Hansard -- Monday, May 10, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 25, No. 6 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10939

Private Members' Statements		10939
	Recreational boating
	M. Hunter
	G. Trumper
	Public reporting of performance plans
	K. Stewart
	Hon. G. Collins
	Danger zone: street violence in Vancouver
	L. Mayencourt
	B. Locke
	Changing the faces of youth driving in B.C.
	A. Hamilton
	Hon. R. Coleman
	K. Krueger

Second Reading of Bills		10948
	Safe Streets Act (Bill M202)
	L. Mayencourt
	M. Hunter
	J. Bray
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail
	L. Mayencourt
	Trespass to Property Act (Bill M203)
	L. Mayencourt
	M. Hunter
	J. Bray
	K. Stewart
	B. Locke
	J. Kwan
	L. Mayencourt

A. Hamilton: I'm pleased to say that visiting us today are several guests, one being my wife, Carol; her mother, Maryone Beisiegel; her father, Ralph Beisiegel; and my valued constituency assistant, Val Terry. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Hunter: It's a pleasure to be first up in this week, the second week of May. I wanted to speak this morning about a subject which is, I think, topical at this time of year, because like the swallows that return to Capistrano every spring, mariners in British Columbia return to their docks and their boats.

It doesn't matter whether they are on this beautiful coastline that we have in British Columbia or whether it's on one of the thousands of lakes that dot the interior and the heartland of this province. The feeling is the same. People are going back to their boats. It's like a revitalization of a part of human endeavour in this marine province in which we live. I wanted to say this morning that I think we need to sit back and just take a moment to reflect on what the business of recreational boating and the activity of recreational boating mean to our province.

Here we are in early May. The sailpast season amongst the hundreds of yacht clubs that dot our waterways is well underway. For every yacht club and indeed every mariner, that sailpast represents an important mark in the rites of spring. It means polishing; it means scrubbing; it means painting. It means hauling out and painting the bottom, new zincs — all the stuff that goes into that great big hole in the water, the dollars that get poured in.

This is the time of year when people are digging deep into their wallets so that their prized possession — be it a Zodiac, a kayak or a luxury yacht — can hit the water and people can be safe. This is an appropriate time to recognize recreational boating in British Columbia as the important activity, both from a recreational and from an economic viewpoint, that it indeed is. Recreational boating, though, is much more than yacht clubs and salutes to commodores and all the finery and the admirals' uniforms.

It's about cruising a marine coastline and lakeshores in this province that are of unparalleled beauty. It's about exploring the many thousands of bays and inlets, each with its own character, each with its own shore and foreshore. It's about viewing wildlife on the beach. How many times have we seen photographs of people in the central coast of British Columbia viewing bears in their natural habitat from the safety, perhaps, of the water?

It's about water sports like water-skiing and diving. I can say that diving, in particular, is an activity in this part of the world which is growing by leaps and bounds. My own community of Nanaimo is known in the diving world as one of the premier cold-water dive sites in the world. All of these activities make up the fabric of what is the recreational boating economy and activity in this province.

There are no reliable estimates — at least, ones that I have been able to uncover — of the number of people who take to the water in this province every year. We do know that some quarter of a million people, however, buy saltwater fishing licences from the government of Canada every year, and the province of British Columbia sells approximately 350,000 freshwater fishing licences.

I think most of these people undertake those activities, but not all…. Some are riverbank anglers, and some are lakeshore anglers, but I would think the majority by far of those 600,000 individuals, young and old alike, are undertaking their recreational fishing activities from a recreational watercraft of one kind or another. I think it's fairly safe to deduce that well over half a million British Columbians go boating every year just to catch their own fish.

I can reliably say, with a great deal of experience, that fish caught from your own recreational fishing craft is by far the most expensive you will ever enjoy. I can tell you it's much cheaper to go to a store and buy a fish than it is to try and catch your own. By the time you've paid for your oil and your gas and your fishing gear that you lose on the bottom…. Enough said. I'm sure there are enough people in this House who have had experiences similar to mine.

You know, beyond recreational fishing, important though it is in our province, there's a whole range of water activities that have nothing to do with trying to take food. There has been an explosion in recent years in the number of kayaks and canoes. I don't know if other members have noticed this, but 20 years ago a kayak was a fairly rare phenomenon — not unknown but certainly not in the kind of numbers you see today.

You can't go on the water — certainly on coastal B.C., which I'm familiar with — without seeing kayaks, often in conditions when I would have thought I wouldn't want to go out in a small craft like that. But people are out there. They're getting their exercise. They're getting to see the beauty of the province.

Not only are there people out there in these small vessels, but there are businesses behind them that have grown and been established to serve this growing part of our water-based economy. Now you see all kinds of businesses that are dealing with serving this recreational side of the public.

We should make no mistake. The economic effects of the recreational boating industry in this province are significant. B.C. boat builders have established a well-earned reputation in the high-end international luxury yacht market. Expert B.C. craftsmen are among the world's best. B.C. also excels in building small boats — small boat manufacturing. Both on the coast and in the heartlands of the province, there are well-established international names in small boats.

We shouldn't be surprised, really, by this, because British Columbia's history is very much tied to coastal navigation and exploration. It's not so long ago that pioneers like Jim Spilsbury, sadly departed from us a year or so ago, built businesses and lifetime friendships in the once-remote logging and fishing camps of the B.C. coast.

When we're talking about boating, we should also talk about the tourism impact of recreational boating in this province. I know that in my own community of Nanaimo, visiting yachts from both Canada and the United States are a tremendously important generator of revenue for my city every summer. I'm sure everyone in this House can tell a story about a visiting boater who visited your home port, be it inland or on the coast, who came back for more of the great B.C. experience.

The sea and the lakes, however, are not all about romance. Golden sunsets on the aft decks of large yachts might grace magazines, and I can tell you that I have done that too. I'm reminded of my visit to Greece.

I see that my time is up. I wanted to say thank you. I think this is an important part of our background and our future as a province, and I await with interest the response from the member for Alberni-Qualicum.

G. Trumper: Those of us who live on the coast know how important any form of marine activity is to the economy of British Columbia. I know that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, come from an area where it has a huge impact on the economy — the Okanagan.

As the season changes and summer comes upon us, we have people travelling from all over Canada and also up from the States who come to enjoy the countryside we have and the marine parks, the sea, the west coast — to enjoy the summer. In many cases, it's time to spend with your family and time to recharge your batteries, whether you have…. We always used to commonly call many of the recreational boats bleach bottles, because I come from a sailing family where you never turn the engine on unless you absolutely have to.

It has a huge impact on the economy. I just want to tell you a little bit about the area that I come from, which stretches across Vancouver Island. In Port Alberni the harbour authority, a few years ago, put in two marinas, and just recently, a few years ago, they put in a third marina. Many people thought it was money not well spent; it wouldn't be full. That marina is full. Those marinas are full all the time with recreational boats coming in, whether it be for going around and cruising around the islands in Barkley Sound or for fishing to get those mighty salmon that come up the canal in August and September.

They have a huge impact — those boats — on the economy of the community, because the sales that take place from those who are selling the boats have been increasing every single year. The number of kayaks — as has been previously said by the member for Nanaimo — has increased, and we now have people coming in from tours, from Germany, to the west coast of Vancouver Island.

One of the issues I really want to point out as we start the summer season is safety. We have people coming from all over the country who sometimes — whether they lease, rent or buy a boat — don't know much about water safety. Unfortunately, in a previous life, I've had to be the unfortunate individual who had to talk to families who have, for whatever reasons, not taken the proper safety precautions when they've been out on the water. The sea is unforgiving, and they have lost members of their family in very tragic circumstances.

I do want to emphasize to people: as you start this summer and the recreational boating, make sure that you've got the appropriate life jackets, that you have flares, that you know something about marine navigation and that you don't rely on a road map of the coast of British Columbia to navigate your way round the coast. That just doesn't do. I think everyone wants to make sure that everyone who comes to enjoy British Columbia on the water — be it at the lakes or on our west coast — understands they have to have the safety procedures in place, know where their jackets and where the flares are, so that they can come back again another year and know that this has been a time, a vacation, that they have been able to enjoy and be able to come back again to this great province.

It's one of those things that as we buy recreational boats, as we suddenly think that today is a great day to go out on the water and take our families — whether it's to go whale-watching or kayaking or whether it's to catch that great salmon which so many people come to British Columbia for…. They must make sure that they know what they're doing or have somebody on the boat who does know something about navigation and safety on the water.

We want those people to come back. We want them to spend their dollars in British Columbia; it has a huge effect on many of our communities on the west coast in the summer. But we need to make sure that they are safe — something which is often forgotten, unfortunately. I have been on boats where, when we were inspected by the Coast Guard, we didn't have enough life jackets on board for the number of people. As we move into the summer and all these people are coming to enjoy our wonderful environment, please remember to be safe on the water.

M. Hunter: I would like to thank the member for Alberni-Qualicum for her comments, because I was going to lead in from my reminiscing about drinks off the back of yachts in the sunset and going to Greece and seeing sunsets which are well advertised but actu-

ally not a patch on what you can see from Montague Harbour in early August right here in British Columbia. That's what boating is all about to me.

The member for Alberni-Qualicum talked about safety. She's absolutely right. Boating is very relaxing. It's beautiful and enjoyable, but it's also quite dangerous — inherently dangerous — because the sea is not forgiving, and lakes are not forgiving.

I think we should take a moment right now — and boaters everywhere in this province, as they prepare for a summer on the water, should take a few moments — to thank the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary and its many hundreds of volunteers who help provide safety in the boating environment. These are the people in your community and mine who respond to distress calls, who perform the vessel safety inspections that are so important and who teach our kids about safety around the water. In fact, our colleague the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and I had the chance a few weeks ago to meet with some of these volunteers who are actively engaged in teaching kids with a little motorized no-floating boat called Bobby, as I recall. We were both struck by their enthusiasm and dedication.

I think, if there is one lasting message…. We can talk all we like about the economic impact, and we can talk about how boating contributes to our environmental performance because boaters are an important set of eyes on the water looking for things that are different. At the end of the day, boating is about enjoyment, but it must be done in a responsible and safe way. I share the views and hopes of the member for Alberni-Qualicum that the summer of 2004 will see people enjoy our waterways safely.

Deputy Speaker: For our second private members' statement, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

K. Stewart: For the first portion of my statement this morning, I would like to comment on public reporting of government committees. Then in the closing segment, I would like to mention some of the other leading initiatives of our government.

I recently attended a national symposium in Ottawa on public performance reporting. Attendees were representatives from many areas of government, responsible for auditing, comptrolling and reporting their government's performance. It's an interesting topic — maybe not quite as interesting as boating. But what is really meant by public performance reporting? As the formal mechanism that government uses to communicate with public and legislatures in accordance with agreed guidelines, it is a formal response to a desire or need to report performance to those who have a legitimate interest in knowing, understanding and assessing performance, and then acting on this information.

At this seminar four formal themes were presented: connecting public performance reporting to the overall government and management agenda, engaging users of public performance reporting and building their capacity to use it, assurance and validation in the public reporting process, and putting specific principles into practice.

In British Columbia we as a government have made a commitment to accuracy and transparency in reporting our progress as soon as possible to the people. After attending this symposium, it appears that we are not only being successful but that along with Alberta we are leading the way for both the federal government and the remaining provinces in government accountability. Connecting public performance reporting to the overall governance and management agenda is what we are attempting to do, not only linking and reporting our performances as government but linking back to the promises we made to the public in our election platform.

From a financial perspective we have enacted the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. I will take a few minutes to explain these acts. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is designed to enhance government's accountability in several ways. For the first time in Canada the act requires the government to fully implement generally accepted accounting principles, known as GAAP, when formulating its budget. Under GAAP, the government is mandated to include the financial statements of school districts, universities, colleges and health authorities in its financial reporting. The first budget to fully integrate GAAP principles is the 2004-05 fiscal budget.

As well as the government's fiscal and performance plans, the Minister of Finance is required to release budget estimates on the third Tuesday in each year. To ensure responsibility and accountability in a fiscal manner through the executive council, we passed the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. This act requires the government to balance the budget by 2004-05 and prohibits a deficit in any year thereafter. Under the act, there are also no exceptions for unforeseen spending or revenue changes.

With respect to ministerial accountability, the act puts the onus on both the executive council and individual ministers to deliver upon the budgetary and performance targets. The act contains a provision which mandates that 20 percent of the minister's salary is to be held back each year. One-half of the withheld salary for the executive council may be returned if the government collectively meets its financial target for a given budget year. The remaining 50 percent may be returned to individual ministers if they maintain expected operating expenses, meet or exceed revenue targets and meet the specific goals or objectives.

By placing additional responsibility on the executive council, the act forces ministers to set and obtain realistic fiscal and performance targets, thereby creating an additional mechanism to ensure balanced budgets are obtained. The process is to place these reports

and the remaining tasks beyond the accounting of the expenditures and funds to demonstrate performance and outcomes from funded programs.

In B.C. as well as many other jurisdictions, we have oversight committees. The reports from these committees are public and easily accessible in Hansard. There are three oversight committees. They actively ensure that the financial performance plans of governments are maintained — the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. These committees meet throughout the year to hear testimony from the public, senior government officials and the independent officers of B.C. They are placed into the House to ensure that goals and objectives are put forward by the government and that these are met.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. This committee was struck in 2000 for the purpose of conducting the annual prebudget consultation, as required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The committee mandate was expanded in 2001 to include an oversight function. It now reviews the annual reports, three-year service plans and budgets of six independent statutory officers who report directly to the Legislative Assembly, including the auditor general, the chief electoral officer, the conflict-of-interest commissioner, the information and privacy commissioner, the ombudsman and the police complaint commissioner.

The Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The mandate of this committee is to review the reports of the auditor general of British Columbia, who is responsible for assessing government financial accountability performances. Unlike other parliamentary committees, the membership of the committee includes both opposition members, with one serving as the Chair. The goal is to provide timely updates on the efficiency of services provided by government. The comptroller general, the government's chief accounting officer, undertakes on behalf of the committee to arrange for government witnesses to respond to the auditor general's recommendations.

The final committee is the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations. This committee's mandate is to critically examine the annual reports and service plans of the B.C. Crown corporations. This is a committee that I have had the privilege of chairing for the past three years, after it was left idle for 23 years. It is the oversight role, and the main objectives of the committee are to enhance the accountability and prove the public performance reporting of the Crown corporations while holding them accountable.

As part of the review process, senior officers from the selected Crowns appear before the committee to present their corporation's latest annual reports and service plans. To assess each Crown, committee members assess each of the 11 reporting criteria as laid out by the committee. These reporting principles ensure that the mandate of each Crown corporation is clearly specified, that the goals and objectives and performance measures are both plainly stated and reasonably attainable, and that the financial and non-financial performance measures are met. This gives an integrated and balanced picture of the intended performance. Committee members also have the opportunity to discuss with senior officers issues of concern and interests arising from the corporation's presentation to the committee. The committee then follows up on its recommendations at the next review date of that Crown corporation.

At this point in time, I would like to move to the Minister of Finance for some other comments.

Hon. G. Collins: I commend the member. I think he had that timed right to the second. I want to thank him for his comments, Mr. Speaker.

I think the work that the members of the Legislature do in implementing government's accountability and reporting structure is critical to its success. The member highlights, really, what I think are the three successes that government has had with regard to fiscal reporting, accountability reporting and outcomes. I think it's worth just discussing them for a moment, if I can.

Having watched them through the phase prior to the election, as part of the transition, we were preparing the public policy surrounding the two pieces of legislation that the member mentions — the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act as well as the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. They were interesting…. I mean, the legislation was drafted with an outcome in mind, and having watched the progression of the implementation of that legislation over the last three years, I have been very pleased with the impact of that legislation in changing behaviour in government as a whole, particularly the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It has a number of provisions in it which set, by legislation, some fiscal targets, some fiscal discipline, and also puts in place some ownership of the fiscal discipline matters as well as the targets that are associated with them — in particular, the 20 percent salary holdback that ministers face at the beginning of the fiscal year. They have to re-earn that as the year progresses by coming in on or under budget in the ministry they're accountable for and then as cabinet coming in on target on the fiscal plan.

I must say that has had a huge impact in changing the culture of government by making sure that it's not just the Minister of Finance — whoever that may be — who is responsible for managing the fiscal plan but that every single minister who is responsible for a budget has a personal level of accountability to make sure that those targets that they have committed to at the beginning of the year by signing off personally on the service plans actually come to fruition.

It has also, I must say, had an impact on the senior levels of the civil service, in that those senior people in the civil service — the deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, chief financial officers or executive financial officers in the various ministries — are also

taking some personal ownership of those targets and realizing that they really do have to deliver on those targets. It does two things. It makes sure that they keep focused on it during the year. Even prior to that it makes sure that they do due diligence in determining those targets up front — making sure there is some understanding between Treasury Board and the ministry on what their role is required to be throughout the year and the services they're required to provide, to the certain levels they're required to provide them — and then delivering on that.

It really results, I think, in a far more hands-on approach, a more realistic budget forecasting than perhaps we've seen in the past. People understand at the early stages that proper planning and proper measurement are important.

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act also is a major leap forward in that we are now, in British Columbia, the only jurisdiction that has actually legislated requirements or where the government has its financial statements in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. That is a major breakthrough as well. I think it really positions British Columbia quite well relative to other jurisdictions. Certainly, people looking at British Columbia's financial statements see the most comprehensive, most expansive, most transparent set of financial statements anywhere in Canada and possibly well beyond the borders of Canada as well. All of government's entities are included, whether it's school districts or hospitals, universities, colleges, etc. People can see the financial state of the province in its entirety and then judge government's fiscal plan accordingly. That is a major innovation as well.

I think the third item the member mentioned is probably the most critical, and that is the role of the three committees that the member referenced. First of all, the Public Accounts Committee probably has the most onerous job with regard to analyzing government's financial state, and that's a longstanding role they have.

But there are two other committees which also have roles. The first is the Finance Committee, which has the two mandate items the member highlighted — the first being the annual public consultation with regard to the budget process. That's something I pay a lot of attention to, as do the ministry and Treasury Board. That committee goes out and hears from British Columbians across the province, tours the province and gets their input. That comes to me in November in the budget cycle, when we're preparing for the February budget. If you look back at the last number of budgets I've introduced as minister, you can see those findings reflected in that.

Lastly, the work that the member has done as Chair of the Crown Corporations Committee has started to instil that same discipline with the Crown corporations. I thank him for the work he has done, and I thank those members who have sat on the committees and contributed to the overall fiscal accountability of the government.

K. Stewart: I would like to, first, thank the minister for his comments. We know that British Columbia is a much better place as a result of the efforts that he has put in with regard to the financial accountability in this province.

In concluding, I'd just like to say that British Columbia is a leader in holding elected officials responsible. British Columbians now know when their budget is going to be delivered and have the opportunity to provide input on its contents. New legislation is designed to ensure both balanced budgets and comprehensive oversight while ensuring that generally accepted accounting principles are used. In addition, there is the added responsibility given to cabinet ministers to meet performance targets along with the option that if they don't, there is responsibility and accountability, which actually shows up in their paycheque.

There are a couple of other initiatives I'd just like to briefly touch on. One is the fixed election dates. This is a very gutsy move by this government so that we say to the people: "This is the time line that we are going to have, and this is when we are going to go to the polls." It doesn't give us the opportunity to manipulate time lines based on external events. It allows us the accountability to stick to our plan and allows the public to look at us and judge us by that plan.

Another thing that has made it much more workable for most members in this House, including the opposition, is the fixed legislative calendar. This allows for a much more uniform and timely management of the House, the duties and the business. No longer is it hit-or-miss when you're going to be in and when you're going to be out. It allows not only for better planning for the House, but it allows for better planning of the members' time in their communities.

The other great initiative that this government has taken is the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform This is one that is out there. We have entrusted the people by taking a risk and saying: "What type of government do you want? How do you want to be governed?" We have given the full open forum to discuss that and then, when that forum is completed, given the people of British Columbia an opportunity to report back on that and actually vote on it.

As we talk about accountability, one other issue that comes up is that what we said we were going to do, we are actually doing. Over 90 percent of the promises we made in the election have been completed to date, with more initiatives underway and, hopefully, completed by the time of that fixed election date we have set. This allows for the people of British Columbia to look at what we said we were going to do and look now at how we've delivered. We've explained some of the open accountability processes that are in place so they can feel comfortable that what we said we were doing is actually happening and that the accountability is there to show for it through independent reviews.

The last item I would like to talk about is the openness of the government. Not only is everything on Hansard — the reports that are done — but Hansard now has some new tools to use to get its message out to the public, and that is the video there. You can click on Hansard, and with most computers today, with the ability they have, you can actually go back and not only hear what we were saying but actually see it. You can see whether the member has got his hair properly in place, whether the tie is askew — plus not only what he or she says but how they deliver it.

These are initiatives that are there, and that information is always there so people can go back and get not only the words that were spoken but also the feeling of the event. With that, I'd just like to thank the Speaker for the opportunity to share these views with the people today and now take my leave.

L. Mayencourt: I rise in the House today to speak about the problems of ever-increasing violence in our streets. We made a commitment to creating safer streets and safer schools in every community. Our streets and our schools will never be safe if we do not address the problems of violence. While Vancouver is one of the most beautiful places in the world to live, there are many areas of the city and surrounding cities where street violence is a real fear. I envision a city where people can go jogging late at night without fear of attack, where seniors can walk the busy streets without fear of robbery, where children can go to school without fear of bullying, where parents can sleep at night without worrying about their children hearing gunshots. This is the Vancouver that I'd like to see.

Vancouver police, the first responders to a lot of these types of incidents, have admitted to being worried about the increasing level of violence on our streets. The Vancouver police department announced last week that they are setting up a proactive task force to look into the problems of gang violence. I commend the police department for this effort, and I am confident that they will do a great job.

The news has been full of stories of street and gang violence. Often this violence has horrific results. For example, a 23-year-old male was shot at the PNE just recently — a victim of gang violence. Last week in Vancouver two young Indo-Canadian men were found dead in an East Vancouver home. Police believe that these murders were related to gang violence. These murders happened very close to an elementary school, and it took quite a while for the police to clear the area so that they could actually let those kids go home. What a scary experience for those kids. What a scary experience for their moms and dads.

I could go on and on with stories of such violence, but I want to tell you about one that I have a slight connection to. It is about a young woman by the name of Rachel Davis. Rachel was a skateboarder, and she was a friend of my brother Richard. She was an incredible person. She was caring and tried to help out and give something special to everyone she met. She had a way of taking on causes and helping anyone she ever found to be in need. This incredible gift became her demise earlier this year.

Rachel was at a nightclub with her friend Sebastian Temper. She walked out of the Purple Onion nightclub and noticed that there was a young man on the ground being beaten up by six or seven other individuals. She ran over to try and stop the fight and did succeed in doing that. But tempers still flared, and gunshots rang out. Sebastian was hit by a number of bullets. Rachel took a bullet for the young man she was trying to help, and she died on site.

This violence doesn't just affect people that we don't know. It is not a concept that exists far away in other people's lives. It affects people that we know. It affects people that we love who are talented and beautiful people. This is the tragedy. So far this year there have been 13 homicides in Vancouver, and in the same period last year there were only two. This trend is distressing. These young people who are dying have families and friends who love them. They have bright futures and promises of success, and they all have a story.

More often than not, those involved in street violence are involved in a variety of other illegal activities and damaging habits. Often they are involved in drug use and gang violence. Statistics show that many people who are convicted of homicide did so under the influence of drugs. Many drug users use forms of violence to get money to maintain their habit.

Many people with mental illness do not receive the help they need. Without a strong social network and the medical help they need, these people will often turn to drug abuse. Their isolation leads to further violence. We need to help people prone to violence deal with their anger in non-violent ways.

There are some groups in my riding that are trying to attain this. Barwatch, for example, is a collection of bar owners in downtown Vancouver trying to make their nightclubs safer by monitoring who comes in and out of their clubs more effectively and paying attention to suspicious activity.

The Family Services of Greater Vancouver reaches out to kids that are on the street. They provide counselling, job training and all those sorts of things that give kids some rooting and some way of looking after themselves and being successful.

Another group in my riding is the Coast Foundation. This foundation exists to help people with mental health problems. They teach them a variety of things, including social interaction and basic life skills. They've proven to be an effective social network for many people who otherwise may have turned to drug abuse and violence to survive. The foundation encourages people to interact with others in a positive way instead of isolating themselves.

I commend these groups for their contribution to making Vancouver a much safer place that people can live, work and play in. It takes teamwork to reduce violence on our streets. It will take the help of educators, law enforcement, government and individuals to see Vancouver become not only the most beautiful place to live but also the safest.

I've asked the member for Surrey–Green Timbers to share some of her thoughts on this very same topic.

B. Locke: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his comments today in the House, but more so I want to thank the member for his tireless work on the issue of safety for all citizens not only in Vancouver but for all communities in British Columbia.

The member's comments hit a personal chord for me, because the Vancouver that the member envisioned — the city where you could walk downtown at night without fear of being harassed, assaulted or hearing the sounds of gunshots — can exist. In fact, it did exist. I was born in Vancouver and spent much of my time with my grandparents, who lived in the West End. My dad worked at the bank at Victory Square. I spent a lot of time as a youngster walking, shopping and playing downtown, at the beaches or on evening strolls around Stanley Park. Would I allow my daughter to do that today? The answer is no. Would I ask my mom to spend any time downtown by herself? The answer to that is, sadly, no.

These fears are founded almost every day in the news. The member for Vancouver-Burrard very accurately and graphically outlined real people's lives that have been impacted forever by the mean streets. That is not supposed to be the legacy of British Columbia and Canada. We are supposed to be a peaceful, safe country.

Unfortunately, many of the concerns that the member described in Vancouver resonate with the citizens in Surrey too. Surrey's population is growing at an incredible rate, and we are now at over 394,000 people — not far behind that of Vancouver.

I know that many seniors feel the same safety concerns in our city. I can tell you, as a mom, my child or any child under my care is escorted home at night. It's just the reality of ensuring they're kept safe.

Drugs are a significant problem in our city. Crystal methamphetamine is the new power drug. It is turning out to be very accessible, easy to produce and cheap. In addition, drug labs and marijuana grow ops are showing up in houses in every neighbourhood. Grow rips and gang activity are also part of what is turning out to be the dark side of life in our city.

I commend the Surrey school board for making the issue of drugs in our schools a priority. Their leadership will help parents understand the signs and feel safer about their school precinct. This is a proactive and responsible approach.

Auto crime adds to the fear in my community of Surrey. Too often the crime is taken lightly by the judiciary. While our government, through the Solicitor General, has taken great steps to assist the police through the new crime and bait car programs, without an aggressive judiciary, the revolving door for criminals seems to never end. The fear, frustration and anger continue.

Make no mistake. This is not just teenagers stealing cars for a joyride. In fact, according to ICBC, most auto crime is done by adults whose average age is 28 years. They are stealing automobiles, driving them completely irreverently and maiming — sometimes even killing — people. This crime is destroying lives and families. There are so many names, like Irene Thorpe and Const. Jimmy Ng. In Surrey we have all been touched by the incredible tragedy faced by Mary Bajwa and her children. All three are still in wheelchairs, trying to understand how an innocent trip to the store stole their dreams.

I have raised a motion in this House specific to street racing and want to reiterate the position that those convicted of serious crimes of violence, including the offence of criminal negligence causing death arising out of street racing, cannot receive a conditional sentence. Importantly, I want to thank the federal Member of Parliament Chuck Cadman for his tireless work on the issue of street racing. There is no doubt that stronger penalties by the judiciary are a must.

I want to commend the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his initiation of the safe schools task force, for his courage in introducing new bills that address crime, for his constant commitment in making the streets of B.C. safer, and for being solution-oriented for our children, our seniors and our families of tomorrow.

L. Mayencourt: I want to thank the member for Surrey–Green Timbers for sharing her ideas and her thoughts on this topic.

I do believe that we need to have strict penalties for people who endanger the lives of others through such violence. We also need to make sure that we don't see violence as something isolated from other problems like mental illness and drug abuse. I believe we need to address the needs of people who are prone to violence, with the hopes of preventing this behaviour in the long run.

How can this be done? We need to determine which groups of people, whether regular drug users or the mentally ill, are most prone to violence and then make the resources available to fund programs that meet their needs. One of the best ways we can do this is to build a society of safety right from the start. To do this, we need to reach the children. This means children should learn right from elementary school that violence is not a solution, that bullying is not acceptable and that drugs will only hurt you. We need to invest in our social capital and demonstrate a society that will work together to deal with the problems. As the Dalai Lama says, the only way to be truly human is together.

This weekend I attended the opening of a skateboard park in North Vancouver with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. As I said earlier, Rachel

Davis was a skateboarder, and they dedicated a Random Acts of Kindness walk in Rachel's memory. There's a stone bench there with her name on it, and it reads:

It is my deepest hope that we will do what it takes to protect good Samaritans like Rachel Davis and Sebastian Temper from the meaningless violence.

A. Hamilton: I would like to speak about an issue that is very dear to me personally and to my family and is of vital importance to all families and British Columbians. We have all heard countless stories about terrible and costly driving accidents on B.C. roads and highways. For too long our young people have constituted the brunt of these incidents, accounting for over 16 percent of accidents involving injury or fatalities. For young drivers, one in four crashes resulted in serious injury or death. The rate for other drivers is only one in six.

Traditionally, young drivers are granted a relatively quick route to driving with little regard to the judgment and social maturity of young people. When given the keys to what has been called a 3,000-pound weapon, our 16-year-olds instantly acquire the ability to seriously harm both themselves and the lives of others — all in the blink of an eye. Sixteen-year-olds have almost three times the crash rate of older teenagers and almost ten times the crash rate of drivers aged 30 to 59.

In 1998 British Columbia enacted new graduated licensing regulations, making the transition to becoming a driver safer for young British Columbians. The new system represented many new changes and was the result of careful study and review of other jurisdictions.

As these regulations became common practice, our children faced less risk on the roads. Instead of being a learner for weeks, young people practised their skills for six months. Instead of becoming fully licensed adult drivers, young people were granted the status of novice for 18 months, at which point their ability was again tested and reviewed. This new procedure allowed us to ensure that not only were students able to learn the skills necessary to be responsible and careful drivers, but they also had a chance to prove they were able to maintain these skills over a long period of time.

Initially, there was much discussion and debate over the usefulness of graduated licence programs. Some believed that the real answer to lowering the youth accident rate lay in raising the age at which youth were allowed to get behind the wheel. Others thought that restricting things like passengers, time-of-day allowances and road type permissions were the answer. However, a large part of the problem lay in the fact that new drivers were simply not given the training and support needed to properly prepare them for the dangers of the road. Pushing the age of licensing higher would only raise the age at which these accidents were likely to take place.

The graduated licence program aims to address both concerns relating to age and restrictions in three ways: first, by reducing exposure to risks; second, by improving driver proficiency; and third, by offering motivation for drivers to avoid dangerous driving situations. Whereas past regulations looked to identify the minimum requirements needed to drive, the new program allowed young drivers to excel in becoming the best driver possible.

After two years of the graduated licence program, the crash rate among B.C.'s new drivers was reduced by 26 percent. However, the program is not without room for improvement. Beginner and novice drivers are still 45 percent more likely to be involved in an accident. Therefore, in October of 2003 this government, after much research and consideration with ICBC, announced further changes to make our roads even safer for all drivers, both young and old.

This government has further improved the program — such as, as of October 6, 2003, the learner stage of the graduated licence program now lasts 12 months. As an incentive to improve their overall knowledge of road safety, young drivers can renew this period for three months.

For me, the most interesting changes are those which are imposed during the novice period of this program. In addition to this period lasting an extra six months, novice drivers may now only carry one passenger or family member unless accompanied by a supervisor. In my experience, it seems that the majority of accidents involving youth happen when there are more than two occupants in the vehicle. Young drivers are far more likely to speed or drive recklessly when they are faced with the distractions of a carload of their peers. By limiting the number of passengers, we lower the risk of speed-related injuries. I am confident that this will go a long way towards decreasing the number of accidents involving young drivers.

However, there will undoubtedly be young drivers who will find high speed too intoxicating to resist. Therefore, we need to come up with alternative ways to address this need for speed. One of Victoria's local police departments has done exactly that. The Saanich police department's dragster program allows teens to satisfy their interest in speed in a safe, controlled environment. With their custom dragster in tow, program volunteers led by Staff Sgt. Doug Oakley travel around the Island teaching of the dangers of speed. They use the interest generated by the car to hook students, providing a method of communicating the dangers of speed to an attentive audience. While other jurisdictions have similar programs, the Saanich police version has been very successful, to the point of including a second car in 2003. Young people exposed to this pro-

There are, of course, other opportunities for community groups and local authorities to influence the decisions of youth. For example, again the Saanich police department, the Juan de Fuca Lacrosse Association and the Sooke school district — with support from CUPE; the Sooke Teachers Association; SPEAC, the parents group; the city of Langford; and ICL Concrete — will be hosting a forum for Juan de Fuca Lacrosse Association players, other students and their parents to discuss the consequences of speed. Billed as a powerful and informative evening, this event will bring together emergency personnel from fire, ambulance and police services to discuss their firsthand experiences with the tragic consequences of speed and novice drivers. I believe that pairing our emergency service members and community groups like this is a natural way to meld established community groups with a road safety education program.

Other groups are also taking a proactive approach to road safety education. I recently read about a program at Mission Race Ways that allows drivers to bring their fast cars onto a controlled racetrack to fulfil their need for speed. By providing a venue for racing, the number of young kids drag-racing on Vancouver streets has been drastically reduced. Many former illegal street racers now can be found at these regular Friday drug- and alcohol-free events. Neighbourhood streets are now safer for both drivers and pedestrians.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the measures this government has enacted to help solve the problem of fatal youth accidents. I am confident that in the coming years, increasingly fewer families will be faced with the pain of accidents involving young drivers.

However, I also know that as long as there are still fatal accidents involving youths, the work of government, police and community groups will not be over. I also know that our Solicitor General shares this view and that he is eager to develop new and innovative road safety programs. At this point, I would like to invite the Solicitor General to comment on the progress we have made in this field and the goals this government has for the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for bringing up this point. I know it is very personal and near and dear to his heart, as it is to anybody that has had or seen or been affected by some of the tragedies on our roads in this province.

When 7 percent of the population is responsible for 16 percent of the car accidents in your province, involving everything from property damage to injury and death, you really do have to look at what you are doing to see if you can improve it. As the member said, when the graduated licensing program came into being in 1998, we actually did see a 26 percent reduction in the number of accidents, particularly among the people in the age bracket of 16 to 25. We looked at this last year and decided we needed to do more. We actually went out and looked at what we could do relative to how we would deal with both the learner's stage and the novice stage of drivers in the future in the province to further reduce accidents among this age cohort and in fact among all new drivers in B.C.

We put enhancements in place last fall where the learner's stage, which was previously six months, went to a year. In addition to that, we took the novice stage, which was previously 18 months, and we took it to two years. As we went through that, we continued the zero tolerance to alcohol for any driver in either one of those stages behind the wheel of a vehicle, which means if they actually decide that they're going to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after having a drink and the police catch them, they will go back and start at day one. They will start all over again in the novice stage or in the learner's stage of driving, because it is just not acceptable to us that those people in that stage have any ability to have any alcohol in their system.

At the same time, we went after the rest of the population relative to those who might get 24-hour suspensions in this province. Today if you get a 24-hour suspension at the roadside, two of those in two years are going to cost you your driver's licence for a minimum of two months. Three of them in two years will take it up to three months and beyond.

One of the key changes we made when we did the graduated licensing program last year, though, was a change in the passenger load. We know that one passenger in a motor vehicle with a novice driver increases the likelihood of accident by 45 percent. If you add a second passenger, the likelihood goes up to 100 percent, and a third passenger and beyond is 200 percent plus. We had that information and statistical data, and we should have acted on it, and we didn't. What we do now today is say: "All right. If you're a novice driver, you can drive your brothers and sisters, or family, to soccer. There's no problem with that, but you're not going to have non-family members in the car unless it is just one passenger during the novice stage."

We know the peer pressure aspect with regards to it is probably the biggest difficulty for young drivers to get past. When you get four or five people or three or four people in a motor vehicle and you turn up the stereo, the next activity is to see: what can the car do? What can we do with peer pressure to get somebody to take a chance? That's when we see accidents at the levels that we see in our province. We know — and our expectations are — that we will see 15,000 fewer accidents, 3,500 fewer injury accidents and 20 fewer fatalities over the next three years just because of the changes we made to the graduated licensing program alone.

As the member alluded to, there are community groups out there that are part of this solution. Everybody is — whether it be BCAA's road safety foundation, ICBC, community groups, parents. The entire community has to get together to work on this. That's why we have programs like the community crash reduction challenges taking place between communities today. That's why we have enhanced and made ours

the toughest street-racing laws in Canada. That's why we're doing the impaired driving review to see how we can enhance the penalties and how we can handle impaired drivers better in the future in British Columbia. It's why we're going after the entire issue in and around driver fitness and the issues in and around commercial vehicles, and particularly those that seem to think they can be on our roads and not obey the laws or not do the inspections that are required of them.

There are some positive signs. We have seen a decline in accidents in the last year. Some of that may be relative to weather, but the rest of it is maybe because our message is getting out there. But as the member said, our message will never be complete until there are no more injuries or deaths on our highways, and the only way we can accomplish that is by working together on all levels of education, opportunities and initiatives that will work.

Government can provide tools to police and communities. We can work in cooperation on education programs and other programs that will actually enhance this, and we can put the tools in place to make it work. We have done more in the last three years in this regard than any government that's ever come before us. We will continue to do that, because it is important for us to recognize that we want to support communities to reduce accidents, reduce the tragedies that exist on our highways in British Columbia today.

Deputy Speaker: With concluding remarks, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson.

K. Krueger: I have been asked by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and his beloved wife, Carol Hamilton, to read the concluding statement which they have written.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Bill M202 without disturbing the priorities of bills preceding it on the order paper.

L. Mayencourt: It is indeed a pleasure to stand here and start debate on second reading of these bills. The bill that we have before us, Safe Streets Act, is about providing safety for my community but also for communities around British Columbia. The problem that we have in our community is aggressive solicitation. We're talking about people that get in people's faces and threaten them or make them feel very uncomfortable while they're asking them for money.

Now, my community is a community which is very caring, as are all communities in British Columbia. We have a great, rich tradition of helping out people by supporting people like the Salvation Army, Family Services of Greater Vancouver, the Coast Foundation or many others. These agencies provide services for those people.

This particular bill is designed to give tools to the police to help them create a safer and more secure environment. I have received countless e-mails and letters over the past few days from people across this province that support this piece of legislation. They support this legislation because they know that we are entitled to safe streets in our community. They know that we must address the issues of aggressive solicitation, and that's what this bill is all about.

I have received a copy of a petition that I want to share with this House, because there was a city councillor last week in Vancouver who said he had never heard of a single resident asking for this kind of legislation. I'm not sure, but it would appear to me that that councillor had not read the petition that had been sent to him in June. On this petition there are 3,900 signatures from people asking for his city council to deal with the issues that are making Vancouver unsafe.

The other issue that I want to bring up is some of the letters we received from tourists. I understand from the hotel association that they received countless letters and comment cards. I'll read just one excerpt from a letter from a manager: "Our managers are continually being forced to clean up human waste, needles left behind by transients. This is not only an unsafe work-

ing environment but an unhealthy one as well. We request that you provide our neighbourhood with a safe environment."

We have invested a great deal in some of the root causes of poverty. We have put forward affordable housing options, including $153 million, which is the most that any provincial government in our history has ever put into social housing. Last year we put over $330 million into employment training and programs and opportunities for people to get job skills. That has resulted in 87,000 more people getting jobs in our province.

I am very, very passionate about this bill. I have been told by literally thousands of individuals across this province that the time has come for us to take a stand, to make our streets and communities as safe as possible.

M. Hunter: I just want to add a few words in support of the basic approach that is being taken in this proposed bill. First of all, I want to recognize the work that has been done by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. He has been tireless in his efforts to bring to the attention of this House some of the problems that exist in his community — and beyond it, I might add. His work on the safe schools task force was, I think, groundbreaking and extremely well received as a work that is an important guidepost in that particular issue of safety.

I think the proposals that are included in this bill are very important. A few moments ago the member for Vancouver-Burrard, supported by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, talked about their vision of the city of Vancouver. They talked about how, in an earlier time, we could walk freely in that city without fear. It is sad that we have to talk about these issues in 2004, but I think that if we don't speak out in this House against the growing problem of public safety — the fact that people do not feel safe in their communities — then we have to ask: who will speak out?

I want to add that we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that this is a problem which only affects Vancouver or Surrey or Burnaby. It affects Nanaimo; I'm sure it affects Prince George. I don't think there is a larger community in this province that could say in all honesty that in the last 20 years, they have not seen an erosion of the ability to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and streets. Frankly, feeling unsafe on our streets is not an option that any of us should tolerate.

I do have one specific in this bill that I want to comment on, and that is the proposed amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. I know that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has probably experienced solicitation in his car at a stop sign or traffic light more than I have, but I am concerned that we, in this particular provision of the bill, would be closing the door to legitimate and actually quite helpful activities. You, like me, may have travelled in other countries where you can actually buy a newspaper from a street vendor at a traffic light. That happens in Mexico; it happens in Europe. So I have some reservations about the proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, and I will be wanting to follow that up with the member as this debate proceeds.

For now, I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for the effort he has put into this bill, and I'm pleased to support its general principles.

J. Bray: I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill M202, Safe Streets Act. I, too, would like to congratulate the member for Vancouver-Burrard for bringing this forward and for engaging this Legislature and, in fact, the province in the debate around safe streets. I know I'm going to also get an opportunity, hopefully, to speak to the second bill that the member has brought forward, so I'm going to try and do the first half of what I want to say now and the second half with that bill.

Having most of downtown Victoria in my riding, I share many of the same concerns that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has expressed. I hear from the hoteliers, the small businesses and the businesses that try to operate in downtown about the issues of homelessness and aggressive panhandling and solicitation. I also hear from seniors who live in the adjacent neighbourhoods, who have continually expressed to me their sense of not feeling safe, and therefore they actually avoid downtown, especially once 6 o'clock rolls around.

There is a particular definition in the act that I want to highlight, and it is the definition of "aggressive manner." It means — and I quote from the bill: "…a manner that is likely to cause a reasonable person to be concerned for his or her safety or security." Now, one of the issues that I talk about a lot in this House is the social contract. I am a strong advocate, and I believe all members of this House on all sides are strong advocates, of the social contract. But the social contract is an agreement between two sides; it is not a one-sided agreement.

We spend a lot of time, and rightly so, focusing on societal solutions to the root causes of poverty — the issues around dealing with affordable housing, income supports, health care, outreach, mental health services, addiction services and all of those types of services to support those who are most vulnerable in our society. I along with the member for Vancouver-Burrard will continue to be a passionate supporter of those services and the need to continually explore and expand those options, but at some point we also have to have the debate in our society about the other side of the social contract.

What is the responsibility of individuals who may find themselves on the street or at risk of being on the street, and what is their role within our society? What expectations should the general society place on them? I believe that we need to have an open and honest debate about what the expectations are for individuals when it comes to aggressive panhandling — not just sitting on the street but aggressive panhandling. Why is it that a senior in my community shouldn't have

every right to feel safe, every right to walk down Douglas Street at 8 o'clock at night? Why should that senior not be allowed to walk the street because they don't feel safe? It's not that they're not safe. We're not talking about whether they are or aren't safe. It is their sense of personal safety that we need to have an open and honest discussion about so that every member of our community can participate.

Those who are most vulnerable deserve our society's support, deserve government's intervention for services that will help and assist. But the same community that is supporting those programs also has the right to feel safe in our community. Parents should feel safe letting their children play in a playground. I don't let my daughter go barefoot in a playground with sand for fear of what she might step on — not because there is something there, but because I know it is in a neighbourhood where there are some IV drug users. That's not right in our society. Where is the responsibility for people who may be IV drug users to show some responsibility in the community as well? That's what the member for Vancouver-Burrard is bringing forward for us to debate: what is the role and responsibility of every member of our community?

The Safe Streets Act is not, as some would suggest, poor-bashing. In fact, it's quite the opposite. We have expectations of each of us in a society. Those shouldn't stop because somebody is perhaps less fortunate. Their responsibility doesn't automatically end. We must work together, including people who find themselves on the streets, to make our community healthy and strong. I think there is also the need to debate whether or not people must access services that are provided as opposed to can choose to.

The other issue is a recognition that, at least in Victoria, we have a summer homeless population and a winter homeless population. The summer population is often younger people travelling the country. What is their responsibility that they hold to the community?

I am pleased the member has brought this forward for us to have what I hope is an honest debate about the rights of all members of our community to be safe and to feel safe. I look forward to being able to continue my comments if we have the opportunity to discuss the member's other bill.

G. Halsey-Brandt: It is a pleasure this morning to rise in support of this legislation, the Safe Streets Act. I'm going to relate a couple of personal comments this morning, as well, that derive out of this legislation. The reason I'm supporting it is because I think it helps to bring some balance back into our community.

The legislation we have in front of us is very, very specific. It talks about aggressive panhandling around automatic teller machines, public telephones, public washrooms or change rooms, waiting for a taxi, getting in and out of a car, waiting for or on public transit and having a vehicle stopped at a traffic light — certainly dealing with what we popularly call the squeegee kids now. It is very targeted for those particular types of activities. The previous member said that if people want to panhandle quietly on the side of the sidewalk, that's one thing, but this is certainly directed at aggressive panhandling.

I have two daughters that live in the West End just off Davie Street in Vancouver. I had a chance to talk to them over the weekend about this legislation. They have a constant barrage when they work downtown — one works right by Robson Square, and they walk back and forth to work — in terms of the aggressive panhandling that goes on with them and what they call harassment. They were very, very supportive when we talked about this. They heard it on the radio at the end of last week — this legislation. They're in their low and mid-20s and were very positive that the government was moving to do something to protect their rights. In terms of what we popularly call the squeegee kids and their cars, they said to me that if someone else comes running up to their car at night, particularly when they work night shifts, they really do feel very threatened about that sort of activity, and it just would not be permitted.

The comment was made earlier about tourists as well. I know that in Vancouver, once you go from Canada Place south or certainly east, in terms of the harassment that goes on with very aggressive panhandling in the streets…. It's certainly an embarrassment for me when I meet tourists who come and remark on that, on the amount of panhandling we've got. They think we've got this great social issue in British Columbia.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill talked about Douglas Street and we seniors who get out late at night for a walk after the House adjourns at 9 o'clock. It really is a sight to behold up there. Again, lots of them are quiet and just doing their thing, perhaps with their dog or whatever, and sitting by the side of the curb, but certainly lots are not.

I was on a trip last year to Washington D.C., and it is really out of control. From the time you leave your hotel, if you are going two or three blocks, the panhandlers go with you the whole route and badger you the whole way. It has been getting worse and worse here in British Columbia, and I hope that with this legislation we can bring some balance back in.

We certainly have employment programs, we have welfare programs, and we've got two provincial employment programs. The federal government has theirs as well. We have had meters in Vancouver. People can put money in if they wish, and that money goes to the food bank and for food outlets. There are lots of signs around the streets of Vancouver. If people need some meals, if they need social assistance, there are places for them to go.

As I said earlier and as other speakers have said, this is really about balance and bringing some balance back into our society. I certainly would be supporting the legislation.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak against this bill, the Safe Streets Act. I want to be very clear from this side of the House that the NDP, the opposition, is not opposed to having safe streets. However, we are opposed to this legislation because this piece of legislation does not address the issue that needs to be addressed, and that is the issue of poverty — addressing the issue of homelessness, addressing the issue of the people who are in great need of assistance to get out of the cycle of poverty in which they live.

The government, of course, talked about how they have provided funding to a variety of programs that are essential in assisting people in the community that need support. For example, the government talks about social housing. Well, let me just be clear on the record here for the members who don't know what the Liberal government has done on the issue around social housing. The government has stopped providing for social housing programs in terms of new development. There is no new housing that is being developed for people who are homeless, for people who are at risk, for families, for seniors. No, I shouldn't say that — "for seniors" — because the government has robbed housing money and put it into assisted living and the like. This is what the government has done. There are no social housing programs that target the community groups — many of whom, I think, are in this category that is being targeted by this bill.

The government has cut income assistance programs, a variety of programs to support poor people who are in greatest need, and this government has been most punitive against those individuals. The government has closed women's centres — women's centres to support women who are trying to get out of abusive relationships. The government has cut legal aid for people who need legal assistance in this regard. The government has cut funding for the Picasso Cafe that supports, for example, youth at risk — a successful program that was started back in the eighties, which has been funded through different administrations. This government has cut the funding for that program, which helps youth who are at risk to find themselves, to have opportunities, to develop their potential, to get employment opportunities or perhaps to return to school. The government has cut that funding for the Picasso Cafe.

The government has cut the Studio, which we raised in question period a little while ago. The Studio is the program that funds youth, particularly in the area of artistic development. It has, again, been proven to be successful and was funded by several administrations. The government has cut funding for that program for youth at risk, which this bill is trying to target.

The government has cut community policing. You want to talk about safe streets? Perhaps one of the things that has proven once again to be effective in our communities is community policing offices, which make each and every one of our neighbourhoods safe, utilize volunteers in the volunteer base to the maximum, and engage the community to deal with the issues that are in their own community. And what does this government do? They've cut their funding. This is what this government is doing in regards to trying to create safe neighbourhoods.

The member that I heard for Richmond Centre says: "Well, gee, I support this bill." Then he went on to say that panhandling, quietly sitting in the corner, is one thing, but aggressive panhandling is something that he opposes. Maybe the member for Richmond Centre has fallen again into the same error that all members from the government bench did on Bill 37 in terms of the hospital employees. They have not read the legislation. If you read the legislation, it says clearly that solicitation — a person who commits an offence, who solicits…. It lists a range of areas of people who might be soliciting in areas like the automatic tellers, pay telephones, public transit stops, etc. Anybody who commits an offence under this act…. It is not about aggressive panhandling at all. Maybe the member for Richmond Centre will just step back, take a moment and actually read the bill for a change. Maybe then he will know what he is talking about. Maybe he will actually rise up and say: "I'm opposed to this bill."

Then you have the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who got up and said: "This is about the social contract, our responsibilities, the responsibility of every member in our community." Well, how about the government start with the responsibility of the government — that is, taking some ownership and accountability for their actions? Does the member think that if the government cuts a variety of programs — unprecedented cuts in the history of British Columbia — somehow members of the community wouldn't be impacted, that somehow everything would just be fine, that the government has no role to play in addressing the issue of poverty? It is shocking when I hear the member say these things. It is shocking when I see this bill before me.

I would like to hear the Solicitor General or the Attorney General tell me how the enforcement of this bill would be undertaken. How much policing resources will be required to stand at every corner, to get after people who are trying to beg for money for food?

I will tell you that a few years ago I engaged in the program From Dusk to Dawn — some other members of this House and, in fact, the Minister for Children and Families did as well — where we stayed up all night to go through the experiences of the life of a street person. We panhandled, and many of us were not very successful in soliciting very much money at all throughout the course of the night. It was cold; it was wet. It was an awful experience.

I'll tell you, people on the streets, by and large, do not want to be on the streets. I had the great opportunity to speak to street youths during that experience, and they told me what their home life was like. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was not a choice for them to be on the streets, because on the streets, in spite of how awful the experience was, it was better for them than

what was at so-called home. They were there not to rake in the big bucks. They were there for simple reasons of survival, just trying to survive every day.

They told me what the life was that they were faced with at home versus what the life was on the street — and of the dangers of the street, the hunger and the cold. You know what, Mr. Speaker? At the end of the night I got to go home to take a hot shower, jump in my warm bed, turn up the heat and curl up and go to sleep for a good 12 hours. Even then, I got sick through the process, and that was by spending one night on the street.

For us to think for a moment that people are there and that we need a piece of legislation to go after people, when in my view this piece of legislation is unenforceable, is ineffective. It does not address the issue of safe streets at all. It does not do that. If the member for Vancouver-Burrard is genuine in wanting to address the issue of safer streets for our communities, he might set his mind to talking to the government and the cabinet so that they wouldn't cut the array of programs that this government has cut.

The government would actually fund the Picasso Cafe, for example. It would actually fund the Studio, for example, for children and youth at risk. The government would actually fund the hot lunch programs and the Community LINK program for the Vancouver students in the Vancouver community. Just for a moment to somehow think, to bring in a bill that says a person commits an offence who solicits….

What about those people…? This would be of interest, I'm sure, to the member for Vancouver-Burrard. What about somebody driving a BMW or a Mercedes down Robson Street who all of a sudden realizes he doesn't have change for the meter? He goes and asks the person standing on the street and says: "Hey, do you have change so that I can pay for my meter?" That person has just committed an offence under this act.

I would really love to hear the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Minister of Human Resources and the Premier, who says he wants to target the most vulnerable people as the top priority…. Is this how this government wants to target the most vulnerable people as the top priority — by throwing them in jail for just standing there begging for money because they're just trying to survive on a day-by-day basis?

I can't wait to see the government vote on this bill. I can't wait for the top cop and the top lawyer, the law enforcer of this province, to stand in this House and tell us how they are going to enforce this bill and how they are going to vote. I can't wait to see the government's vote on this one.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the passion of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. She is actually speaking from real experience about how mean-spirited this legislation is, how completely unworkable and how, again, we'll look ridiculous here in British Columbia when the government passes this legislation. It will be truly a black mark on the Attorney General — on the Solicitor General, as well, I expect — when he stands in this House and allows either himself or his caucus to vote in favour of this legislation. How he will be ridiculed from coast to coast to coast on this matter.

But here we are, private members' time on a Monday morning, and here is what this government is debating — this mean-spirited, unworkable, unnecessary legislation — when here's what they themselves could be debating. Here is what they themselves have put forward as items to debate that got completely shoved aside.

They could be debating this: "Be it resolved that the House supports initiatives to promote the safety of Canadian beef and to the reopening of the world's borders to our beef products." The member sitting opposite me moved that motion. He's got in on the books. We could be debating that. That affects tens of thousands of British Columbians in a real way.

The member for Alberni-Qualicum moved this: "Be it resolved that the House recognizes the need to work with aboriginal communities to improve the high school completion rate for aboriginal students and to promote the pursuit of post-secondary education amongst aboriginal youth." We could be debating that, Mr. Speaker, and maybe have a real impact on poverty in this province. Oh no. We're debating mean-spirited, unworkable, extreme legislation.

Here's one. We could be debating: "Be it resolved that this House encourage the government of British Columbia to approach its dealings with first nations, particularly regarding the sale of B.C. Rail to CN, with an emphasis on honesty, clarity and respect." Oh, but we wouldn't want to debate that. This government would have to admit that they're cutting secret deals, eliminating $24 million of tax payments by CN. Gee, how many safe streets programs would that pay for — the $24 million CN doesn't have to pay in taxes that everybody else has to pay? How many community policing offices could run with that $24 million? How many Studio programs? How many Picasso Cafes could run on that? How many women's programs could run, getting women off the streets?

Let me tell you what I did this weekend. I had a little bit of practical experience on this matter today, this very bill. I was in the member for Vancouver-Burrard's riding for two hours on Saturday, walking the streets. I started at Pacific and Davie. Urban Fare is a large grocery store and restaurant complex. I started there, walked all the way down Davie to Denman and then along Denman for two hours — from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. — on Saturday. Not one single person, small business people I talked to along the way….

For those who don't live in that area, Mr. Speaker, it's all commercial along there. Not one single small business person said: "Get these panhandlers out of the way. I'm worried about aggressive panhandling." Oh, they talked to me about health care and taxes and the RAV line and how this provincial government blew the RAV line with their ideological positioning. Oh yeah, they talked about that, but they didn't once raise this matter of getting these aggressive panhandlers in jail,

as the member for Vancouver-Burrard wants. They talked about seniors no longer feeling safe with the rents they may have to pay or getting the health care they need. Oh yeah, that was all discussed.

I did run into some homeless people, and I sat and talked with them. They were out collecting pop cans, beer bottles, cleaning up the streets and recycling and getting the money for those. Oh yeah, they were doing that. It's hard work. They weren't interfering with one single person or business. They were cleaning up the streets, and they were taking those pop cans and beer bottles and getting money for them. They were homeless, and some of them were mentally ill. Those are the people this government wants to attack with this legislation.

I can hardly wait to see what the Minister of State for Mental Health does on this bill. Which way is she going to vote on this legislation? Is there any protection for the mentally ill in this legislation? None whatsoever — none. They will be treated exactly the same way as everyone else, when this legislation passes. Oh yeah. This is good, quick, cheap politics that does nothing to better society — absolutely nothing.

I'm wondering why the member for Vancouver-Burrard doesn't debate this matter that's on the order paper, which he could have called. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has a resolution saying: "Be it resolved that this House recognize the importance of AIDS and HIV prevention programs in the at-risk communities in British Columbia." He could have easily used his time to debate that matter, but that would have been positive. That would have actually been asking his government to restore some of the funding to HIV/AIDS programs that the community now has to cover themselves. Oh no, that would have been too positive. That would have been actually getting his government to do something to promote better health and safer health — a trend his government has reversed for the HIV/AIDS community.

I can hardly wait for the Minister of Human Resources to vote on this motion — attacking the poor, attacking the mentally ill, attacking street kids who have nowhere else to go.

Oh, we want safe streets — my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, as the opposition. We want safe streets. We know how you have to invest in people to have safe streets, not attack them. You invest in small businesses. You invest in community policing. You invest in after-school programs for kids so that they're safe and the streets are safe. You invest in better transit so that seniors have a way to move around this city in a safe manner.

No, that would be too much to ask of this government. They would rather attack the poor and the most vulnerable to make some cheap political points. They would rather attack the symptoms of their devastating ripping asunder of the social safety net than provide a cure. It's on that basis that perhaps this House will divide in its most significant ideological way ever on this matter.

L. Mayencourt: This bill before the House is supported by 42 different members of a coalition called the Safe Streets Coalition. It includes many businesses, as were noted by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, including the Strathcona business improvement association, the Mount Pleasant business improvement association and the Gastown business improvement association.

It isn't just business improvement people. It's also other people like the West End Citizens' Action Network, which works to create a safer city, and the West End Seniors Network, a group that tries to make life livable for seniors in my community.

I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Deputy Speaker: Division has been called. Pursuant to standing orders, division will be postponed until 8:30 this evening.

L. Mayencourt: Business owners and building managers are increasingly faced with the issues of squatters in their entranceways, alcoves and parkades. This creates an unsafe and sometimes unsanitary situation for residents, customers and the general public.

British Columbia's current Trespass Act deals with the offence as a rural issue and does not meet modern urban needs. According to an Ipsos-Reid poll, 51 percent of all Vancouverites think that city council has been too soft on squatters. Vancouver today is entertaining a tent city proposal, and some anti-poverty groups have already indicated that regardless of the outcome of that meeting, there will be a tent city in Vancouver this summer.

The issue of squatters last year in Vancouver's parks and green spaces was difficult to resolve because it required court injunctions. The police did not have the tools they needed to look after public space and public interest.

When the tent city near Science World was taken down, more than 350 used needles were found. There were also concerns around fire hazards, threats and violence to local residents. In fact, we even witnessed one television reporter being attacked by squatters from that particular incident.

Protecting one's freedom and enjoyment of their residence or place of business from unwanted activity or entrance is a reasonable expectation of our society. The building owners or property managers have legal authority to act in the interest of their property and their space. This is currently not articulated in British Columbia's trespass legislation.

The standard of public conduct needs to be restored. There are consequences to actions, and when we live in a society, we share space. There needs to be room for compassion and respect. Therefore, I am very proud to have introduced this bill and look forward to continued debate on it.

Deputy Speaker: Members, it was assumed that unanimous consent was given to go forward with Bill M203.

M. Hunter: I want to speak very briefly to Bill M203, Trespass to Property Act. I want to speak in support of the bill. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has again brought forward to this House an issue which he described in urban terms. I don't doubt that what he described is accurate, but trespass to property is a problem in rural areas.

The Trespass Act as it stands was originally, I am told, set up to protect farmland in rural areas from trespass. It is not accomplishing that. I have many constituents in my riding who are concerned that their rural properties, woodlots and farm acreages are regularly being trespassed upon without any recourse or any ability to have action taken. This act, in my view, addresses that very fundamental issue in rural British Columbia. It is for that reason that I'm looking to support this bill.

J. Bray: I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Trespass to Property Act and to continue my previous thoughts around the issue of balance in our communities. After hearing the two members of the opposition, I will never feel that I have to apologize for making sure that I represent the voices of everybody who lives in my community. In fact, I am standing here representing those who are on the streets who don't feel safe, as well as the seniors who don't feel safe, as well as day care providers who don't want to take their children out in the neighbourhood because they don't feel it is safe. I will never apologize for standing up for all members of our community to engage in that.

I want creative solutions. But listening to the Leader of the Opposition, who said that what we need is more day care to keep kids off the street to make them safe, we need to have more transit to keep seniors off the street to keep them safe…. The whole point is to make the streets safe. Therefore, I will never apologize for the opportunity to discuss those things in this place. That's what our job is for. It is not an ideological issue to represent your constituents; it's what we're here to do.

This is a big issue. Many community groups in Victoria have come out in support of this, including the chamber of commerce, the building managers and others who have contacted my office. But I have also heard from others, and so I will be having a town hall in my community and inviting members of my community to come to debate this. It is something we should be able to debate and discuss and find solutions for. But it's not about ideologies; it is about people. But the rights of every person in the community must be respected. We must have two-way communication and two-way responsibility in the social contract. That is the fabric by which our community operates. That's the fabric by which future generations will decide to stay in British Columbia, whether it is Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George or Smithers.

I will never apologize for engaging in the debate on behalf of all 35,000 of my constituents. That is what I'm here for, and I'm pleased to be the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill to do that.

K. Stewart: I'm pleased to rise to support Bill M203, Trespass to Property Act. I would like to put a different perspective on this bill. Many people are aware that as citizens we have certain rights — rights to safety, rights to privacy, rights to the enjoyment of our own properties and homes. Unfortunately, in the past this right has not always been available to us as a result of the fact that people do take advantage of the process that's in place, which causes a need to go through a very extensive process in which to have these rights available to the average citizen.

I think there is a belief that we should have the right to privacy in our own homes and that we should have the right to limit accessibility to those that enter our homes. When we look at apartment blocks and other types of facilities where there is an interest of people in being there for a lawful purpose, it doesn't necessarily include all the public — those that don't necessarily have a reason to be there, those that don't have a legitimate right to access those premises. The difficulty is that many of those people that do enter uninvited are doing it for purposes that may have illegal grounds to them — for the purpose of selling drugs; for the purpose of scoping out a facility, whether it be a business or an apartment block; or for the purpose breaking and entering. I think it's incumbent on us to have a process in place that allows the protection of those people who live within those premises, and I believe this Trespass to Property Act does.

Also, just the fact that a person goes through and tells someone that it's private property and that they don't have the right to be there…. Now we have to go through the process of establishing that. I think it's only common sense that if you do not have a legitimate interest in a property or the right to be there, you shouldn't be there if the owners don't want you there. I think that's just a basic premise of our right to our own properties and the enjoyment of those.

It's for those reasons, and to try to allow a process that would make it easier for property owners to protect their interests in their properties, that I support this act.

Recently I met with the agriculture community in our city. Surrey is a large urban city, but it's also got a very large agricultural community. They were expressing their concerns that the current trespass regulations simply don't work for them. I will be canvassing this new act with them to see if this better addresses their concerns, and I'm hopeful that it does.

One of the reasons I do support this bill is that in Surrey–Green Timbers, there is a very large park. It's almost 1,000 acres, three-quarters of which are owned by the city and one-quarter owned by the province. That park borders on urban residential neighbourhoods. In that park there are often squatters. That is a significant concern to me. We saw a very dry summer last year, and those people are squatting and building fires. There is very little control on that behaviour. I will be canvassing further with the member for Vancouver-Burrard whether this bill will help address those issues in a more forthright manner.

With that, I commend the member for Vancouver-Burrard for bringing this piece of legislation forward, and I look forward to further debate.

Let me just put on the record here what the act says, or at least some parts of the act. Section 2 talks about:

You know what, Mr. Speaker? This is the first piece of law in Canadian history that I can recollect where an offence is committed and where the onus of proof to show that you're innocent depends on the accused — not on the Crown to prove the accused has violated a law but rather on the accused, who has to prove that he did not violate a law. It is the first time in Canadian history that I can recollect where the shift of the onus of proof is actually to the accused. This is what this government wants to bring forward.

It is shocking. If I were the Attorney General, I would have something to say about that in terms of the ramification for all other laws that exist in Canada, where the accused would now have to prove that he or she is innocent. I start to wonder, on the basis of this bill and the premise behind it, what the ideology is behind this government and what exactly it is that they're trying to achieve.

Then, when you look at the bill…. Get this. I challenge anybody in this chamber to understand what this says. In section 4:

Albeit I am an ESL person, I would say my English is fairly proficient. I challenge anybody who speaks the English language to try and understand what I just read on record. What the heck does it mean? I challenge the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to explain to this House how exactly they're going to interpret this law and how exactly the police are going to go about enforcing this law.

The government goes on to propose, through the member for Vancouver-Burrard, this clause:"

Now, aside from the fact that I'm an ESL person, I admit I've only had eight years of reading legislation — only eight, perhaps not sufficient to understand the gobbledegook that is before this House. But do you know what? I suspect members on the government side are going to get up and vote for it anyway — sort of like the member for Richmond Centre. On the last piece of legislation that was put forward for second reading, the member for Richmond Centre says, "Oh no, it is not against all panhandlers, only aggressive panhandlers" — with the exception that there is a clause that says anybody who solicits is committing an offence under the act.

In this instance in reading this bill, even if you read the bill you wouldn't be able to understand what it means, given the language that is used to draft this piece of legislation.

You know what? The member for Vancouver-Burrard raises the issue around the tent city in Vancouver as an issue for which this bill is needed. Guess what. Tent city is taking place on public lands, not private lands. It has nothing to do with private properties. As a matter of fact, the city of Vancouver is trying to deal with that issue.

In fact, in the course of the history of Vancouver they have tried to deal with the issues like panhandlers and on the tent city issues on several occasions. Back in 1974 the city of Vancouver first banned panhandling. In fact, that provision was challenged in court, and it was struck down — deemed to be unconstitutional.

Then in 1998, issues about panhandling were raised again, and the city of Vancouver passed another bylaw to that effect. Guess what. It was deemed by the court to have infringed on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the law had to be repealed. I wonder what will happen to these two pieces of…. I can't

even call them laws if they were to be passed. I don't even know what they are. I don't know if there is a word in the English language that I could use to describe this piece of mean-spirited legislation.

What the government claims it wants to do can be done in ways that do not attack the people who are in greatest need and who are most vulnerable. What the government could try to do in this regard, in addressing people who are homeless, is start building affordable housing for all British Columbians, start funding mental health programs, start funding programs for youth at risk, and start funding schools so that children could actually be provided with support and enhance their possibility, probability and potential for success. It is for the government to fund and invest in those programs instead of, after the fact, coming up with some pieces of law that are, I suspect, against the Charter of Rights, against our civil liberties, and that set a precedent in Canadian history that now says the onus is for the accused to prove they are innocent.

Instead of heading down that road, do something more constructive — something that will actually help enhance people's quality of life, that would actually help our communities to be safer, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill like to claim they want to do. Well, then start advocating for programs that actually have a proven record to be effective instead of coming forward with strange suggestions, to say the least — strange bizarre suggestions that nobody could understand exactly how to interpret, how to enforce. Instead of coming up with those kinds of suggestions, do something positive for a change.

Next thing we know, the member for Vancouver-Burrard is going to come up with a suggestion from many years ago. A writer named Jonathan Swift — as a satire, actually — put forward the suggestion to deal with the poor by simply just eating them. Maybe that's how we could get rid of them. Maybe we will see a piece of legislation like that. Maybe we will see an amendment like that from this strange member for Vancouver-Burrard who has come up with these weird and bizarre, mean-spirited and punitive, ineffective and unenforceable kinds of legislation.

L. Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asks us how we could be doing better with homelessness and how we could be doing better with job programs and stuff, and she speaks about this being mean-spirited. I can't think of anything more mean-spirited than what her government did to the province over the past decade. Imagine how many child care centres we could do with a billion dollars that was wasted on fast ferries and Skeena Cellulose. Imagine how many homeless shelters we could provide.

L. Mayencourt: Imagine how many people we could be helping, how many mental health programs we could be offering if that member and her cohort had not blown a wad on fast ferries and Skeena Cellulose and God knows what other kinds of things they had going on. They left us at a point where we couldn't do anything except spend $168 million this year, which is more than their government ever spent on social housing.

I am proud of these bills. I am proud to stand in this House. I am proud to represent the thousands of people in British Columbia that have sent me letters in the last week because this is a piece of legislation that needs to pass.

Deputy Speaker: Members, division has been called. Division will be postponed until 8:30 this evening.

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