth violence and youth crime. British Columbians, as you know, have been very well engaged and intelligently engaged in that longstanding national debate.

In preparing for my intervention on this bill, I did a little bit of research. I find that we are not alone in this country. Those who are more familiar with the issues, methodologies, problems and all the issues that go around youth offences will know what I've just said: this is an issue elsewhere. It's always interesting to see what other jurisdictions are doing. Certainly, in the United Kingdom in the last few years, there's been a tremendous attack on youth violence and youth crime. In the United Kingdom there is quite a stress placed on the importance of involvement in helping youth, not just incarcerating youth — and I want to come to that as part of the important feature of the bill we're debating — but the involvement by members of the public to assist youth and to reduce their offending in their own neighbourhoods.

I guess, to go back to what I said about my own background, family relationships were different in those days. My mom did not go out of the house to work. She worked at home. Today I don't know what the exact proportion is, but a significant majority of mothers are working mothers. There is no question that has changed the atmosphere and the environment in which many children have grown up.

My own stepchildren were latchkey kids not so long ago in North Vancouver, and thankfully, apart from the odd scrape and bruise and perhaps the occasional fight with a tree or two, my stepkids and my own kids have survived those difficult years and come through it. I sometimes wonder. There but for the grace of God go…. I could have gone down the road that we're talking about today with my own family.

There's no question that this is a transnational issue. It's a national issue. It's a transnational issue. It's an international issue. What I found in my research on the subject is that where these subjects are being dealt with intelligently, intervention with young people who commit crime before they become persistent offenders is a methodology which is being used and which, according to what I've been able to read, is actually coming up with some success.

We know from evidence that early intervention with young people works. It intuitively makes sense. If you give a child guidance, if the child is surrounded by values that are anti-crime and so on, there is a better chance those people will grow up with a set of values that does not lead them into the kinds of trouble that some young people get into. Indeed, there is evidence that suggests that what makes a difference to young people is the type and quality of the interventions they receive — whether it be from family, from neighbours or from educators. I think that's a lesson we need to learn in the context of this debate that we're having this afternoon.

The other conclusion I have reached in my own thinking and reading about this issue is that sentencing for young people can't just be about punishment. Helping a young person to tackle their offending behaviour is tough on them and should be tough on them, but certainly it is in all our interests to pursue that.

I know many members have spoken to the important changes in this bill from the current act that would allow us to provide for stiffer sentences for youth who are offending under British Columbia statutes as opposed to federal statutes, and I think that's important too. I listened carefully to what the member for Chilliwack-Kent had to say, and I think the lessons that he spoke about and his experience in the courtroom are, without question, important. There is a time; there is a place. There is a size of hammer, which is important. I think we need to be intelligent and the judiciary needs to be intelligent, in the way that member described, in applying those hammers.

What we are looking at and what I am pleased about with this bill is that it does reinforce the side of youth offences which talks to the issue of helping youth overcome whatever it is that's creating the problem. I still believe, after all my years, that people generally know good from evil. When you give them a choice and when you set that choice in a framework and in an environment of consequences, people do prefer not to have consequences or to have good consequences rather than bad.

Actually, the new federal act imposes on us the opportunity and the necessity to change or to look at our own approach and to not only recommit to better sentencing, more intelligent sentencing and tougher sentencing where it's needed but also to look at the whole issue of education. This bill — and it's important that we recognize it — conveys the message that incar-

ceration of youth who are in conflict with the law is not the only option that's open to us. The bill provides for supervision, amongst other things, by adults who are capable of and trained in the art and science of supervising youth who have difficulties with the law. It provides for residency, putting youths who are in trouble in domestic circumstances that can perhaps help to provide those kinds of values and the environment that most of us fortunately enjoy as young people.

It provides for employment. It talks quite extensively about the employment opportunities for young people and how employers and they, as employees, would be expected to behave in order to help them get on with their lives in a more productive way. It encourages a return to school, where appropriate, and training. Again, intuitively, this does not seem to be way out of line.

I would like just to quote from a speech given in January of this year by Lord Warner, who at the time was the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. He said: "What we now know absolutely clearly is that education deficits in young people are closely associated with offending, and conversely we know that engaging young people in education, training or employment programs is one of the strongest protective factors available for reducing the chances of offending and re-offending."

This a man who is extensively experienced and very well recognized in this whole field of youth justice and who was a senior executive with the Youth Justice Board in the United Kingdom until he became part of Mr. Blair's government in the summertime. He goes on to say: "…our research has identified the close association between offending and levels of education engagement." The members who served on our safe schools task force will be interested to know that he talks about the new Safer Schools Partnerships that exist in England and Wales, which provide 100 dedicated police officers in secondary schools and their feeder primary schools in areas experiencing high levels of offending.

What we are doing in terms of our encouragement for education and training is based on experience and research elsewhere, as well as in Canada. Lord Warner says: "…young people are worried about physical intimidation in or on the way to school, which must make learning more difficult and increase the risk of them staying away from schools." The evidence shows that staying away from schools, whether it's because of that particular reason — that the child is scared to go to school — or if there is some other incentive to stay away from school — bored with the class, or somebody's got something better to do…. It's those circumstances that certainly appear to be a breeding ground for, if not encouraging, youth offences.

These non-incarceration methods that this bill reinforces and encourages…. It encourages the devolution, in these positive ways, to authorities, both aboriginal and regional, and I think we know that aboriginal populations tend to have statistical indicators that are worse than in the general population. Getting these kids back into environments in which they are comfortable and putting them into environments in which they can become comfortable are important ways in which we are going to improve the whole situation around youth offending.

This bill also provides and stresses important steps that, again, offer alternatives to incarceration: making restitution to the victims — something that's not novel, but it's important; the provision of community service under supervision, and only for those who are obviously judged capable of providing community services safely — again, two other ways of instilling values into people who, I would argue, need some instillation of values. If they had them, they wouldn't be doing what we are dealing with and trying to deal with in this bill.

Clearly, at the end of the day, incarceration is part of the arsenal that we have as a society to deal with young people who are not able to respond to more positive stimuli. Again I note that the member for Chilliwack-Kent argued that incarceration can indeed be a powerful stimulus to turn people around.

If we have to incarcerate people, I think this bill adopts and encourages a humanitarian approach. It talks about reintegration into the broader society as an objective, and I think those provisions in this bill and the focus on things other than incarceration are important. But as I've said, at the end of the day, bringing a more strict regime of penalty into provincial statute in the case of offences against laws of this province, trespassing on school grounds for the purposes of sexual exploitation or gang activity…. I personally wish we didn't have to talk about those kinds of things, but it's clear we do. I think it's clear that the public of British Columbia, after the debate that took place around the federal Young Offenders Act…. Clearly, people are expecting us to respond in a stricter way.

I believe that this bill, Bill 63, the new Youth Justice Act, will be a significant contributor to our desire, our promise to promote and protect public safety in this province. Again, for the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to make some of the accusations and to trivialize this issue, as she did earlier today, is astounding. This should be a non-partisan issue. This is about the safety of our communities. Frankly, whichever political stripe you come from should not lead us into the kind of accusations and trivialization we saw today.

This bill will assist us in our objective of providing safer communities. The Solicitor General has had a very active year in terms of integration of police forces, of introduction of new technology, of encouraging police across this province to work closer together. Certainly, where we stand in Victoria and Esquimalt there has been some visible evidence of that approach to safer communities. This bill provides one that is perhaps not quite so obvious but that I think is equally important. If we can deal with the issue of youth crime today and if we can deal with it with some success with using new methods of assisting young people as well as of more serious incarceration for serious crimes, then I think we are serving our next generation well.

We will get crime rates down, we'll continue that downward slide, and that's what we're after.

To create a stand-alone comprehensive piece of legislation, which this bill does, written with youth specifically as its subject, I think will also provide some greater clarity both in law and in clarity of purpose. The purpose here is to assist young people who are having trouble with the law, and if they are still having trouble with the law, then they are going to pay a price and a stiffer price than they have done up until now. The message is clear. The federal legislation moves us in the same direction with respect to federal statutes. We're following suit in British Columbia, and I'm pleased about that.

In conclusion, the striking of a balance in a piece of legislation — in an issue as complex as this, with all the sociological, psychological, economic, family, community issues that it evokes and questions — is always very difficult. I think this bill finds that balance between serious consequences for people who do not apparently share the values that most of us — the majority of our society, fortunately — share and acknowledging that there are other initiatives and methodologies that need to be utilized with young people and also to reinforce the message, which again is intuitive, that young people are treated differently and sentencing is different than it is for adults.

I believe that once again we are talking about a piece of legislation that assists us in fulfilling one of our new-era promises. A new-era promise talked about safer streets, safer schools and safer communities. In all of those areas, this bill addresses that promise, and I'm confident we'll end up with some improvements that make that promise not just a promise but actual fact.

R. Nijjar: It's my pleasure to stand up and speak to this bill brought in by the Solicitor General. I, too, have a frog in my throat, but I wanted very much to be here today, and I rested up so I could have this opportunity to speak.

Much of what the Solicitor General has been doing for the past two and a half years, I believe, is real commonsense Solicitor General work — commonsense work when it comes to bringing in PRIME-BC, the coordinated policing computer systems, and the graduated licence system. Our Solicitor General, I'm thankful, is a commonsense type of guy. When you meet with him one on one in regard to particular issues in your community or across B.C., when he speaks in caucus or here in the Legislature, at least we know that what he says is resonating with the people of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia are not looking for the most complicated things in the world. They know what they want. We have youth that to whatever extent — maybe more or maybe less than in the past, regardless of where the number is going — are speeding. We have youth that are involved in gang activity. We have youth that are recruiting on school grounds. It is our obligation to deal with those issues.

The people of British Columbia are not going around saying across this province: "Oh no. What we want to see are fewer sentences." The only thing we want to see is that you go up to that child and say: "Son, daughter, why are you doing this, and how can we help?" Now, of course, as adults we are going to look beyond what is just in front of us and look behind and see what the issues are in children's lives and how we can help.

This piece of legislation is not doing away with the other, more modern ways of dealing with crime and having professionals assist youth and families, working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Health, etc. This is an added and commonsense component.

To argue that a more severe sentence in no way plays a role in the pocket of issues that legislation has to deal with is ridiculous. I'm not a lawyer — I don't need to be; I have enough colleagues that are lawyers — but I can tell you that one of the purposes of our law system is to protect society by apprehending and incarcerating criminals once they're found to be criminals and convicted. Another is to reflect the values of society. The laws we have should reflect the values of the society. Thirdly, the law should be to the extent and of the type that the society feels are its own values at that time. Of course laws are changing as our society changes, but they have to reflect what the people are saying. Justice is fluid in that sense.

Regardless of whether you're speaking to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who represents eastside Vancouver, or the members from Victoria or downtown Vancouver or anywhere from the heartlands of British Columbia…. You speak to citizens right across, young and old. You speak to other teenagers. You speak to youth in colleges. You speak to parents; you speak to seniors. There is a resonating comment across British Columbia. The comments are that the sentences, or the sentences that are given at least, are not reflecting the values of society. So while we want to work with the professionals across this country and across this province to ensure that we give all the assistance we can so those youth can be healthy citizens and contribute to our society, we also have to send a message to other youth.

That is a reality. You can be as bleeding-hearted as you want about it. You can be as modern as you think you may be, but one of the realities you are never going to get away from, as educated as you might think or the members in the opposition might think they are on this issue, is that a part of the responsibility of legislation and of the judicial system is to reflect the values and send a message as part of being a deterrent.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke in the House, and I'm reading from Hansard here. She made a lot of comments that I circled, which I want to read, that did not make complete sense. However, here's one. "That's what the government has in mind, but the question is: in the real world, is this how it works? Do youth about to commit a crime ask them-

selves: 'Wait, I wonder if this is one of the six areas of the provincial jurisdiction that the Solicitor General said in the newspaper that he was going to come down on with a hammer. Gee, maybe I should rethink this.'"

What is the member saying — that we shouldn't have legislation, that we shouldn't have criminal legislation, even for adults? Is she going to argue that if an adult is about to commit a violent offence, that adult doesn't say: "Oh my god, I think I might be caught or I might end up in jail, so I'm not going to do this"? The notion is ridiculous. Of course no one individual, at every moment in time, is asking themselves: what is the law of the land? But overall, a culture develops where the law of the land is at least generally known throughout society, as we right now have a general knowledge of the laws of the land.

I was born and raised on the east side of Vancouver. I went to high school there. I went to college there. I know many of the young people that we speak about as youth here. I know youth who were involved in the car racing that led to so many deaths. I know some of the drivers that drove other people to their death. I knew some of the drivers and passengers that were killed themselves. I know of, directly and indirectly, at least 12 people murdered in gang killings. I grew up with that — some of them shot up in clubs. I went to school with them.

They go to high schools. They recruit. That is part of the process. They know — they're sophisticated enough to figure out — which young girl is new to Vancouver, coming from some small town or from a reserve or from Alberta. They know who's vulnerable, and they have a very sophisticated scheme of slowly integrating that person into prostitution — first integrating them into drugs, making them think that they're actually making money by sending their own people in to pay for the services, buying them things. Really, it's just a business investment, because that's what they are in their view. I've known these people. Some are still out there.

I'll tell you, one of the common themes when you talk to these people, what they say…. It's nothing new for me. It's not like I'm the only one who hears this. One of them is: "Hey, there's a lot of money to be made, and if we get caught, what is the big deal? There really isn't that much of a punishment."

I heard two young men speaking, one 18 and one 19. I used to take the bus up there — the No. 3, which runs right through Hastings, the downtown east side — when I used to go to Simon Fraser University. You get to know people on the bus, of course, and I often used to stop at the downtown east side and go for a beer there, for two reasons. First, it's cheaper, and second, it's probably the only time in my life I'd get to learn that culture. It was a great social experience, and I learned a lot. I actually became friends with young women who were prostitutes, men who were drug dealers and bartenders who knew the whole culture.

I used to sit there and talk to them. I fit right in, in the sense that I'm just a regular guy from the east side of Vancouver. It really was no big deal. These two guys were talking. One of them had just come out of youth detention, and he said to the other one: "If that's what so-and-so did, why don't you just kill him?" The other one said: "You know, I don't want to go through that." The guy says: "Give me a break. What's the big deal? Look, you're still 17." I think he was 17 at the time, or something like that. "You kill the guy; you get caught. What's the big deal? You spend — what? — 16 months, a year and a half in juvie. So what's the big deal?" And the guy said: "Yeah, you're right." Then they talked about whatever they were going to go talk about.

The point is that there is a culture out there with a mentality that it's no big deal. There are guys that go to university and go to college, and you'd think they're well-behaved young men. In most respects they are. When it comes to driving 140 or 150 kilometres an hour on a Friday or Saturday night, the reason why they do it…. I know. I've spoken with them; I've talked with them; I know who they are. They live in my community. They're friends of my friends or friends of my cousins or whatever it may be. One mentality is, of course: "I'm not going to go flying off the road or kill anybody, because I know how to drive." The other is: "If I get caught, what's the big deal? What am I going to get — a fine of $175? So what?" Most of these men are dealing drugs, so they can pay the $175 just like that. We have a lot harder time paying it than they do.

In my area of Vancouver-Kingsway, east-side Vancouver, right across New West, Burnaby, Victoria — you name it — you look…. Marijuana grow operations are rampant, epidemic across this province. I've been working very hard with the Solicitor General to create deterrents against those who are growing in other people's homes. When these marijuana grow operators get caught…. I'll remind you that you can make about a million dollars profit out of one home. A crop takes three months, so you get four rounds of crops. Each crop gets you about $250,000 worth. When you ship the marijuana to the States for coke, coke comes back up here and gets sold in the downtown east side and everywhere else. That's about how much they're making.

So when they're caught by the police — and this is in no way the fault of the police; their hands are tied on these things — what ends up happening…. There are a lot of issues involved in why and how, but the end result is that they basically spend no time in jail, are very unlikely to spend time in jail, and they get a few dollars' worth of fine — $1,500 — or they get their equipment taken away. How much does that cost? A few thousand dollars to replace. Maybe they get a $5,000 fine. Even if they weren't doing a full crop in the house — suppose they're making $500,000 in the year — if they get a $1,500 or $5,000 fine, that to them is the cost of doing business.

When we have sentences that to the criminals is a cost of doing business, then yes, I agree with some of the members in the opposition. Yes, we have to do things to create a different situation in society so these things don't happen, but we also have to create a deter-

rent. We also have to do what the Solicitor General is working on doing, which is having proceeds-of-crime legislation. Proceeds-of-crime legislation is long overdue.

When people are committing a crime for the sole purpose of making money, then we should hit them where it hurts the most, which is in their wallets. They really don't care about the other things. Our judicial system is so backed up, and it is so costly to try to put these people through the court systems and so hard to prove the case, that often we don't bother doing it. And quite frankly, we don't need to. Hit them where it counts. Hit them at the dollars. Take those dollars and put them back into society. It's society that deserves it, because it's society that was violated in the first place by these growers.

Yet again, even with these people the attitude is: "Hey, it's really no big deal if I get caught. I'll go to jail for 12 hours, and I'll go in front of the judge and pay my $1,500, and so forth." It's like having traffic fine violations — right now $175 is the average — and reducing them to $5 and saying $5 should be enough for a deterrent. I mean, that's ridiculous.

I'm sure even the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant knows it. That's why, as I read through her comments in Hansard…. Her comments are nothing more than paraphrasing what other leaders of associations or other members of different groups have said, who have not read the legislation but have made general comments around incarceration and programs for juveniles.

In my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, yes, there are youth that go into the schools and try to get other youth involved in prostitution and drugs. The member for Vancouver-Hastings knows, I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Burrard knows and the police know that there are young girls going to high school who, in the evening, are prostitutes. They sometimes get to school at 9 o'clock when school starts, and sometimes they don't because they're tired and they slept in. They do end up coming to school, but they work as prostitutes.

That is a sad, sad situation. That is not something we can go around blaming levels of government or former governments for. That's a societal issue. That's what we've come to as a country. When there are so-called pimps out there who feel there is absolutely no deterrent for them to go into those schools and do these things, then a part of our responsibility is to send a message that it is not tolerable.

One of our jobs as legislators is to reflect, in the legislation we develop, the values of our constituents. The reason why the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant really, in the end, had so little to say on this issue was because they know, we know and everybody listening knows that this is really a commonsense piece of legislation. Those that are joyriding and driving 150 kilometres an hour down the streets of Victoria and Vancouver and the lower mainland need to have sentences that are slightly more severe than they've had before, because they weren't severe at all. Even now these are nowhere close to being severe. From 30 days to 90 days — is that right? — does not fall under the severe category at all.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made comments about a divide in our caucus, and of course the two members just wish that was happening. Clearly and obviously, after two and a half years it's not even close. But one of the things she alluded to was that there are some in the government caucus that are very much in favour of what the federal government does and others that aren't so much in favour of what the federal government does. Well, of course. We're allowed to speak our minds. We're allowed to have our own thoughts.

Some of us agreed to a great degree on some pieces of legislation we've brought in, and some people agreed to a lesser degree. Some people have not agreed at all and voted against it. Some of us are federal Liberals at heart, and some of us aren't. But our job as representatives at the provincial level is to call legislation coming from the federal government for what we believe it is and how it reflects upon our province, so even those who are so-called federal Liberals are going to stand up and say that's something that is not in the interests of this province.

I have no problem saying I agree with some of the opposition to the federal government, which says we should not only have sentences that dictate the maximum in a sentence but also have sentences that dictate the minimum sentence that has to be given out. Why is there a push for that? Why has it resonated with many Canadians that we should at least in the legislation have minimum sentencing? Well, too often Canadians feel that the sentences do not reflect their values for that crime.

There are countless examples of brutal murders and irresponsible actions that have resulted in the deaths of many people where the sentencing or the legislation does not necessarily reflect the crime. While we all acknowledge that the new legislation brought in by the federal government for youth justice is sophisticated and that it takes into consideration all the avenues available to us to rehabilitate youth, to reach out to them, to give them a base upon which they can come back to society and live a healthy life, a part of it is and has to be the recognition that we have to deter in the more general sense. We have to have legislation that generally says across this country and across this province that this is what we stand for, this is what we expect of our youth and this is what we expect of each other.

I work on crime issues to a large extent in my riding, and just recently I set a meeting between the inspector of the Vancouver police, Kash Heed, who's the new inspector for district 3, East Vancouver, with the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. We had a long discussion on the issues and how we can tackle them in a practical and reasonable way. We know we're not going to save the world overnight. We know crime isn't going to

disappear. Prostitution is not going to disappear, and drugs are not going to disappear, but our job is to live within the realities and try to work with that and try to do what we can in a practical sense. We're working for long-term solutions, and we're making short-term positive outcomes.

One of the things this police officer, the inspector, said was that while there is legislation out there that goes in the right direction, the police officers' hands too often are tied. Their hands are tied because we don't give them enough tools to get those criminals and incarcerate them. We've heard that over and over again in our society. There's no doubt about it. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

We talk about the four pillars in the downtown east side. We talk about youth justice. We talk about marijuana grow operations or crimes in general. We cannot continue to have police officers out there who — when they find and catch these people — are so frustrated to the extent that they know that in bringing the person to justice, all it means is maybe a fine of a few dollars or a reprimand by the judge or some assessment of yes, that person committed this crime, but let's only look at what factors were in that person's life. How is that person a victim, which made them commit that crime?

We do have to look at what made that person commit the crime. We do have to encompass what the socioeconomic factors were in that person's life. We do have to, in the long term, tackle those issues. But in the short run, that person committed a crime, and that person must at least pay some respect for having committed that crime. That is part of the package of creating the value system and reflecting the value system across the province.

The two members in the opposition are very close to the downtown east side. They represent that area, yet they do not have a monopoly on the understanding. In fact, after ten years of government we've seen — and ask any of the societies down there; ask any of the service providers — that the conditions and services actually got worse over the ten years during the 1990s. However, we will conclude that they do know many things of their ridings and many things of the downtown east side.

Clearly, one of the things is that there's a sentiment among those who deal drugs — there has been for years and years and years — that they can freely deal drugs on the streets, and nothing is going to happen. There is a police station right at Main and Hastings. There are police officers walking the beat of the downtown east side. You can still drive by or walk down those streets — I do it plenty of times — and see drug dealing going on right in front of your face. The reason they give for doing it so blatantly is the same reason a young man going to college and university and driving that BMW gives, which is the same reason the marijuana grow operators give, etc., etc.

I applaud the Solicitor General for doing something very practical, very commonsense, which says to British Columbians that this is what we are standing up for, that this is part of a package of many, many, many things.

One of the things that the members opposite will say is that this one piece of legislation, this one thing you're doing, will not stop the youth from committing crime, will not stop the youth from going into schools or will not stop the youth from speeding. Of course no one piece of action, no one step by any government or any society or any group of parents, is ever going to stop a crime.

What you want to do is create a package. What you want to do is create many different roadblocks to, say, the marijuana grow operators, etc. You want to create as many roadblocks and have all your pieces of legislation reflect your values. Over time you want to chase away the ideas that speeding is glamorous; you want to chase away the idea that Vancouver is a great place to grow marijuana; you want to chase away the idea that school grounds are a free-for-all for getting young girls and young boys into drugs and prostitution.

I looked very closely at what happened over the ten years under the former government's regime, and I don't see anything they've done to really tackle, in a practical sense, these issues. It's very easy to say, "Oh, I am one of you. I'm from the downtown east side, and therefore I understand, and we'll work together on this," and then do absolutely nothing, deteriorate the societies, chase away volunteerism — pretend that volunteerism is a crime, pretend that volunteerism is taking away jobs from union members because a union executive who funds a party tells them to say that. It's very easy to do that, but it's another thing to stand up as decent, hard-working MLAs and say: "These are the pieces of legislation we're going to bring in."

I'm glad I have a Solicitor General like the one I do. I'm very proud of this piece of legislation and the work that he's doing, and I support it 100 percent.

G. Trumper: I rise to support this bill. The reason the bill was brought in is to reflect the recent federal legislation, and it does mean that it brings provincial young offenders legislation up to date with the current philosophy and practice. I want to talk a little bit about the time I was mayor of the city of Port Alberni, and I was mayor for a considerable period of time.

We are no different from Vancouver, as a community. We are a microcosm of the issues that take place in Vancouver. We have a drug problem with the young people in the community. In fact, we had the unenviable position at one time of having the highest number of B and Es in the province per capita, and a lot of that was to do with the drug issues in the community. Unfortunately, a lot of those B and Es were done by young people who were trying to deal with the issue of drugs.

The drugs are in the school, I know, particularly with our high school. We have one high school where we had to bring in security to deal with the issue of young people who were out of school visiting the school to, obviously, do some illicit dealings with the students. That certainly tells you that dollars are being

spent in an area where they should not be spent. Instead, it should be spent on education. Yet the school district was having to bring security into the schools.

We had an incident a couple of years ago within the schools where a young man had brought a gun into the school. I think it shocked our community because we feel that we read about those in other areas in the province. We read about that happening in the United States, where it appears that everybody has a gun. Obviously, that young person needed some help. There were issues there. That young person needed some help, and hopefully, with counselling and the other support services that take place in the system, he did receive the help he needed.

We are always facing these issues of young people in trouble, and I do believe it is a change that has taken place over the last few years. As my colleague from Nanaimo stated, when he was younger — and I was probably around that era as well — there was not the issue of crime and young people. Life was different. There were not so many pressures. Young people were not being bombarded every day, as they are today, by all the things that somebody thinks they should have, by looking at the crime programs that are on television, by looking at the video games they're able to play. Some of those young people are being brought up with the idea that that's the thing to do — to have gang wars, to be able to go out with an instrument to do damage to someone, to people's property, to other people.

It's a sad state in our society today, I believe, where we have young people who are out on the streets appearing to have no responsibility by families. I'm not just judging. It comes from right across society that our young people seem to have a lot more free time than they used to have. It's tough when both parents are working, when we have a higher number of single parents out there struggling to keep their families going and to look after their children, but they're not there all the time. There are huge pressures on young people, and it's tough for them out there. Yes, they do run into trouble.

I have two sons and two daughters, and I can tell you that until you've had children, you probably think there are many easy answers to the issues they face. I'm sure that when my children were young, they certainly faced some issues growing up. I think they were fortunate, and probably we were fortunate that they didn't get themselves into severe trouble. Probably because of the community we lived in at that time, we were fortunate in having people who might say to us at one time: "Did you realize that your…?" I'll say "son or daughter" so that it doesn't fixate on one of them. "Did you realize that your son or daughter is going around with a group in town that is known for shoplifting on Friday evenings?" I got that phone call one day.

We had a chat with that particular child of ours, and fortunately, that child at that time discontinued going around with the particular group that was getting into trouble on Fridays. It could have gotten worse, and that particular child of ours could have been in trouble. We were lucky, because people knew we were interested in our kids, and somebody would…. It infuriated our kids, actually, because instead of being 20 steps behind them when they were growing up, we were probably ten steps behind them. They always wondered how we knew what they were up to and where they had been on a night and those various things.

You know the time you go through when you're quite sure your child is at home in bed asleep, and you suddenly find out that they weren't, because they could get out of the basement window at night and were back home before mother or father actually knew they had been away. It happened in our house, and I'm sure it has happened in many other homes.

There are many young people who, for whatever reasons, don't have that support, and it tends to lead them into trouble — sometimes very serious trouble. We have been really lucky in the community I live in and also in Oceanside, an area that I represent, that we've had some programs for youth to help them through some of their difficulties.

These are the restorative programs. I know that in Oceanside there was a very strong program, the restorative justice program, which has enabled youth who have gotten themselves into trouble to maybe go that route rather than having to go through the court system. I believe, for some of the issues that young people get involved in, that is a very good way for them to go. It means that, hopefully, they are able to address the issue and the trouble that they've gotten into. In some of the cases I've known, they've been able to deal with the individual that they did the injustice to. Hopefully, it has enabled them to get sorted out and go on to fruitful adult lives.

We've worked hard in the Alberni Valley to get a restorative program in place; a lot of people have worked incredibly hard on that program. I think we need to see far more of those right through the province to deal with some of the issues that we deal with, with youth.

We also have a very good program in Port Alberni which is called the Vast program. As some of the members of the House know, the committee on school bullying met with them, and my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard, who chaired that committee, met with this particular group.

Those kids were all young people who for whatever reason were in this Vast program, which is an alternative program for schooling from 16 upwards, and some of them were over 19. Some of those young people had had really, really difficult times with life, for whatever reasons — whether they had a home or whether they were just living with a relative or living with a friend. They had run into really difficult issues. We met some of those young people in this particular program, which is geared to getting them through and

getting them so that they have a Dogwood at the end and go on into life. They were very, very open with the committee when it came to town, telling us why they were in that program and some of the issues they had gone through such as, as has been said in this House, drugs, prostitution with some of the girls — all those things that they had got themselves into trouble with, whether it was stealing in the community or whatever it was, just trying to get through life. To hear them tell their stories and to hear of the circumstances they were brought up in was really tough and was very moving for us, who probably hadn't had to deal with those particular issues.

But you know, they were strong young people, and I've seen some of them since they've graduated from that program. There's a particular young man whom we actually had given some help to and tried to get him through some very difficult circumstances. He was living with a relative. He appeared to have no family. He had no money.

He was fortunate. He got into a situation in the community which caused another problem for him and which we did help him through, and he did graduate. He actually won the award that year for the student who had the most difficulties in getting through to graduate. That was really encouraging to see, and it was a very special time for him. He stood there at graduation. He had on a very special suit that he had got for the occasion, and some of his family came from a fairly long way away to be with him that night.

When you see someone who's gone through all those difficulties as a youth actually graduate from the program, it's very, very encouraging. The principal of the Vast school, Tim McEvay, and his staff have done a huge job with that.

Just in mentioning Mr. McEvay, he started a wrestling club in town which has become provincially very well known and has won national competitions. When he first started, he had a lot of young people who really didn't know where they were going. They didn't seem to fit into the situation. Some of them had got into trouble and were maybe heading in the direction that we didn't want them to go. From that beginning he has attracted a large number of our students into the system, into the wrestling program. It just shows, though, that when you have somebody who's able to motivate kids and get them turned around to go in the direction that will enable them to be young adults able to make a success of their lives in whatever they do…. It shows how much depends on the guidance you get, whether it's from your parents, whether it's from your school principal, whether it's from a friend or a neighbour who takes you under their wing. Those things are very important to young people, and so often our young people today don't have that help.

We also have tried to expand the program and the program of restorative justice out to the west coast. I have a very large riding, and in many ways, because it's a rural community, there aren't many of the support services that sometimes young people need. There are efforts to try and expand that program to help those kids out there. It really is the basis of what you get as a young person, as you go through school and as you develop, and the direction and the influences that you get when you're young, which map the road for the way you're going to go when you become an adult. So many of these young people, unfortunately, don't have the help and support that certainly many other young people have, and I think we need to enlarge and pursue what we are doing with youth.

I know that the aboriginal people have had a great, great issue and a great problem with some of the issues they have with young people. One of the things I was doing before I became elected to the provincial government was actually quite a bit of work with the aboriginal people in dealing with some of the issues they had with drugs and alcohol, because unfortunately I always got involved when it had been a very tragic, tragic incident. I know that at the time, in the discussions I had with them, one of the biggest issues we'd talk about was alcohol with young people and the troubles it brings to them.

One of the biggest issues, not only in the aboriginal community but right through our community, is the fact that young people are drinking. They are getting the alcohol, and you often find that it's the adults who are buying it for them. This has certainly become an issue in dealing with this, and I think that is also a cause of a lot of the problems that young people get into.

Fortunately, some of them are issues which are light and can be dealt with and hopefully set them on the right road, but some of them get into really serious problems. What has happened in the past is that the position has been that sometimes the courts have become so crowded that it takes a long time for these young people to be dealt with in court. Something happens, and they get charged, and it takes about six months or so to get the charge brought forward. By that time, you know, young people…. Life is instant, and they don't tend to think of the consequences. That's just the way young people are.

It is certainly my hope, as we go through the system and deal with youth and some of the issues they have, that we are able to deal with them in a more timely manner so that they are able to see the negative sides of some of the issues and things they have become involved in.

I hope that with the new act that has come in, which I certainly support, some of the questions that are being talked about and raised when a youth trespasses on school grounds for the purpose of gang activity, etc., or unfortunately sexual exploitation…. I mean, that is something that has to be dealt with. The frightening thing is that it is not just in the high schools, as we used to think about ten years ago. It is now in the intermediate schools. It's even in the elementary schools. That is really frightening to see — the effects that are taking place. We need to have something in place to be able to deal with these.

I believe this new act is going to be enabling. It is going to answer a lot of the questions and issues that

have been raised for so many years by many people in the system who are saying: "We're not doing it. What are we doing to help these kids? What are we doing to deal with the very serious issues that they are sometimes charged with?"

I have been pleased to speak to this bill this afternoon and will certainly be supporting it.

A. Hamilton: I also rise in support of the Youth Justice Act. My colleagues have already eloquently risen and supported the act, as I do, but I must come from a little bit of a different perspective, and that is my many years as a police officer.

As everyone here knows, I spent a few years — 32, to be exact — in the Esquimalt police department. Through those years I observed the changes — the Young Offenders Act, the jail detention. It progressed very slowly, in my opinion, and now we're starting to see more results. Our government is legislating to move it forward.

I was involved in the investigation of a young man in my community by the name of Nicholas Johnson. That young man was severely attacked by a gang. I dare say, if you asked his mother and father what they thought of what we were doing today, they'd be standing right here with me. I guarantee you that. You simply have to see what I as a police officer have seen and what the victims' parents have seen to realize that what we are doing is the right thing.

After all, this is all about the targeting of youth gang activities or sexual exploitation, the serious offences. Obviously, some hard-core youth aren't listening. I must emphasize that those youth are the minority. A major part of our youth, 99 percent of them, are great youth. They're great kids. I've dealt with them throughout my career, and they've helped me a lot. I'm very proud of them.

When breaking the law, the punishment must fit the crime. This act simply gives the courts more options. Now, I know there's been criticism of such things as jail time for youth who violate the Motor Vehicle Act when driving while prohibited. Well, it doesn't make one think too far to realize that when common sense prevails, that will only be used in those cases where there are habitual offenders who need a stronger message. That message will be delivered by the courts, as it should be.

In my riding of Esquimalt I had occasion to deal with some of these gangs. I can assure you that I saw the fright on the faces of the citizens of Esquimalt when at nighttime I drove up in the police car and confronted these youth because they wouldn't let some poor young woman walk through. Now, that's wrong. We needed the legislation we have now. There are avenues under the Criminal Code, as we're all aware, but that doesn't always fit. What we're targeting here is schools. That's where they're actively recruiting.

I have noticed that even with the young women…. Gangs aren't restricted to men or to young boys. Gangs also have the young girls there — daughters, sisters. They glorify what they believe a gang is all about. Well, we've seen the results of what it's all about. We've seen Nicholas Johnson in a coma. I've seen him lying on the ground — not a pretty sight. We have to tackle this.

In my community we have organizations such as Rock Solid, which is an organization that was put together by the Shamrocks lacrosse team and the police, targeting bullying. I only have to point to Reena Virk. It's sad to say that I stand up here in the House and have to talk about these types of violent crimes. That's why I believe it has to stop and it has to stop now.

The Solicitor General has done a lot. He's introduced PRIME, and our government has fully funded PRIME. Why? So that every police officer in B.C. is connected and knows, from one jurisdiction to the other, where these gang members may travel. I can guarantee you, they don't have borders. Why should the police?

As a government, we must support justice for all. As I have said previously, it is a minority of youth that cause these serious criminal acts. The majority of B.C.'s youth are law-abiding. I say: let's support them. I support this act.

Hon. G. Plant: Over the past couple of days I've learned a great deal by listening to the members of this Legislature contribute to this debate. I've heard a lot of passion, and I've heard a lot of concern. I've heard some pretty amazing stories about the way in which crime can have an impact on people and their lives, and a pretty strong commitment on the part of all members of the Legislature to doing whatever we can here in this Legislature to help address and deal with that reality.

I don't intend to say a great deal about this bill in terms of closing debate, but there are some things I do think might be appropriate to add to this discussion. I do that not just because the debate in relation to this bill has been lengthy and important, but it seems that for whatever reason this has been a little bit of a crime week in this House and in the province as a whole. There are a couple of things — probably more than a couple — I want to add to the general discussion that I think are germane to this bill and to the reason why I hope the House will support it and am confident that the House will support it.

One of the things that I find a challenge in talking about public policy issues is that there is sometimes, I suppose, a tendency to oversimplify and, from time to time, a tendency to create what I might call false opposites or false dichotomies. In fact, when you're dealing with most complex problems, the reality is that you can say a lot of different things about a bill. You can say a lot of different things about a public policy issue. You can say a lot of different things about a social problem like crime and young offenders. They may all be statements that are in fact true, and I think that is so for this particular bill and this particular initiative.

One thing that falls into this category, as I was thinking about what I might say to close debate, is the observation that from a historical perspective in British

Columbia, the rate of crime has been declining. I think it is essential, though, that we also say — at least, I believe we must say — the rate of crime continues to be unacceptably high. We can observe that crime has declined, but we can remain resolute in our commitment to deal with it and respond to it and ensure that we respond to it vigorously from all corners of society.

It is that general question, though, that I wanted to spend a minute or two on in terms of actual statistical evidence. Members of the Legislature will probably recall that at the very beginning of this week we were treated to a little bit of a statistical treat from the Leader of the Opposition — I think it was — who started the week in question period, I believe, informing us that according to the statistics, crime in British Columbia was on the increase. You, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the Legislature will recall that it was a proposition she made that she asserted with her customary and resolute forcefulness on a number of occasions during the course of debate over more than one day in the House.

I thought it might be useful to try and do what I could to look at the statistics. In fact, she made that claim based on what she said were the government's own statistics. One would think it should be relatively easy to get hold of government's actual statistics on this fact. Confident as I was in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would certainly never have stood up and made that assertion without being well-grounded in the actual facts, I nonetheless felt an irresistible temptation to have a look at the actual facts. Sadly, I found that the experience was disappointing, at least in terms of my confidence in the statistical capabilities of the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to be as complete in this as I can be — that is, as fair to both sides of the discussion as possible. I've looked at a document called the 2nd Quarter 2003 Quarterly Crime Report. The police services division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General does in fact report on crime and statistics associated with crime, and it has done so for many, many years. It publishes a report quarterly on the incidence of crime and the reporting of crime.

The Solicitor General at one point earlier this week commented on the challenge of getting good statistical evidence about crime, and that is true here. It's true in many countries. But one of the best sets of statistics that we have are these statistics published by the police services division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Yes, it is true that when you look at the statistics for the offences reported for the second quarter of 2003, if you do that on a quarter-to-quarter comparison, it turns out that the rate of criminal activity expressed as a rate in relation to the population — which is an important fact to note here — has gone up slightly. It's gone up by 0.64 percent year over year, so just a little bit less than two-thirds of 1 percent, as reported in this document.

What is interesting to me is that, in fact, it's not the whole story. There are footnotes and data qualifiers associated with this document, and I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been as able as I am to look at those data qualifiers — although I must say she got pretty darned excited about an increase in crime representing somewhat less than two-thirds of 1 percent. I thought that was a pretty small number for somebody to get as excited as she did. It turns out that she had even less reason to get excited than all of that because in the document that the government publishes, there is a statement on the last page which is the only statement on the last page in bold print. It says this: "All data shown for 2003 is considered preliminary and subject to adjustments."

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't recall the Leader of the Opposition reading that sentence to the members of this Legislature when she made a big deal about crime statistics — repeatedly, minute by minute. It felt like hour by hour sometimes. In fact, the one thing we do know about Criminal Code offences reported in the second quarter of 2003 is that we don't know much about Criminal Code offences for the second quarter of 2003.

What do we know about Criminal Code offences over a somewhat longer period? Well, the evidence is pretty clear and pretty overwhelming. The incidence of crime has generally been declining in British Columbia. It's been declining over a long period of time. It certainly went up over a very, very long period of time, but if you look at the crime rate in British Columbia over the period 1981-2000 expressed, as I said earlier, on the basis of a calculation of how many crimes occur per 1,000 population, you start back in the early 1980s, and you're down around the 120-to-130 number. You rise up, into the early nineties, as high as 152. Then from 1991 up until the present, there has been a gradual, halting — sometimes a little bit of movement one way or the other — but nonetheless persistent trend downwards in the incidence of crime in British Columbia. I think that's an important fact to take into consideration when we look at what it is that government should do in responding to crime.

It's also important to note that general decline is as true or truer for youth crime. If you take all youth charged and plot that over the period 1985-2000, the number, again in the mid-eighties, was in the 55-to-63 range. It went up to 72 in early 1991 and has been declining ever since, so that it's now in the mid-30s.

When you break down the figure for adult crime, particularly when you look at the figures for property crime, which are, I know, a matter of concern to all members of the House, again you find — and I thought this was interesting in light of what we heard this week from the board of trade in Vancouver — that the rate of property crime has been declining, certainly since the mid 1990s. It's been declining rather strongly. In fact, it was interesting for me to have a look at the reporting of Criminal Code offences over the period 1993-2002 in relation to municipal police forces in British Columbia. Over that period of 1993-2002, the population of the city of Vancouver has risen from 503,000 to 581,000. So

What's been happening to the number of Criminal Code offences over that same period? Well, in 1993 there were 95,000 Criminal Code offences reported in the city of Vancouver. Between 1993-96, that number rose from 95,000 to 106,000. Then from 1996 to the year 2002, there has been a decline. Mind you, this decline in absolute numbers is happening at a time when the population of the city of Vancouver is increasing — a decline from just under 106,000 Criminal Code offences reported in Vancouver in 1996 to just over 70,000 in the year 2002. That's a very significant trend downward.

Actually, when you look at the statistics a little more closely, you realize that the attempt made by the opposition leader to draw the conclusion that she did in the course of her contribution to debate in this Legislature earlier this week is even more vulnerable. In fact, there's some question about the accuracy of the statistics for the city of Vancouver for the year 2001-02 because there was a strike at Ecom. It may mean that at least the 2001-02 numbers are perhaps underreported. In the year 2000, the number of actual Criminal Code offences is reported at 78,107.

So I think all of that is some evidence, and good evidence, that the rate of crime in British Columbia has been declining over time — crime committed by adults, crime committed by young offenders and even crime as it appears to be taking place in the city of Vancouver. Is that the end of it? No, because the fact is that the level of crime in British Columbia is still unacceptably high. We in British Columbia have an unenviable track record as being a jurisdiction where, although we have been making progress, the rate of crime — the level of criminal activity — is higher than virtually everywhere else in Canada.

There is work to be done. There is much more work to be done, and that's part of that challenge in terms of being honest enough to explain and to persuade people that the world is changing — that we are, in fact, a pretty safe society. We're a very safe society in British Columbia. In fact, the level of criminal activity is going down, but it continues to be unacceptably high. So there's a need for government to act. There's a need for government and this Legislature to do everything it can to respond to the current, continuing and unacceptable reality of the level of criminal activity in this province.

This government has done much to act on its commitment to safer streets and safer communities, and members of the Legislature have spoken about those actions over the course of the last few days of debate. The fact that this bill is being introduced represents our recognition that there is more yet to be done, and there will be more done. I think this bill makes a significant contribution to that work.

I have enjoyed the fact that over the course of this debate, members have stood up and recognized that no single initiative, no single piece of legislation, no single policy decision, no single program expenditure is by itself going to be the complete answer to all of these issues. Every step is important, and every step forward helps.

Another one of those sort of false dichotomies, which is important to try to put on the table, is the sense that either you can say jail time should be the last alternative for young offenders or you can say that in some cases jail time is a necessary alternative. In some respects, I gather the argument is, you can't say both. Well, that doesn't seem to me to make much sense. It seems to me to be a matter of sound criminal justice policy — and that policy is reflected in this legislation — that jail time should be the last alternative for young offenders. Though it may be the last alternative, it will be in some cases a necessary alternative. This bill, I think, is consistent with that general message.

This bill contains a framework that provides all the tools the criminal justice system needs to ensure that everything we can do to correct the challenge in kids' lives to deal with the problems they face when they make mistakes, to give them a chance to turn their lives back onto the right path…. All of the tools we need for that purpose will be there. Yet it is also important that we do what we can to build public confidence in our justice system by recognizing that there are times and places where custody is the right alternative, the best alternative, not just for the offender — as some of my colleagues have pointed out, I think, pretty persuasively — but also for the message it sends to the public at large.

This point has also been made by my colleagues. The message it sends to the public at large is that, in fact, government cares about this issue, that government is committed to addressing this issue, that young people need to know there will be consequences for behaviour that is unacceptable. This bill makes the right steps forward on that front.

We are not the Parliament of Canada. We do not enact the Criminal Code, and we do not enact the Young Offenders Act. We do not make substantive criminal law as a general matter in this parliament; we lack the constitutional capacity to do so. We do have the ability within the ambit of our ability to regulate safety in the school grounds, safety in correctional institutions, safety for kids at risk, and to ensure there are consequences for wrong behaviour in those contexts. This bill identifies situations where we do have the ability to act and we have the ability to put in place a regime which sends the right message, which gives the judiciary and probation officers and other actors in the justice system the tools they need to in fact help keep our communities and our schools and our playgrounds and our neighbourhoods as safe as we possibly can.

British Columbia needs to continue to show leadership as a jurisdiction that promotes the use of alternative measures for young offenders. We have shown that leadership. Much of what is in the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act is patterned on the success story that is the province of British Columbia when it comes to dealing with young offenders. The federal lawmak-

ers looked to British Columbia because of the leadership that has been shown over the years in developing policies and programs to make sure that kids get every chance they can to correct their behaviour and that they're held accountable in the appropriate way when they do deviate from acceptable standards of behaviour.

In fact, one of the interesting challenges we face in administering justice in British Columbia is that we have not yet fully seen the extent to which that new federal framework is close enough to how we have done things in British Columbia that we'll be able to adopt it and pick it up in a way that will not add to costs beyond our current level of resources. That's an important issue, because while the federal government gave the province some money for implementation of the new act, there's apparently no money on the table to assist us on an ongoing basis in funding the procedures, the programs, the different sentencing options in the federal bill. It may be a matter that we have to address in this chamber at some point, but what we've done in this bill is pick up on that framework and make sure that we can use it in British Columbia to the best possible effect.

As I say, what this bill does is allow us to do what we need to do to continue to show leadership as a jurisdiction that promotes the use of alternative measures for young offenders. But British Columbia also needs to show leadership as a jurisdiction that holds young offenders more accountable for their actions, and this bill sends that strong message in an appropriate way. I think the members of this House who have risen to speak in support of this bill have caught that message, and we will all be able to take that message to our communities and say: "Look, we're doing what we can. We are doing our part in the government of British Columbia to contribute to community safety, to contribute to offender accountability, to ensure that we have the safest possible society."

It's been remarkable to see the level of support in terms of contributions to the debate on this bill, and it may be that we'll have a chance to pursue some specific issues as we proceed to committee stage debate. I really want to thank all the members who have contributed by providing their insights and their views on these issues. As always whenever that happens, I've learned a lot.

I think this bill does a great job of ensuring that we can take the next important step forward to having here in British Columbia a modern system for dealing with young offender issues and for dealing with youth justice issues, which ensures that we do the best possible job we can to give kids the chance they need, to hold them accountable for their wrongdoing, to protect our communities and to keep our streets as safe as we possibly can.

Second reading of Bill 63 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Bill 63, Youth Justice Act, 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 Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 83.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 83; H. Long in the chair.

J. MacPhail: This is the Pacific National Exhibition Enabling and Validating Act, where this government is, I think, passing control of the Pacific National Exhibition over to the city of Vancouver. They are taking action to deal with the site at which the Pacific National Exhibition is located.

If I could, I'd just like to take a moment to introduce staff — if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Seated with me on my immediate right, I have the current vice-president of Partnerships B.C., Steve Hollett, who is also a former assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Finance. Seated on my immediate left is Annette Antoniak, who is currently an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations and also a past president of the Pacific National Exhibition.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hastings Park came into being through a provincial trust, otherwise known as the Hastings Park Trust, in the year 1889, which essentially provided lands for the city for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of the city of Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that's a passive-tense way of approaching it. Perhaps the minister could tell us the active way. Who was it? Is it Crown land now? Who is the owner as a result of the trust prior to this legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: It was provincial lands that were passed along to the city in trust for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: How is that possible? Was it the provincial government that transferred…? When you say provincial lands, was it the provincial government that put it in trust to the city, or was it private ownership or what?

Mr. Chair, the reason why this is important is because the history is important, as this government understands it, so that we can then put it in the context of the changes that are being made to the trust.

Hon. K. Falcon: I took a little time there, because I wanted to make sure I fully understood the question. I didn't want to sound repetitive. Let me try and be even clearer. It was provincial land that was transferred to the city under a trust called the Hastings Park Trust for the use and enjoyment of the residents of the city of Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for repeating the same answer. What I'm trying to get at here is: was it a personal trust, or was it a government trust to the city of Vancouver?

J. MacPhail: How is that trust encapsulated? Is it a written document, or is it legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: It was a written document — now, not much of a written document, granted, because we are talking, in fact, in 1889. But it was a written document. It was about a page and a half long.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have it with him? Perhaps he could read it into the record.

Hon. K. Falcon: Okay, I'd be pleased to read it into the record for the member.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the reading of that into the record, because this is a historical debate we're having. For the public's information, who is the keeper of the trust as we speak, prior to this legislation? Who is the administrator of the trust?

J. MacPhail: In terms of the Hastings Park Trust, have there been any lawsuits around the trust?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm unaware of any legal challenges, though my staff have advised it's their belief that perhaps some years ago — I simply don't know when — there may have been some attempt to make a challenge. I don't have those particular details, but I'd be happy to get them on notice for the member if they are available.

J. MacPhail: Well, yes, they are available. It wasn't a court challenge. It was a legal challenge in 1980 by

Guy Faint. The challenge was made directly to the Legislature under the trust agreement the minister just read into the record. There was much debate about what the meaning was of the trust and what uses could actually be at the site and who had the ability to agree to the definition of "for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public."

It was a pivotal moment, I would say, in that that began a reawakening by the community to their right to have a say in the application of the Hastings Park Trust. They had a right, the community, to determine the proper use, recreation and enjoyment of the public — what the definitions were. Following that, it took ten years — maybe not quite ten years; maybe about nine or nine and a half years — for the city of Vancouver to come to an agreement, through a planning process, that the community in Vancouver would have a say in how that park is used.

Of course, it became complicated by the fact that the Pacific National Exhibition was located at this site. The Pacific National Exhibition is a Crown corporation run by the provincial government. Can the minister tell us how long the Pacific National Exhibition has been at the site?

J. MacPhail: There's a racetrack at the site. It's now named Hastings Park Racecourse. How long has it been at the site?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have a specific date on that, but I understand it was actually prior to 1907, which was when the Pacific National Exhibition was started.

J. MacPhail: How big is the Hastings Park site, the parcel of land, and what is its status in terms of ranking of size compared to other parks in Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: My understanding is that the Hastings Park Trust site is about 160 acres, including the race site. I'm not aware, nor do I have the information at my fingertips, of how that would relate to other parks or related areas.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's my recollection that this is the second-largest park, after Stanley Park, in Vancouver. If it's not second, it's third, but my recollection is that it's second.

Has there been a test of the trust in terms of the legality of the Pacific National Exhibition being located at Hastings Park?

J. MacPhail: Let me ask this, then. Well, maybe I'll save that question for section 2.

In terms of the history of Hastings Park then, has the minister made these decisions around this legislation with no review of the history of the trust? Is he coming to this as if this matter commenced with his government?

Hon. K. Falcon: Not at all. In fact, we've consulted extensively with the city of Vancouver, and that process is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm a bit taken aback by that answer, because the city of Vancouver was integrally involved with the challenge by Guy Faint to the Legislature about what the Hastings Park Trust was. In fact, the then-NPA city council…. No, I'm sorry. It wasn't an NPA city council. It was a mixed council. TEAM, NPA and COPE were integrally involved in the challenge. It was a legal challenge. It was not a court challenge. Hastings Park Trust is part of an agreement between the province and the city of Vancouver. You'll see, Mr. Chair, that the province feels it has the ability, by legislation, to change the trust.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. The intent of section 2 is to clarify the terms of the trust condition. It outlines that the city of Vancouver has the authorization to undertake any activities that include "the following," and it defines those activities from sub-subsection (a) to sub-subsection (f).

J. MacPhail: So we have a trust that said, prior to this legislation, that the park was to be for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public, according to the Hastings Park Trust. The community, the city residents, had successfully challenged the meaning of that trust, which has led to the greening of Hastings Park, which has led to a park that actually has a meaning for the residents of Vancouver similar to the meaning that Stanley Park has. But it's on the east side of Vancouver, not on the west side. It's the second-largest park in Vancouver, and it is the only park of any substance for East Vancouver residents.

What I see is that this government is saying to the residents of Vancouver, particularly the residents of East Vancouver, that we're now going to interpret the words "use, recreation and enjoyment of the public" as what is now contained in clause 2. This government is changing the terms of the trust that prior to the change have led, for the very first time ever, to the greening of a park that's got mixed use and that's open to everybody. What consultation did the minister's government do with the community of East Vancouver?

Hon. K. Falcon: That was a multifaceted rambling, and one thing I would be interested in is the member expanding on her suggestion that there was some kind

of successful legal challenge. I'd be interested in hearing the details of that successful legal challenge.

Let me just say this to the member, because I think it's actually relevant and important. In one of my earlier answers I indicated to the member that actually, the uses and enjoyment of that facility have evolved over the last 100-plus years. In fact, as we know, we had horse racing at the track almost from the very earliest time. We had gaming taking place from 1910 onwards. We had a whole bunch of activities that have evolved over the past 100-plus years at the site. All we are doing is recognizing the reality of what actually is taking place and has taken place on that site for the past 100-plus years.

Hon. K. Falcon: Which question? There were a number of them in there. I tried to remember all of them, but was there a specific one I missed?

J. MacPhail: I only asked one question, and it was: what did this government do to consult with the community around Hastings Park about the changes to the trust?

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, that's very straightforward. What we did was that we actually engaged our consultations with the city of Vancouver, and the city of Vancouver is undertaking a very broad consultative process, as they should. In fact, they are obviously the ones that will be closest to the folks in that area, in the member opposite's neighbourhood, etc. We consulted with the duly elected government from the city of Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister's government have any consultation with the community around Hastings Park — any?

Hon. K. Falcon: Absolutely not. We consulted with the city of Vancouver and were particularly pleased with the city's undertaking to engage in a visioning exercise that will do exactly what the member is talking about — engage in lots of consultation with all the stakeholders. All the interested parties will be able to take part in the visioning process that the city of Vancouver has put together. We're very satisfied that we can trust the city of Vancouver to undertake those consultations as they've committed to do. I have absolutely no doubt that they will do so and that they will receive all kinds of positive input about what they can do on the future of that site.

J. MacPhail: Well, then why did the government decide to change the terms of the trust, to legislate it, before that visioning had taken place? Why did the minister predetermine the outcome of any consultation the city may take?

Hon. K. Falcon: We haven't done that at all, so the member's wrong in that assertion. What we have done, in fact, is work with the city and do what the city wanted us to do, which was to make sure we put in place the ability of the city to undertake the consultations, to make sure we amend the trust in such a way as to recognize what has evolved over the last 100 years on that particular site. Now the city will do what a city does best, and that's undertake consultations with all the interested stakeholders.

J. MacPhail: That's why I asked whether this minister was at all familiar with the history of what's happened here, and he clearly isn't. He clearly is completely ignorant of the history of what's happened at this site, and he doesn't have any intention of finding out as well. What he did do, though, is bring in legislation that very, very explicitly and now legally changes the terms of a trust, and that takes away any ability for a community to decide itself what the use and enjoyment and recreation of the site should be.

Let me tell the minister what the legal challenge was. It was the community going….

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, the minister asks whether it was a successful challenge. Yes, it actually was. The MLAs of the day, Social Credit MLAs, said: "Yes, community, we hear you. You have a legal leg to stand on, and we're going to listen to you." That was brought in 1980 by Guy Faint. Now, that was a government, not my government, that actually listened to…. This issue is extremely important to me and to my constituents — extremely important.

That was a legal challenge brought. They brought it to the Legislature, to the MLAs, ready to go to court. The government of the day, after serious prodding and continuous prodding, acceded that the community had a say in how the trust was applied, and it began to lead to the greening of the park.

This minister is completely unaware of any of that history, so let me just continue on about what happened after that. There were dozens of community meetings right through to the year 2003 about the use of that site. The dozens of community meetings have not dozens of people out to them but hundreds of people out to them at every single call.

So we had, first of all, the Social Credit government, and then we had the NDP government that actually said: "Yes, the community has a right to have a say about the definition, what the intent is of the words in the trust, 'use, recreation and enjoyment of the public.'" That began a process that was sometimes confrontational but always ended in agreement between the provincial government, the city and the community about what the use of that park would be.

This government has reversed that trend. This government has completely reversed that trend. The community is cut out completely. I realize that the minister is a little bit stressed about actually having to do something in this Legislature and to take some responsibility for his government's actions, but I have actually been inundated with calls from people who have not been consulted at all about this — not at all.

Here's what this government is now changing the terms of the trust about. Here's what the community will no longer be able to negotiate or have any input in at Hastings Park. I'm going to read it into the record:

We now have a trust that used to say for the "use, recreation and enjoyment of the public," which now has this long list of absolutely mandatory activities that cannot be challenged at all. That's what this government has done.

Did they talk to the community for one second about this? Not one phone call. I can understand this government's partisanship like we've never seen before, that they wouldn't want to talk to me. They might actually get some history. They might actually get some ability to get consensus with the community, which the community has always given before. They might actually have been able to take a page from Grace McCarthy, who actually understood this issue. But oh no, not this government. They bring in the heavy hand of legislation and say to the community: "You've got no say whatsoever about the future of that park. These are the activities that are now going to be legislated on site."

What input does the community have? I would love to hear what the minister thinks about a community who may want to challenge this: "To implement security procedures including, without limitation, the restriction or prohibition of access to all or any part of Hastings Park." We've just been opening up the park, tearing down the fences, greening, having playing fields there that the community can actually use. This government has now taken all of that away from the community — every single aspect. And he does it without any understanding of the history of how that site has developed over the years.

Are there any other trusts in existence in British Columbia similar to the Hastings Park Trust?

Hon. K. Falcon: I will try to glean from that extensive rant and try to do my best to correct the numerous and frequent inaccuracies which formed a part of that wonderful dialogue.

The Chair: Will the members please go through the Chair. I don't want it across the floor, please. You will go through the Chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: Let me try to address some of the issues the member was kind enough to bring to my attention.

First of all, let's be clear about some comments the member continues to talk about — that there were no court decisions, that there were no legal decisions. There was no successful anything in court or any other legal context. What you apparently had was a decision by the provincial government, in cooperation with the city of Vancouver, to engage in some greening of the park. Wow, that is yet another evolvement of the use

and enjoyment of those said lands. That is in fact entirely consistent with what we are doing in this amendment of this act.

We are, in fact, working with the city of Vancouver, making sure the city of Vancouver has the ability to undertake all the consultations that are necessary. After all, they are the right level of government in which to undertake those consultations.

Evidently this member believes that we should be doing this, and that's a rather fascinating insight. In fact, it seems a little inconsistent, if my memory serves me correctly. I remember when that hon. member was part of a government that decreed that the PNE would be leaving Hastings Park, and I do not believe that government engaged in any consultations with the residents of Vancouver and her community before they made the decision.

It seems to me that we need to have at least some sense of reality about the discourse we're undertaking here. In fact, here's what we are doing. The member very helpfully read out the entire section 2(1)(a) to (g) plus subsection (2), and I'm glad she did that. What she did was confirm for this House that those are all the activities currently taking place on those lands today — all of those activities that have evolved over the last 100-plus years on the site. What we have done under this is not impose anything and not taken away any rights for anyone to talk and have input. We've actually done what the city asked us to do, and we worked with them. We came up with an agreement that would allow the recognition for what has been taking place on that site for nearly a hundred years — just recognizing the fact of what is happening.

Now, as a result of this agreement which we, as I say, cooperatively worked with the city of Vancouver to undertake, the city has this great opportunity — the opportunity to undertake a visioning process. For the member's information, a visioning process, as I understand it, is a process that will go on for several years. I know your government loves consultations, and this will be one that goes on for years. There will be every opportunity for people to come and take part in those visioning exercises, and the city of Vancouver will have the absolute right to decide what to do with the future of that site. That is exactly as it should be. It should be the local government level closest to the people making that decision, and this brings life to that reality.

R. Nijjar: How is the devising of this trust or the changes, as some call it…? How was this consulted with the city and over how much of a period of time?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have been engaged in consultations for some 18 months with the city of Vancouver staff, and some at the political level, and have over the period of that 18 months been engaged in a back-and-forth discussion of what would work for them. Almost all of this is a direct result of the input, recommendations and advice coming out of the city of Vancouver.

R. Nijjar: If I understand correctly, then, since all of us — I'm also a member representing the east side of Vancouver, just south of the member for Vancouver-Hastings — want to see a consultation process and all of us feel that obviously the residents closest to the PNE have not the only stake but slightly more of a stake in what happens to the park, as far as the exhibition and also the greening of the park…. Obviously, the closest residents are going to use it most. We want to have and our constituents want to have assurances that there was a process.

Is the minister saying, then, that the COPE/NDP city hall was in consultation, and through a process of over a year and a half, according to the minister…

R. Nijjar: …devising this process, devising not only the functioning of the trust or the makeup of the wording or the board…?

The Chair: Pardon me. Order. The member will have an opportunity to ask questions. All members of this House have an opportunity to ask questions of the minister on legislation. Therefore, this member has the floor at this time.

R. Nijjar: There was consultation not just on the revision of the trust, the change in the trust, but also on other aspects….

The Chair: One moment. Order, please. Will all members please pay courtesy to the members.

The Chair: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. Other members have a right to speak in the House. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway will have the floor, and I wish each one of us would take our time and pay respect to the other's right to speak in the House.

R. Nijjar: What other discussions took place with city hall, with the staff at city hall, in regard to this whole transfer of power and transfer of authority? Ob-

viously, you said discussions around the trust. Were there discussions around the board of directors, their authority on that? Were there discussions on if city hall would create a consultation process? Did they discuss with you what type of consultation process that would be?

Hon. K. Falcon: The city actually took the lead on, frankly, all aspects of what they wanted and what they were looking for in this agreement. We essentially responded to the city's requests. It was an extensive back-and-forth discussion mostly at the staff level initially, obviously, though there was some discussion between the politicians too. The staff were very good at keeping the entire council and the mayor apprised of those discussions on an ongoing basis.

J. MacPhail: The minister, who continues to amaze me in his rookie aspect and his immature approach to his job, said the previous government announced that they were moving the PNE without consultation. Why would he even bother to stand up and mislead the House in that fashion? There was consultation after consultation. There was a historic 1996 agreement with time limits on it between the city of Vancouver and the province of B.C. There were consultations with the staff there.

J. MacPhail: There were consultations with the residents ad nauseam. I participated in those discussions day after day after day. Either he's not getting good advice, or people have short-term memories. Day after day. I didn't have responsibility for the PNE as a minister of the Crown, so I was responsible for the community consultation. In 1996 a historic agreement was signed by all participants there. It had a time limit on the move, actually, of the park, of the PNE. Playland was involved.

Did that agreement evolve? Yes, it did. Did it evolve because of input from city council, from the racetrack, from the community? Yes. I can't tell you how many times I personally have been at the Pacific Lounge of the PNE holding public consultations or participating in consultations about the future of the PNE and the future of the park.

I don't know why I feel like I need to bring this minister up to speed. He's doing himself and his government serious damage within the community. He's also doing other MLAs in Vancouver serious damage.

In terms of the legislation, was this legislation then shared with…? Who did he share it with?

Hon. K. Falcon: Every single word of the legislation that the member holds in front of her was shared with the staff and the elected officials at the city of Vancouver.

Let me just respond to what I think I understood the member to say. She is implying that I may have somehow misled the House, so I do want to make sure we understand this very clearly. I'm trying to understand: is the member talking about efforts that she would undertake in the normal course of being an MLA in speaking to constituents? Or were these publicly advertised consultations with all the members of Vancouver regarding your decision to move the PNE out of Hastings Park? Just so I'm clear, because if I have misled, then I want to be clear and correct that.

Under what was it — a confidentiality agreement — that the minister shared the legislation? And with whom else did he share the legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Legislation was shared with their staff, their advisers of the staff of the city of Vancouver and their legal counsel.

Hon. K. Falcon: There was a resolution passed by the council that, in effect, gave a fellow named Brent MacGregor — I think I've got his name right; he's the deputy city manager — to engage in the negotiations/consultation with the province in accordance with the principles that were given by the council. My understanding is that Mr. MacGregor, on an ongoing basis, kept councillors up to date on his negotiations.

J. MacPhail: What he just said. The part about keeping everybody up to date.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'm certainly not going to stand here and tell Brent MacGregor how he did or should have done his job. I would assume that Mr. MacGregor, once given direction by his council to engage in extensive discussions and negotiations like this, would know when and how often he would need to negotiate with his elected officials.

J. MacPhail: That's a little backing away from what the minister said before when he said that every single word was shared with the elected officials. Every single word was shared — that's what he said. So when you actually prod this minister, he has to back off a little bit. He has no knowledge, Mr. Chair, absolutely no knowledge, about what happened with whom — none whatsoever.

By the way, Mr. Chair, unlike the previous farm team, the NPA city council, and their cozy relationship with the Liberal party, we actually have some independence in our community in Hastings. I as the local MLA have spent my entire career as an elected politician

Mr. Chair, I have much more to do on this, so noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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