2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Referendum on treaty negotiations

B. Bennett

Anxiety disorder awareness

E. Brenzinger

Law reform

B. Suffredine

Oral Questions

Impact of interest rates on B.C. economy

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Powers of municipal governments

J. Kwan

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Hon. G. Campbell

Mining industry in B.C.

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Neufeld

Reduction of government regulations

K. Johnston

Hon. K. Falcon

Medical Services Plan coverage

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued)

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

[ Page 2863 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some important people from

an important town in British Columbia, Fort St. James. The mayor of Fort St.

James, Jim Togyi, is here today, and Councillor Kathy Bessette and her husband,

Norm. Please join me in giving them a great big welcome.

Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce, in the precinct today, Mr. Jim Mann.

Mr. Mann represents an organization called YouthQuest, which provides

educational outreach to groups and individuals, as well as drop-in centres for

gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgendered kids. It is important that these

adolescents have a safe place to go. Thanks for the work you do, Jim. Would the

House please make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Speaker, today I'm sure members of the Legislature recognize

that it is the Mining Association of B.C.'s Mining Day here in the Legislature.

There are literally dozens of people who are involved in the mining industry who

have joined us in Victoria. I hope the House will make them welcome as we build

the mining industry back to the strength it had in the past so that we have a

brighter mining future in British Columbia.

[1405]

Hon. M.

de Jong: I've known Dave and Lee Holmberg for many years and in that time

have been the recipient of much sage advice from Dave, in particular. I remember

him telling me to hang on to my eight-track tape. I remember he told me not to

place too much stock in a young upstart golfer by the name of Woods.

Probably

the most dubious advice he ever gave was to a then Leader of the Opposition when

he suggested that a young lawyer from Matsqui might make an appropriate MLA for

the area. I'm glad for all their support and the fact that Dave and Lee are here

today. I hope all my friends in the House will make them welcome.

Hon. C.

Clark: Today in the gallery I have two very good friends. Jane Shackell and

Joe McStravick are joining us today. I hope the House will make them welcome.

We have

another young man who I met in the hallway for the first time today and

persuaded to join us for question period. Roland and his mom and dad, up in the

left-hand side of the gallery, are joining us today. I hope people will make

them welcome as well.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Last week 12 Canadians participated in a major international sporting

event, an event considered the world's toughest foot race: the seventeenth

Marathon des Sables, a seven-day, 240-kilometre race across the Sahara Desert in

temperatures up to 55 degrees Celsius, going over 200-foot-high sand dunes and

facing sandstorms.

There were

615 participants representing 30 countries. Four British Columbians, including

three from Surrey–White Rock, participated in this: David Secord, Gerry van

der Wint and Ferg Hoch, all members of the Peninsula Runners Club. Ferg Hoch was

the top North American finisher. He finished in eighth place, a remarkable feat

by a remarkable young man. I'd ask you to please join me in providing

congratulations to these valiant and some would say crazy British Columbians.

Hon. L.

Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce someone in this gallery who has been a

friend of mine for more than 25 years. I'd like the House to make very welcome

Alice Mann.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: In the gallery today are members of a group of 75 delegates of the

mining community representing B.C. cities and towns, the industry and mining

suppliers, who are meeting in Victoria today. The day was sponsored by the

Mining Association of B.C. Russ Hallbauer is the chairman and Gary Livingstone

the president and CEO. They're making their rounds and visiting MLAs through the

building to talk about how important mining is to the province of British

Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

Penner: Visiting the precincts this afternoon are approximately 60 grades 7

to 9 students from Mount Slesse Middle School in Chilliwack. They're accompanied

by their teacher, Ms. Anderson, and, I believe, five adult chaperons. Would the

House please make all of these people welcome.

Wilson: Today I see in the gallery a very familiar face, none other than the

mayor of the city of Quesnel. I ask that the House make Steve Wallace welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

DEREGULATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

Hon. K.

Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. K.

Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Deregulation Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 2),

[ Page 2864 ]

2002. Bill 35 amends several statutes to remove 250 unnecessary regulatory

requirements and cut red tape for the public and private sectors and for

individuals dealing with government.

[1410]

This is our

second deregulation bill this session and another important step towards meeting

our new-era commitment to reduce unnecessary red tape by one-third within three

years.

For the

edification of members of the House, we define red tape as nonessential

procedures, forms, licences and regulations that add to the cost of dealing with

government and anything that is obsolete, redundant, confusing or that

diminishes the province's economic competitiveness and stands in the way of job

creation or wastes taxpayers' time and money.

Bill 35

cuts red tape for individuals, businesses, colleges and universities by amending

the Barbers Act, the Cosmetologists Act, the College and Institute Act, the

Institute of Technology Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Society Act,

the Motor Vehicle Act and the Home Owner Grant Act.

Bill 35

also cuts red tape in the forest, mining and oil and gas sectors with amendments

to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the

Mineral Tenure Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the

Mines Act and the Waste Management Act.

Bill 35

also repeals obsolete or unproclaimed provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act, the

British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act and the hospital foundation

provisions in the Hospital Act.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Bennett: I have five simple points that I want to make today in support of

the referendum on treaty-making. Before I make my five points in the short time

I have, I want to say that I consider this a very serious and important topic.

It's a topic that I've been speaking on a lot in my riding. It's a topic that

will shape the lives of everyone alive here in B.C. today and everyone yet to be

born who will live in B.C. after we are gone.

My five

points:

1. The

referendum is not about whether the province should negotiate treaties. This

government sincerely wants to negotiate treaties, but the process is stuck and

must be reinvigorated. Getting the general public engaged in thinking about

treaty-making will start that rejuvenation.

2. The cost

of the referendum is reasonable. The treaty process has already cost $500

million with not one treaty signed yet. The cost of not reinvigorating the

process is far greater than the $10 million cost of the referendum.

3. The

referendum is not the majority telling the minority what to do. There are three

independent parties to treaty negotiations: British Columbia, Canada and the

aboriginal people. B.C. cannot tell the aboriginal negotiators what positions

they should take on behalf of the people they represent. Similarly, B.C. has

every right to develop its own negotiating mandate in consultation with all the

people of the province — aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

4. The

Supreme Court of British Columbia recently ruled that the referendum does not

threaten constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. The referendum is not

illegal. It is not racist. It is not disrespectful. It is a transparent attempt

of the provincial government to find out what those to whom we are responsible

and accountable think about the province's bargaining position.

5. The

referendum provides all British Columbians with their first-ever opportunity to

respectfully engage in a conversation about the treaty process. The referendum

has already begun to stimulate a lively discussion that will help energize

treaty-making in B.C.

I say to

the people in my riding of East Kootenay and to other British Columbians: don't

believe the naysayers who claim the referendum will harm the treaty process or

will lead to deadlock. With $500 million spent and not a treaty signed, we

already have deadlock. Don't believe those elitists who claim the people of the

province do not have the right or perhaps the intelligence to state their

respectful views. I say: move the treaty process forward.

ANXIETY DISORDER AWARENESS

Brenzinger: Did you know that some type of anxiety disorder will affect

approximately 400,000 British Columbians over the age of 18? A hundred thousand

British Columbians will be faced with a chronic or seriously disabling condition

as a result of an anxiety disorder. It is estimated that over 54,000 children in

B.C. between the ages of five and 19 will also be affected.

[1415]

Anxiety

disorders are a group of conditions that are characterized by a sense of

foreboding and impending doom. Although anxiety is a normal emotion — humans

could not survive without it — a problem may exist when the emotion becomes

excessive or is activated by inappropriate triggers like a crowded place or

leaving the house.

There are

different types of anxiety disorders: panic disorders, obsessive-compulsive

disorders, phobias, generalized anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress

disorders. A panic attack is a sudden rush of intense fear that is accompanied

by things like heart palpitations, dizziness, sweating and nausea. People often

fear

[ Page 2865 ]

that they are about to have a heart attack, go crazy, lose control or do

something embarrassing as a result of the panic attack.

The most

important point I would like to make today is that anxiety disorders can be

effectively diagnosed and treated. I know from experience in my family that

anxiety disorders can be overcome. I encourage people to seek treatment and to

talk openly about the issues of mental illness.

understand that the Minister of State for Mental Health has arranged funding for

the anxiety disorders strategy, a report that has been completed and presented

to the minister by the Anxiety Disorders Association of British Columbia. I

encourage the minister to continue towards finding ways to improve services for

people with anxiety disorders.

Anyone who

wants more information should check out the webpage for the Anxiety Disorders

Association of British Columbia at anxietybc.com.

LAW REFORM

Suffredine: Today I'd like to speak briefly about the importance of law

reform and the good work being done by our B.C. Law Institute. Since the 1980s

this group of volunteer professionals has provided us with a wealth of

information on a variety of topics where we need statute reform. They've

provided advice on changes to commercial tenancy, municipal law, condominium

corporations, personal property security, debtor-creditor legislation, trusts

and estates, contract law, co-ownership of land, floating charges on land,

vicarious liability of the Motor Vehicle Act, reciprocal enforcement of

judgments and much more.

I have here

a stack of reports that contains a wealth of information and knowledge. Some of

their advice was acted on, but, sadly, most of their recommendations were not

used and stayed on the shelf. The need for reform of much of our statute law

remains. Some of the wording is archaic. Sometimes procedure is outdated or

impractical. One example is the recommendation for legislation to assist

creditors in forcing judgments against securities like shares. Currently, the

Columbia became a province. The procedure is to obtain a charging order,

something most judges or lawyers are completely unfamiliar with. There are many

more examples.

I know that

our Attorney General is supportive. He showed that support when he attended a

meeting of the Law Institute on March 14 in Vancouver. I know that he looks

forward to working closely with the B.C. Law Institute in the future. I

encourage all the members of this House to review the work done to date by what

was the Law Reform Commission, now the B.C. Law Institute, and to encourage

recommendations to enact their recommendations. I also encourage members to

express their support for law reform to the B.C. Law Institute members so they

may know their work is valued.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES

ON B.C. ECONOMY

MacPhail: The B.C. economy has taken some very hard hits in the past few

months. Our unemployment rate is now at 9 percent, one of the highest in the

country. Today, in spite of all that, the Bank of Canada is raising interest

rates, further threatening B.C.'s very fragile economic situation.

We know

that in the past, B.C.'s economy has been hurt by central Canada's indifference

to our economic situation. My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he

support the premise that the Bank of Canada's decision to raise interest rates

comes at a very bad time for British Columbia? And can he tell the House what

action we can take to persuade the bank to change its course?

Hon. G.

Collins: It's no news to anyone that the Bank of Canada rate is at 40-year

lows presently. It's gone up a quarter-point. I want to advise the member

opposite that I met this morning with Sheryl Kennedy, the deputy governor of the

Bank of Canada, and gave her my impression of British Columbia's economy, both

our strengths and our weaknesses.

[1420]

It's not up

to me to tell the Bank of Canada how to adjust interest rates across the

country, but I think it's certainly important that we convey our messages and

the on-the-ground information that we receive as members of the Legislature and

as ministers of the Crown here in British Columbia. I've done just that.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be more encouraged if the minister had

actually told me exactly what he did say and which way interest rates should go.

In fact, it is up to the provinces to advise the Bank of Canada on how their

policies affect the provincial economy.

Indeed,

there have been some positive economic signs, but those positive economic signs

have been driven by low interest rates. It's also true that many of the economic

indicators are telling a very bleak story. Thousands of forest workers are out

of work. Consumer bankruptcies are on the rise, and B.C. Stats says that private

sector investment in B.C. is expected to fall this year.

The Bank of

Canada does not seem to understand that our economy, particularly in the

interior, is at risk. Will the Minister of Finance please stand up and either

tell us exactly what he did tell the deputy governor, or will he stand up now

and take a stand on behalf of every unemployed British Columbian and tell the

Bank of Canada to reverse its policy of raising interest rates?

Hon. G.

Collins: I haven't been in this job nearly as long as the member opposite

was in it, but I don't recall

[ Page 2866 ]

her ever standing up in this House and telling the Bank of Canada exactly

what to do.

However,

Mr. Speaker, I want to reaffirm…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …that I gave the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada very

strong indications of what we think benefits British Columbia, what our position

is in the global economy and the unique position British Columbia has, as a

result of softwood lumber and other issues.

I also want

to state that the revival in the economy is affected, partially, by low interest

rates — those are definitely beneficial to British Columbians, and I conveyed

that as well — but also as a result of low taxes and the fact that people have

more money left in their pocket, something I know the previous government did

very little to correct.

I also want

to refer to the fact that the member, while raising the unemployment rate,

failed to mention that of the 88,000 jobs that were created last month in

Canada, 11,000 were created right here in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, in the past B.C. Finance ministers have taken a very

strong, proactive stance against Bank of Canada's actions when they hurt B.C.'s

economy. All Finance ministers in the past have done that but for this one. The

fact is…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …that the low-tax pursuit for the richest in this province has

brought hardship to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. Instead of

benefit, we've seen the most mean-spirited, hard-hearted policies introduced by

this government. We're debating them today here in this Legislature. The

interest rate rise will only make those policies even more mean-spirited, as

forest workers have to rely on welfare.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order. Order.

Would the

member now please put her question.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This interest rate rise is going to deal a

further blow to our softwood lumber industry. Why doesn't the Minister of

Finance stand up for British Columbia, tell the Bank of Canada that their

made-in-Ontario interest rate policy is harming British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Collins: I've been very clear with the Bank of Canada's representative,

telling them…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: …what the position of British Columbia is and how their decisions

impact on British Columbia workers. I'll never hesitate to do that. I'm not

going to tell them exactly what they need to do; I'm going to tell them what the

impact is here in British Columbia.

With regard

to taxation, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this province they have a

government that's putting more money back into people's pockets instead of

taking it out. In fact, the people earning $60,000…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. The minister has the floor.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Collins: …or less here in British Columbia pay the lowest rate of personal

income taxes of anywhere in the country. And this year alone, there'll be more

than $1 billion left in the pockets of British Columbians instead of the pockets

of the government.

POWERS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS

J. Kwan:

This Liberal government like to say that they giveth. But you know what? On the

other hand, they taketh. Just ask the Minister of Human Resources about all the

welfare cuts that this government is imposing on British Columbians.

The Premier

says he wants first nations government to be just like municipal government.

Yesterday we saw this means a reduced role in land use planning, a crucial issue

for first nations. The Premier says the only powers he wants first nations to

have are those that are delegated by the province. This would include, I

presume, the authority to tax. Will the Minister of State for Community Charter

tell us what new taxation powers are to be granted to municipalities and, by

extension, to the first nations governments?

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: For the third day in a row, for the third time, details

pertaining to the charter will be revealed in this House in the very near

future. At that time the questions that the member has been bringing to this

side will be answered, I hope, to her satisfaction.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

This minister doesn't know what he's doing. Yet this Liberal government is

telling British Columbians to vote on a question where this Premier has said

self-governance is going to be the municipal style

[ Page 2867 ]

of governance. They don't even know what the authorities are. The authority

to tax is based on the consent of those being taxed, and that means

representation. Municipalities will be getting increased authority to raise

money, because this government will be asking them to pay more for more services

— services that this government is cutting.

To the

Premier. In his vision of first nations government, tell us: just how will the

rights of those who live on first nations treaty lands be represented under a

municipal government?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First of all, I want to be clear that this government, unlike the

previous government, is actually opposed to downloading. The hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars that the previous government downloaded onto

local property tax payers will not take place.

This

government is clear that it believes in aboriginal self-government. We believe

that aboriginal self-government should have a municipal form of delegated

authority from the provincial Legislature in British Columbia, from the federal

Parliament of Canada…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Campbell: …similar to the kind of governance model that we've seen in

Sechelt here in British Columbia or that we see throughout the Yukon Territory.

We indeed believe that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal

alike, deserve the right to vote for governments that are controlling their

lives.

MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Historically,

mining has played a major role in both the communities that I represent and

across this province. I live in Smithers. It was once a bustling community

servicing the mining industry. They looked after those exploration companies

looking for minerals in the north. Under the previous administration, mineral

exploration dropped by 80 percent in the province.

Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what he is doing to reverse this trend and

bring prosperity back to the province of British Columbia and the mining

industry?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia has a huge challenge, first, to work on

getting industry confidence back in British Columbia after spending the last ten

years under an NDP administration that basically booted the mining industry out

of the province. We have to recognize the importance of the industry in creating

jobs, investment and taxation in the province so that all British Columbians —

all, including everyone in this House — can continue to receive the health

care and education that they receive today — our two top priorities.

We're

reducing taxes. The Minister of Finance has done that already…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …to encourage investment.

Red tape.

My ministry is working on that with the Minister of State for Deregulation. He

just introduced some today.

Access to

the land base from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. This is a

new era in British Columbia, and we're looking forward to the mining industry

coming back and being the giant it was once before.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has a supplementary

question.

MacKay: British Columbia is blessed with an abundant supply of minerals that

have yet to be discovered and developed for the people of the province.

An Hon.

Member: Parks.

MacKay: Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us how much in investments

he expects these changes to bring back to B.C.'s mining sector?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of minerals.

We're also blessed with an abundance of parks, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell

you, Mr. Speaker, we're going to make that land that's not parks available to

the mining industry so that they can go and do the important things that they

have to do. In fact, we're hoping that this year, after a decade in decline, we

will actually see a doubling — a 100 percent increase — in exploration in

the province of British Columbia.

REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Johnston: My question is for the Minister of State for Deregulation. Recent

media reports have questioned the need for the government's deregulation

initiative. Some reports have suggested that this process will provide very

little benefit to B.C. taxpayers. Can the Minister of State for Deregulation

tell us what impact reducing the regulatory burden will have on British

Columbians?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as I've travelled across this

province and spoken to small business folks from every single part of this

province, there's a common message. That message is that a decade of NDP

socialism has been devastating in terms of red tape and regulation. That's why

I'm proud of the fact

[ Page 2868 ]

that we're going through a very thoughtful and prudent process of reducing

the regulatory burden on small business while at the same time protecting the

important values of public health, safety and the environment.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplementary question.

Johnston: A great many British Columbians are seeking clarification on how

the government will determine which regulations to eliminate. Can the Minister

of State for Deregulation outline the process?

Hon. K.

Falcon: As I indicated earlier, we're going through a very thoughtful

process. Each ministry has prepared three-year deregulation plans to, in a very

thoughtful way, lay out how they're going to reach the targets within their

ministries, keeping in mind of course the fact that they're going to be

consulting with interested stakeholders. That process is underway, and I can

tell you that at the end of the day we in British Columbia are going to have a

smarter, more effective regulatory climate that's competitive with the rest of

Canada and North America. That's going to be good for British Columbia, good for

the mining and forest industry and the oil and gas sector, and we're going to

get this province moving once again.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN COVERAGE

MacPhail: Last November the Minister of Health Services said that it was

fearmongering to suggest that he was planning to increase MSP premiums —

strike one. In January seniors told the minister that increases to Pharmacare

deductibles would reduce access to important medicines, and again he called that

fearmongering — strike two. This minister is way behind in the count, and now

for the third pitch. We have reason to believe that in the coming weeks the

minister is planning a major push to delist more MSP-covered health services.

Would the minister like to take another swing and a miss?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The question concerns future government policy and

is out of order. The minister may answer if he wishes.

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have an ongoing process of trying to address the needs of British

Columbia patients to make sure that we get the best value for health services

delivered in this province.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1435]

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have an ongoing process of reviewing what is covered in the $10.4

billion Health budget, and we will continue to do that. We will make sure that

we have the most effective — cost-effective and medically effective —

services available for British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

Second Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

J. Kwan:

Just prior to the lunch break I was quoting a paragraph from the Fraser

Institute's Fraser Forum

article from January 2002, which in my view

highlights the Liberal government's approach to addressing income assistance.

The philosophy around it centres around the paragraph which states that the

Fraser Institute believes, at least from this article, that the people who are

on income assistance are people who already have their basic needs met.

Therefore, they're not poor enough to be on income assistance. In fact, people

who need government assistance need to be poorer than they already are. That,

hence, is the problem with the income assistance approach or model.

What we

have today in this Legislature is two pieces of legislation. Although this is

Bill 26, Bill 27 will be debated at a later time — today or tomorrow — for

second reading. The whole approach is to look and see how government could cut

income assistance recipients off. In other words, this government actually

believes that people who are on income assistance, people who live in poverty,

are not poor enough. They need to be poorer; they need to be more desperate.

They need to be, perhaps, living on the streets before they could qualify for

assistance from this government. That is the Fraser Institute's analysis. It is

the Liberal government's analysis in spite of the fact that, before the

election, the now Premier said he would not cut welfare rates. He's broken that

promise. We've seen that since the election. He's broken many promises since the

election. This is yet another one.

[1440]

The

right-wing ideology has now become the underpinning of this piece of legislation

— legislation that is looking to be punitive to the people who are in greatest

need in British Columbia. The analysis, if you will, or the ideology this

government espouses in this piece of legislation is very flawed. The people who

have done research in this area will tell you that people living in poverty,

people who are on income assistance, are suffering great hardships because they

don't have the means to support themselves.

In fact, a

study was done with respect to those who are falling behind. This is a study

done by the group called SPARC-BC. They sent out a press release on the

[ Page 2869 ]

work that they have done with respect to income assistance and those who live

in poverty.

Their new

report was released on December 6, 2001. The Social Planning and Research

Council of B.C., SPARC-BC, shows conclusively that income assistance — that

is, welfare rates in B.C. — is not sufficient to meet recipients' needs. The

report, entitled Falling Behind: A Comparison of Living Costs and Income

Assistance Rates in B.C. , calculates the gap between welfare benefits and

what it really costs to live in this province. It provides detailed costs for

food, clothing, personal care, transportation, shelter and other costs of daily

living. According to the report: "Welfare benefits only cover 45 to 65

percent of the cost of daily living," depending on the family type.

"Reductions to income assistance of any kind — whether in rates, types of

benefits or eligibility — must not be considered by the provincial government,

as the government is already failing to meet its obligations to these

citizens."

According

to Michael Goldberg, who is the research director at SPARC-BC and co-author of Falling

Behind : "The findings in the report show that the poorest of the poor

are getting even poorer. In 1982 a single recipient received $175 a month to

cover food, clothing, transportation, personal care and other non-shelter costs.

In 2001 the benefits for a single person are only $185 to cover those same

costs." Says Goldberg: "Taking inflation into account, a single person

would now require $339 a month to be able to purchase the same goods and

services as in 1982."

Based on

the analysis that SPARC-BC has done, SPARC-BC recommends that the Liberal

government immediately raise income assistance benefits to meet the minimum

costs of living for all recipient groups, as outlined in the report; create a

single overall benefit that allows recipients to make their own spending

decisions by eliminating the separation between the shelter and support

components of income assistance; extend enhanced medical coverage to all

recipients of basic income assistance; establish and empower a public review

committee with responsibility for developing an adequate income assistance rate

structure, with the operations of this committee being transparent and open to

scrutiny; fully index income assistance rates to cost-of-living increases

between each review of the overall adequacy of the rates; recognize that single

parents have the same privacy requirements as couples with children, and shelter

allowances need to take this into account; recognize the fact that the cost of

raising children increases as they grow older and that the rate structure needs

to take this into account; and immediately raise the asset levels in determining

eligibility for singles and couples without children to the previous minimums of

$2,500 for singles and $5,000 for couples without children.

The

government, instead of moving forward on changes in income assistance that would

reflect the current study — this study was released on December 6, 2001 —

and in a direction that would relieve hardships, is going the other way. They

are looking at cutting benefits, they are looking at cutting rates, and they are

looking at making eligibility even more difficult so that people who are the

poorest of the poor would not be able to gain access for government support when

they need it the most.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, I assume that for the purposes of time, you are the

designated speaker.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

[1445]

J. Kwan:

Thank you.

What is the

rationale behind this move of the government? Is it that they believe that the

people currently living on social assistance are not really poor, that how you

define "poor" would be the definition that has been put out by the

Fraser Institute and that that is the preferred definition, focusing on a

basic-needs approach, which leads them to the conclusion that those on welfare

are generally able to cover for the basics and are not poor?

If that's

the case, I challenge any member in this House to live for one month on the rate

of a single person on income assistance. I challenge them to do that and then

come back to this House and say that the poorest of the poor, living on welfare,

have too much money given to them by government and that their life is one that

provides for more than the basic needs. If members in this House take on this

challenge and go live such a life and could come back in this House and still

say and believe in the Fraser Institute's definition of poverty…. If they're

able to do that, then we can engage in a different kind of debate. I suspect

that members of the House would not and could not live on the rate which income

assistance recipients receive, especially with the reduced rates that this

government is now imposing through this piece of legislation.

I grew up

living in poverty, although my family didn't collect income assistance when we

immigrated here. We didn't know there was such a system as income assistance.

For the first while when we first came here, my mother worked as a farm worker

for a family of eight. She made $10 a day to support a family of eight, while my

father went out to gain ESL training so he could try and get employment in his

field. He's now retired, but his training was in the tailoring business. When we

first came here, he couldn't get employment because he didn't speak the

language.

I come from

a traditional family, and in Hong Kong when we were growing up, my mother took

care of the six kids, managed the house and took care of the seven of us,

including my dad. When we first came here, we had no financial support in any

way, shape or form, so my mother went out and did the work that she knew how,

which was essentially the work of a labourer. She went out as a farmworker. She

would pick strawberries in the summertime. She would plant vegetables in the

springtime. She would work 12 hours a day, and she would bring home $10 to

support the family.

[ Page 2870 ]

We were

often on the verge of not getting enough to eat. On the issue of housing, we

lived in a two-bedroom basement suite of 700 square feet, and we would just all

pile on top of each other. That's how we lived; we lived in poverty. I've

experienced it, and I've experienced what it is like to be hungry. I'm glad my

family no longer lives in poverty now. I can tell you that for people who are on

income assistance, with the rates they get from government, it's hardly

sufficient for them to meet their basic needs.

[1450]

Here we

have a government bringing forward legislation that will further slash the rates

and cut off benefits, impacting adults and children alike. I have to ask: what

is the logic behind that? Why is government doing that, and why aren't members

in this House speaking up, saying: "That is not acceptable. That's not why

I ran for office. That is not why I'm here"?

Why

wouldn't the Minister of Human Resources rise up in his own caucus and say:

"You know what, Premier? I am not going to bring this piece of legislation

in. I used to be a social worker. I understand how hard it is for people to be

on income assistance and how hard it is for them to survive. The fact of the

matter is the rates and benefits they get now hardly support their day-to-day

living. As a minister who understands these issues, who has spoken with the

people in the community and who has worked in this field, I will not bring in a

piece of legislation that would devastate the support, the income assistance,

that individuals and families need in British Columbia."

It isn't

just the issue of being compassionate or understanding what it is like to be in

poverty. I know the member for Vancouver-Langara said this earlier. He was

saying someone had made a comment to him suggesting that the issue around

compassion centres around where your heart is. It is good that your heart is in

the right place, being on the left side and in the right place, but if your head

is also in the same place as your heart, then you're in trouble.

This was

the comment the member for Vancouver-Langara made, a suggestion from a friend of

his who tells him that if your head is in the same place as your heart, then

you're in trouble. The member for Vancouver-Langara, to his credit, rose in this

House and said: "Hmm. I don't know about that. I'm not sure that if your

heart and your head are in the same place, it somehow leads to trouble." He

made that comment.

I will go

on to say further that if your head and your heart are not in the same place and

if you just want to use your head for the purposes of analysis of the impacts of

this bill on people on income assistance, then let's look at something

financial. Perhaps only the bottom line matters with this government. Then let's

look at some of the financial aspects of this bill.

Most

recently, there was a study done in Toronto. The report looked at welfare

recipients who could not afford to meet their basic nutritional needs because of

the lack of support they were getting from government by way of assistance. The

report came to this conclusion. It is by Valerie Terasuk, a University of

Toronto nutritional scientist, who cites the results of the study. She advises

that many people can't scrape together — and in Ontario they receive $160 a

month — what it costs for an adult to eat well, as outlined by the province's

own Health minister.

From her

perspective, she states that welfare has become a health problem. She goes on to

say that to try to maintain people on benefit levels below basic needs

ultimately has to jeopardize people's health. When people have to dole out much

of their welfare benefits for shelter, they have to scrimp on healthy food and

therefore their health is jeopardized.

When their

health is jeopardized, what happens? They end up in the hospital. They end up in

the emergency room. They end up costing the health care system more money than

otherwise. There is such a thing known as preventive health, but when people

cannot take the necessary steps to keep healthy and stay healthy because they

haven't got the resources to do it, then it has the ripple effect of impacting

and costing our health care system.

[1455]

It's not

just the health care system that would have an impact. As you can imagine, Mr.

Speaker, when people get desperate and they're unable to feed or clothe their

children, what would they do? Some perhaps may well resort to criminal

activities. As an example, they may well have to break into somebody's car to

steal what they can so that they can put food on the table.

In my own

personal experience with my mom and dad, with six children and $10 a day to

support us, I know what they did. My parents often didn't eat just so the

children could. We didn't get a lot to eat. We got a bowl of rice, but my

parents would sometimes forgo that. We could see them getting unhealthy. The

children could see it. We would get worried about mom and dad not having the

strength.

That's what

happens when people get desperate. They'll forgo food, and then they may become

sick. They may resort to other ways of getting some kind of support. That may

mean criminal activities. When that happens, what does that mean? It's an

increase in costs for our judicial system, for the policing system, for the

community on the whole, for insurance support for the people whose car or house

has been broken into.

That is not

thinking about what is right, what your heart tells you is the right thing to

do, but rather looking at it from a fiscal responsibility point of view. How

does that make sense? It makes no sense that the government is introducing

legislation, when they said they would not cut welfare rates during the

election. It has now brought into the House dramatic cuts to welfare. It doesn't

make any sense.

Those who

are advocating for the government to act differently….It's not just from

myself. I know many of the members in this House are perhaps thinking:

"Well, of course she would say that. She's a bleeding heart." Maybe I

am. It's okay. I don't mind being labelled as such if I care about people's

well-being. I've said this in the House before. Call me whatever you

[ Page 2871 ]

want. I don't really care. I don't. What I care about are the people who are

going to suffer. What I want — and that's why I got into politics — is to

make sure that as best as we can, as a society as rich as we are, we provide

support for those who are in need, to make sure that we break the cycle of

poverty and to make sure that children who grow up in poverty have the

opportunity to break out of that cycle.

I was

granted that opportunity, and I thank my parents for that. I owe everything that

I am today to them. But you know, there are a lot of people who don't

necessarily have that support.

Government

does have a role to play. The government's job is to make sure there is fair and

equal opportunity for all and not just for the privileged. The government's

responsibility is to make sure that those who are in greatest need receive the

support they need and not have government come around, cut those supports and be

punitive, as we'll see in this piece of legislation. That is exactly what this

government is doing.

The

economists in our community have called on this government not to cut. There was

an open letter from B.C.'s economists to the Premier and to the Minister of

Finance. It was dated February 7, 2002. I'll quote a little excerpt from the

letter: "Now is not the time to cut spending…and it is certainly not the

time to cut access to welfare and welfare benefit rates. Such income support is

needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic

stabilizer."

[1500]

Who are the

economists who signed this letter? Charles Blackorby, professor, department of

economics, University of B.C.; Paul Bowles, professor and chair of department of

economics, University of Northern B.C.; John Bratton, associate professor,

school of business, University College of the Cariboo; Maxwell Cameron,

associate professor, department of political science, University of B.C.; Nancy

Clegg, instructor, department of economics, Kwantlen University College; Ronald

Correll, economics instructor and college liaison, Contract Training and

Marketing Society; David Donaldson, professor emeritus of economics, UBC;

Gregory Dow, professor, department of economics, Simon Fraser University; Sigrid

Ewender, instructor, department of economics, Kwantlen University College; David

Fairey, economist and director, Trade Union Research Bureau; David Green,

associate professor of economics, UBC; Marjorie Cohen, economist and professor

of political science and women's studies, SFU; Michael Goldberg, research

director, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.; Robin Hanvelt, assistant

professor and health economist, department of health care and epidemiology, UBC;

David Hay, VP of the B.C.–Yukon Canadian Council on Social Development; Terry

Heaps, associate professor, department of economics, SFU; Stuart Jamieson,

professor emeritus of economics, UBC; Seth Klein, director, B.C. office,

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Marc Lee, research economist, B.C.

office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Phillip Legg, director of

policy development, B.C. Federation of Labour; Fiona MacPhail, assistant

professor, department of economics, University of Northern British Columbia;

Stephen McBride, professor and chair, department of political science, SFU;

Christopher McDonnell, economics instructor, Malaspina University College; Alan

Morris, Capilano College; Graham Riches, professor and director, UBC school of

social work and family studies; Edward Shaffer, professor emeritus, department

of economics, University of Alberta; Linda Welling, associate professor of

economics, University of Victoria.

These are

just some of the people — economists — who have signed a letter written to

the Premier and the Finance minister asking the government not to make these

cuts to welfare and welfare benefit rates and to recognize that such income

support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic

stabilizer.

These

people, I presume, are using an argument that comes from the head, from their

training in the area of economics. They're coming forward to say to this

government that this approach to welfare cuts makes no sense. It hurts the poor,

and it hurts our economy in the long term.

You might

be wondering just what exactly are these cuts. If you listen to the minister's

statements, you wouldn't necessarily know that there are cuts. This is the way

the Liberal government has engaged with all of its major policy changes, with

all of its major policy announcements. They don't tell the public what it is

that they're cutting. They dress it all up in fancy and euphemistic language to

sound as though these policy changes are somehow really good for the people who

bear the brunt of these cuts in the end.

What are

these cuts? Let me just go through them for you. Shelter allowances for families

with two or more will be reduced. Shelter allowances will be eliminated for

adult recipients living with an adult relative. This will increase the risk of

homelessness, of course, for vulnerable individuals whose lives are improved

through sharing accommodation with a relative. There's no regard for that. Their

shelter allowance will be eliminated.

[1505]

Support

allowances for employable welfare recipients between the ages of 55 and 64 will

drop between $47 and $98 a month. This amount is a 20 to 35 percent cut in the

non-shelter portion of social assistance for elderly recipients.

Low-income

seniors, those over 65, will also see cuts in their small incomes, because

subsidized transit passes, of course, were scheduled to be taken away. Their

medical prescription subsidies will also be reduced due to cuts to the

Pharmacare program. Now, the government will say, "We gave back the seniors

bus passes," but all the government has done on the seniors bus pass issue

is off-load that expense to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority,

saying to them: "You tax the people and then pay for that service so we can

turn around and say we didn't cut the seniors passes." That's all the

government has done in this regard.

[ Page 2872 ]

Welfare

benefits for employable single parents will be cut by $70 a month. This is an 18

percent reduction in the support portion of social assistance, which will affect

families. There are approximately 60,000 children in this category who will be

impacted. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the members of this group are

single women with children. I don't hear the Minister of State for Women's

Equality rising up to speak on behalf of single moms with children whose rates

are being reduced by this government by $70 a month.

Of course

we don't see that from this Minister of State for Women's Equality, because

we've heard, in other instances, that what she's said is: "Go and make more

money." That's her answer to people who are faced with cuts by this

government: "Go and make more money." Those were the words of the

Minister of State for Women's Equality who is supposed to, in this government,

be the advocacy voice for women in the province. We can see by her comments

earlier that she's no advocate at all. Perhaps that's why, in this House as we

debate this very important bill that would impact single women and their

children, we see the Minister of State for Women's Equality completely silent

— completely silent.

The family

maintenance exemption will also be eliminated. All child support paid will be

deducted dollar for dollar from income assistance benefits. Until now, if a

single parent on income assistance was receiving child support payments from a

spouse, they were entitled to keep $100 of these payments. With this piece of

legislation, all of that will now be deducted.

I fail to

understand how taking money away from children would help children develop. I

fail to understand how taking money away from single parents would help single

parents break out of the poverty cycle. I fail to understand how that is

affording all British Columbians equal opportunities. I fail to understand how

this minister and this government and this Premier can get up in this House and

say they're protecting the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable. Tell

that to the children from whom this government is picking the pockets of $100 of

their maintenance payment.

[1510]

Earnings

exemptions. Earnings exemptions will be eliminated for employable recipients.

This exemption allowed people on welfare to work and keep $100 if they are

single and $200 if they have children or are in a partnered relationship. The

earnings exemption is meant to be an approach which provides incentive for

income assistance recipients to make a little bit of money, to engage in the

workforce, to gain some experience, to gain some self-esteem and, hopefully, to

assist them to move off income assistance. Now that incentive is gone completely

— completely gone. This government claims that their effort is to assist

income assistance recipients to move from welfare to work, but they have taken

away the incentive that would assist income assistance recipients to do exactly

that.

It isn't

just the left wing who argue for income assistance recipients that their earning

exemptions should be there. Even some members of the right wing argue that.

Recently, at SFU, I spoke with a business person who belonged to the chamber of

commerce, and he said: "I don't understand why the government is doing

that." They will do what they can to try and lobby the government to change

its mind. Obviously, they have not succeeded.

In total,

these measures mean that some single mothers could see a drop of as much as $370

a month. In the income of a single mother with one child, this would represent a

46 percent cut to the support allowance available to her.

mentioned earlier, the Social Planning and Research Council, SPARC-BC, in its

December 2001 report on living costs and income assistance in B.C., concluded

that before the cuts announced by this government, social assistance met only 45

to 65 percent of the minimum monthly costs of single-parent families and single

adults for food, clothing, household supplies, personal care, transportation,

child care, shelter and other basic costs. And that's not it; I've only just

begun to list the cuts that income assistance recipients are facing with the

imposition of this bill.

Single

parents will now be considered what they call employable after the youngest

child reaches the age of three, down from the age of seven. Advocacy

organizations for children and youth report that this change will affect the

care of approximately 15,000 young children. This change comes just after the

government of British Columbia repealed legislation whose goal was universal

access to affordable, safe child care. The government is saying: "Get out

there and work." But you know what? The universal child care program that

the former government had brought in is now gone. There won't be child care

support, but get out there and work anyway.

The

government will introduce welfare time limits. Employable people without

children will only be allowed to receive income assistance for two years during

any five-year period. After two years they'll simply be cut off. If you can't

find a job, too bad. You're on your own. If you have no support, perhaps a

street corner is your option. That's what this government is doing with this

piece of legislation.

Similarly,

employable parents with children older than three years will only receive full

benefits for two out of the five years, after which time they'll see their

support allowance cut by 25 percent. Even if you have children, you're not

exempted from the punitive approach of this government. Their right-wing,

ideological approach thinks people on income assistance have too much money.

This government thinks the more punitive they are, the more they can get income

assistance recipients off welfare.

Of course,

to our knowledge, no government in Canada has ever imposed a flat time limit on

eligibility for income assistance. This would mean that some British Columbians

will simply be refused social assistance, quite frankly, regardless of their

need.

Full-time

post-secondary students will no longer be eligible for welfare. They have to

turn exclusively to

[ Page 2873 ]

student loans, which are not adequate to support full-time study. In addition

to the criminal penalty for fraud, those found guilty of welfare fraud — which

might include failure to report, perhaps, a gift — will be banned from

receiving welfare.

[1515]

Before even

being able to apply for assistance, individuals will have to undertake a

three-week self-directed job search. This will apply to everyone, including

families with children.

Most people

have exhausted all of their avenues of survival before turning to welfare and

appear at the welfare office having no income, assets or any other means of

support. Many will be on the verge of losing their housing. The three-week rule

increases the risk of homelessness, illness and extreme psychological stress for

people. I've seen it in my work as the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

People who

go to the welfare office have run out of all options. They have no hope

whatsoever. They have no ability to get support from anyone anywhere, so they

have gone to the welfare office. They're being turned away and told, "Come

back in three weeks, and then maybe we'll help you." Where does the

minister think the people will go? What options do they have? Is it underneath

the viaduct that they can find shelter? Is it in the garbage bins that they'll

be able to find food? Where should these people go?

The

government intends to start the welfare application process with an assessment

of whether or not an applicant is expected to work. An individual's entitlement

and treatment by the ministry will depend on this assessment. Those in the

community are concerned about the quality of these assessments. They are

concerned for the hidden unemployable who will fall through the cracks — for

example, survivors of abuse or trauma in residential schools, refugees or adults

who have undiagnosed mental illness, intellectual impairment, fetal alcohol

syndrome, learning disabilities or substance-misuse challenges.

These

hidden unemployables — what will the government do with them? How will they be

assessed? In the estimates process I asked the minister this question. He said

there would be special provisions for them, yet he didn't know how, on the

ground, those would apply. He didn't have answers for these people who will be

faced with these challenges. Now the government is making changes before they

even have answers. What will the options be, then, for these individuals? Quite

frankly, the street.

Young

adults 19 and over will have to demonstrate that they have lived independently

of their parents for two years before being eligible for welfare. The concern,

of course, is that the youths, the young people, who are perhaps escaping

violence or abusive family homes would have to go without support because they

would not qualify for income assistance. People are very concerned about that.

What kind

of message is this government saying to young people? Maybe they're just saying:

"Stay in the home in which you're faced with abuse. Live there for two

years or become independent." To become independent, if you have no skills

and you're unable to get a job…. What does that mean? I've seen it in the

streets of the downtown east side in my own community. The alternative may be

for young people to sell their bodies just so they can get some financial

support so that they don't have to sleep on the street.

Is that the

option? Is that what this government is saying to young people today?

Politicians, the Liberal government members, say: "You are the future of

our tomorrow." Yet, at the same time they're saying: "We're not going

to provide you any support, even for those who are most vulnerable, who are at

risk."

[1520]

Individuals

who have left jobs voluntarily will be ineligible for income assistance.

Voluntarily — what does that mean? People are very concerned that individuals

may be considered ineligible for welfare even if they have left jobs because of

sexual harassment at the workplace, unsafe working conditions or labour

standards violations. Any one of those could happen to a person, and they may

well quit their job because they feel unsafe in their workplace. What happens to

them when they have no income to support themselves or perhaps their family, and

they show up at the welfare office? The government is saying they're not

eligible for income assistance because they quit their job voluntarily.

Refugee

claimants, who are not currently allowed to work without special authorization,

will no longer be eligible for assistance. Refugee claimants whose status has

not yet been determined are a particularly vulnerable group. They are poor, and

they are socially isolated. Many of them may well have language barriers, but

the government is not there to support that segment of the community.

The

Disability Benefits Program Act will also be repealed, and we'll engage in those

discussions with the minister in this Legislature under Bill 27.

Others may

identify other categories of individuals who will be ineligible for assistance.

Reduced shelter allowances for families with two or more children, combined with

reduced support allowances and time limits on eligibility for social assistance,

will predictably result in increased numbers of homeless people in British

Columbia, increased numbers of people living in overcrowded, inappropriate and

desperate conditions.

The

government's approach rests on assumptions that the majority of social

assistance recipients are employable people who choose not to work and that work

is available for them. However, British Columbia is currently experiencing a

downturn in its economy, due to various factors. My colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings mentioned in question period just today that the unemployment

rate is up to 9 percent — the highest. We see the resource sector economy

faced with a downturn. What happens? The official unemployment rate is going

higher and higher.

At the same

time, training programs across government, including those designed for young,

low-

[ Page 2874 ]

income people…. Some of them, quite frankly, are scheduled for termination.

I know from the Ministry of State for Women's Equality, who has employment

training programs to help women to transit, a bridging program for women faced

with violence to transit into the workplace…. They have no assurance from this

government that their funding will continue. We have an environment in which

training programs are being eliminated — many of which are uncertain in terms

of whether or not they will get continuous government support to continue their

programs. New programs that the minister claims are slated to be in place are

not yet in place — criteria unknown, effects unknown.

In spite of

this uncertain environment, the government is bringing forward legislation that

says: "Get out there and find a job, and if you don't, we'll cut you

off."

The

community groups have gotten together to raise their concerns not just with this

government but beyond. They've brought the matter to the United Nations. They've

written a letter to the United Nations asking them to look at what the B.C.

government's doing, asking them to pay urgent attention to the massive assault

on the social and economic rights of the poorest people in British Columbia,

asking them to make a judgment on whether or not the British Columbian

government, the Liberal government, has violated the UN covenant on human rights

and on issues around poverty.

[1525]

The

community groups have written to the UN on this matter. I state from their

letter to the UN:

"The

announced changes to social assistance and social services clearly do not comply

with the government of British Columbia's obligation to respect, protect and

fulfil the rights set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights.

"In

light of Canada's recent record of adopting retrogressive measures and as

a follow-up to the committee's 1998 recommendations, the undersigned

non-governmental organizations request that the United Nations Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights give urgent attention to the actions of the

government of British Columbia."

That was dated back on February 11, 2002. There are a number of

organizations who have signed on to this. They are very concerned. Who are they?

The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., End Legislated Poverty, United Native

Nations, B.C. Human Rights Coalition, B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities, Seniors Network B.C., Alliance for the Rights of Children, Justice

for Girls, B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, Social Planning and Research

Council of B.C., Working Group on Poverty, West Coast LEAF Association are just

some of the groups who have voiced their concerns.

The women's

centres across British Columbia have come forward to condemn the changes to the

income assistance legislation. This is just released. It is hot off the press.

The women's centres — here's what they have to say. And I do hope the Minister

of State for Women's Equality would pay attention to what the women's centres

are saying. She is the minister, after all, who is responsible, Mr. Speaker. She

is supposed to be the advocate for women, so I hope she does pay attention. I'll

read the press release into the record, and I hope she'll get up and respond. I

hope she'll get up and respond and tell people what she's thinking.

The press

release reads as follows:

"'Don't

get sick or injured in B.C., don't inherit any diseases, don't grow old and

have your health fail, don't be a woman, and don't count on this government

to care about you if you're anything but healthy and employed,' says the

B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres.

"The

latest nightmare in the struggle for dignity in B.C. has just unfolded. The

Minister of Human Resources has tabled legislation that will in fact cost

people their lives and quality of life. The most outrageous changes include:

having a lien put on your home after six months of receiving income

assistance, the requirement to repay benefits given to you, the requirement

for two years' consecutive employment prior to being eligible for income

assistance, the redefining of disability which will no longer include

excessive drug costs, the total absence of an equitable and just appeal

system, a restricted right to appeal and the complete change in the basic

philosophy of a social safety net."

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

"The

government of B.C. has outdone itself with this latest move. After attacking

unions, hospitals, schools, services to children with autism, seniors, women

and children, they are now stealing basic entitlements from the people worse

off in B.C.

"Dodie

Goldney of the Kamloops centre says: 'The only people in this province

paying for this agenda and for big business are the ones who have the least

to give. This government is shameful.'

"'It

is as if we are all being picked off one at a time in this province.

Survival of the fittest is an elitist pro-business attitude that has no

place in government,' says Deborah Critchley of the Vernon Women's Centre.

'Anti-poverty advocates, women's groups and others are once again appalled

at this government's lack of consultation and, on the eve of new

legislation, have little or no information in order to do their jobs. This

government is everything except honest, transparent and accountable.'

[1530]

"The

Minister of State for Women's Equality apparently had nothing to say and

held true to form of abandoning women and children in this province. There

are no advocates for the poor in this government. Not one member of the

government has lived up to their responsibility to ensure security or safety

of British Columbians.

"Women

will be forced to stay in abusive relationships, children over 16 will be

told to find work, families of adults with disabilities will have the rug

pulled out from under them, and all British Columbians will be hurt by this

legislation. Communities will be faced with increased crime, increased

poverty and escalated degrees of desperation.

"We

urge this government to immediately halt pushing this legislation through

and begin consultation with those most affected. We urge this government to

come to their senses and end the attack on the poor in B.C. The B.C.

Coalition of Women's Centres puts this government on notice. We will not

accept this draconian

[ Page 2875 ]

and regressive legislation. We will continue to resist and

fight for the rights of women in British Columbia."

I hope the

Minister of State for Women's Equality will rise up and respond to the women's

centres across the province. I hope she will have more to say to the women who

are being pushed off of income assistance by this piece of legislation than to

say to them: "Go make more money." I hope this minister understands

the plight of women who are in poverty today, what they're faced with and the

ill effects this government is going to cause them as a result of this piece of

legislation.

Media

reports, leaked documents and the estimates process have said over and over

again that the Ministry of Human Resources will be emphasizing employment over

assistance. However, it has become abundantly clear that this emphasis on

employment is at the expense of the well-being, safety and security of the most

vulnerable people in the province. Employment is undoubtedly a desirable goal

for most British Columbians. Unfortunately, the introduction of this legislation

repeals all of the previous supports and incentives to seek and maintain

employment. Even Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun has put it this way:

the new act is "all stick, no carrot."

The

Minister of Human Resources has said over and over again that "getting and

keeping a job makes all the difference. Having a job that gives a sense of

accomplishment builds hope and self-esteem and provides economic security for

the individual and the family." However, the minister doesn't address what

it means for a family when they are unable to find sufficient or suitable

employment. How is their self-esteem and economic security affected when the

government no longer provides assistance?

A warning

from Dr. Marge Reitsma-Street, professor of studies in policy and practice in

health and social services at the University of Victoria. Here's what she had to

say:

"The

significant cuts in benefits, eligibility and appeals and the drastic

increase in surveillance of workers and applicants imply a qualitatively and

ethically different legislative framework for people living in B.C., not

just for those in need but also for those who serve them, for relatives,

neighbours and guests and for politicians and their managers.

"The

B.C. employment and assistance law does not propose a new benchmark of

civility or citizen responsibility. Instead, it will increase the poverty of

material and civil life in British Columbia. Curiously, the proposed law

will not save money as the government claims; rather, financial and human

costs will increase.

[1535]

"Unlike

B.C. Benefits, the proposed law does not speak at all about the larger

employment or child care context or society's obligation to 'preserving a

social safety net that is responsive to changing social and economic

circumstances.' Rather, the focus in the proposed law is on personal

responsibility and reduction of the number of applicants and welfare

payments. Both workers and applicants in the proposed law will be expected

to decrease the use of welfare and to increase paid employment, regardless

of pay or working conditions, the job market, housing or transportation

issues, or other obligations to children and family members. If unsuccessful

at finding paid work or decreasing requests for welfare, the financial

assistance workers and applicants will be blamed. As individuals, they'll be

denounced as not performing, not meeting standards, and therefore less

worthy or deserving. The proposed law points workers and the public to

examine the responsibility and personal faults of individual workers and

applicants, blaming them if there are problems, thus diverting attention

away from the societal responsibility for policies that generate insecure,

insufficient jobs, training or child care."

Dr. Reitsma-Street has more to say — more analysis on the changes that the

government is putting forward: "Significant increase in the use of

for-profit firms determining eligibility and enforcing cuts and

restrictions." That's one of the things that the government has installed.

"New

players are being introduced into the B.C. welfare scene, particularly large

for-profit technology firms which will be paid millions of contract dollars

to implement the hardware and software programs with the new B.C.

eligibility rules and benefits embedded. Other players who will enforce the

proposed act include the smaller, local for-profit companies with contracts

to train welfare applicants, to place them in jobs — if jobs are

available; their contracts and profits depend on meeting targets like

'clients do not return within 12 months.'

"Both

the transnational and local for-profit firms must earn profits for their

shareholders. That is their goal. For example, the Andersen, now Accenture,

Company that is on contract with the Ontario government…was reported by

the Ontario auditor general as charging five times the hourly rate for

similar work previously performed by comparable ministry staff. Andersen

directors average $575 per hour…while clerical work was billed at $85 per

hour…. These consulting fees and profits for firms doing welfare work are

paid for by public taxes or from 'savings' in drastically reduced welfare

benefits to those who are in need."

In other

words, businesses profit. They profit on the reduction of welfare and the

diversion to employment in an insecure job market. That is a feature of the

proposed B.C. legislation.

"Significant

increase in monitoring daily behaviours of workers and applicants. There

will be more procedures that regulate and monitor workers, applicants,

neighbours and other professionals. Compliance will be enforced much more

vigorously with enhanced verification and criminal fraud investigations,

even though Canadian and international research by scholars and auditors

such as Peat Marwick repeatedly discover overpayment and fraud in fewer than

5 percent of the cases, often for minuscule amounts less than $100. Rather

than finding fraud, investigators are more likely to find underpayment.

"Applicants

and recipients will be expected to complete more electronic and paper forms

that investigate every aspect of people's lives — their finances, their

relationships, their job and volunteer performance. If documents and

evidence are not produced in a prompt, accurate and regular way, such as

reporting exactly how much money was earned on a newspaper route or the $50

family gift that is being used

[ Page 2876 ]

to pay a hydro bill, then workers and applicants will be

judged as not meeting standards."

Significant

increase in punishments. If you should be found to be defrauding the system, the

punishments on applicants are particularly severe: no benefits and cuts in

benefits if incorrect information is supplied or late or if a condition of the

employment and assistance agreement signed by the applicant is not met.

[1540]

When the

professor investigated the first year of enforcement of the harsh Ontario Works

law in Sudbury in 1996, one-third of the persons were cut off welfare each month

because forms were not completed correctly or on time, a finding corroborated by

other research on reasons people "exit" or are forced off welfare.

The worst

punishment, one that in other jurisdictions is being litigated as cruel and

unusual punishment and against constitutional rights to the security of people,

is that B.C. citizens convicted of welfare fraud — whatever the amount,

whatever the reason, whatever the condition — will face a lifelong ban from

assistance.

This

punishment is not used against those convicted of income tax evasion, a more

sophisticated and costly form of welfare fraud. Not just applicants for welfare

but employed people also face repercussions for inadequate conduct according to

the proposed law. Workers may lose their jobs, managers their bonuses and small

firms their profits if performance targets are not met. Those workers with

professional degrees risk losing their professional membership if they make

decisions contrary to the value basis of the profession.

"Drastic

reductions in accessible, public, fair negotiating procedures regarding

eligibility and benefits. With the introduction of more managerial

standardization and computerized rules that workers cannot override,

professional discretion responsive to needs for assistance will diminish.

The language in the ministry website about streamlining processes of

complaint and appeals is quite confusing, except it is clear the current

independent income assistance appeal board will be abolished.

"There

will be some form of streamlined review mechanism, but whether internal or

independent is not known. Furthermore, there will no longer be a statutory

mechanism legislating the possibility of legal assistance for poverty and

welfare law appeals."

These come at the expense of people who need the support for advocacy. The

Attorney General, as we know, has cut legal aid support by 38.8 percent.

"In

addition, all legal aid funding for matters relating to disputes regarding

welfare eligibility, termination or cuts has been eliminated, as has funding

to most native and community law centres. Without access to legal aid, legal

knowledge, representation or appeal procedures, what access will applicants

and workers have to justice about matters of basic survival?

"Conspicuously

absent from any material on the proposed changes is mention of the existence

or obligations of the Income Assistance Advisory Council. Under the current

B.C. Benefits Act, there is provision for this council. Its members may be

appointed by the ministry and may be paid a daily fee. Some council members

are to be welfare recipients and community agency members.

"It

is not clear how active this council is now, nor whether they were being

consulted about the proposed new law. It would be a serious loss if there is

not an independent council with experienced, concerned members who were

authorized and supported to review welfare legislation and monitor its

implementation."

The

paper goes on to say on the issues around categories of eligibility and

ineligibility:

"Given

the drastic restrictions in eligibility, following is a closer inspection of

the proposed categories and comments on the processes authorized to

establish eligibility.

"There

are four categories of benefits, each with a specific separate process to

determine eligibility: (1) no assistance, (2) disaster relief,

(3) temporary, (4) continuous. Benefits rates are very low for those eligible

for disaster relief and temporary. The April 2002 rates are lower than the

2001 rates and far below what is needed for necessities and dignified

living. For those eligible for continuous benefits, rates are somewhat

higher but still inadequate and lower than 2001 rates.

"The

continuous benefit category replaces what was known as disabilities 2. It

will be reserved for people with serious, permanent health concerns or

multiple barriers to employment.

"Very

problematic is the planned disappearance of public knowledge about benefit

rates. Under the 2001 B.C. Benefits system, maximum rates and policies were

posted on the ministry's website…but even this limited access may

disappear, as there are indications that specifics on benefit rates will not

be posted.

[1545]

"In

this supposedly more transparent, publicly accountable Liberal regime, how

will recipients, service providers, family members and advocates know the

benefits and rights of applicants?"

The study

goes on to list those people who are categorized as receiving no assistance.

Those are young people over 19 living away from a family or a foster home or a

substitute home for less than two years. They are ineligible, as mentioned

earlier. Whether they left parental homes by choice or were forced out by abuse

or neglect, young people are ineligible for income assistance until they have

lived independently somewhere for two years.

fortunate and able, young people may get a job that pays more than $6-per-hour

training wage — the training wage this government has brought about, reducing

the minimum wage from $8 to $6 an hour. If able to work 40 hours a week, they

could afford a $600-per-month small apartment, with $600 left for food,

transportation and other necessities, or they may win a bursary, go to school

and live in a residence or post-secondary educational institute. If less able or

interested, youth may have to couch-surf or live on the streets.

For young

people under 19, current practice already places severe restrictions on their

eligibility for assistance. Only 1,000 in the province were eligible in

September 2001. It is, of course, expected that these restrictions will continue

and become more onerous.

[ Page 2877 ]

mentioned earlier, under this "voluntary departure from the

workplace," persons who leave work are ineligible for whatever reason;

whether faced with harassment in the workplace or unsafe working conditions, it

doesn't matter. When you leave your workplace voluntarily, you, too, could face

punishment by the government when you seek income assistance.

People who

are employable receive income assistance for two years. After that, they are not

eligible. This will affect over one-half of the 246,000 persons who, as of

September 2001, need assistance. "With this provision for ineligibility,

British Columbia takes a regressive, uncivilized path." As mentioned

earlier, it's the first time in a Canadian jurisdiction that a government has

put forward a time limitation with respect to income assistance.

I do wonder

whether or not this government is acting in violation of the federal transfer

payment agreements. The federal government provides dollars through transfer

payments to provincial governments to provide for health care, education and

social services. By putting a time restriction on eligibility, is the government

acting in violation of the transfer payment act of the federal government? Is

this government going to create yet another scenario whereby they're being

challenged in court?

We have

seen in the short eight months that this government has been in office how many

court cases are arriving at their doorstep. In this first year of their mandate

— before the completion, even, of the first year of their mandate — court

case upon court case is being brought for consideration because of this

government's ill-thought-out approach to government policies. Is this yet

another scenario whereby the government will be faced with a court challenge?

Is it only

by this means, when someone challenges this government on issues around

violation of a Charter right, a violation of the government's obligation and

responsibility…? Is it only under such circumstances that government would

start to consider and reconsider their approach?

[1550]

So far,

this government has displayed that they're not listening to anyone. They're

plowing ahead. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly. Their skin must be so

thick. They can get up and say: "I'm protecting you. I'm acting in your

best interests." Meanwhile, you can see the attack, the draconian measures

this government is bringing forward. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly.

Does it

take a court case challenge before the government will back down and admit that

they were wrong and that these ill-thought-out policies are not the way to go?

Is that the only way in which people will get representation and be heard by

this government?

If you

think these cuts are bad, that's not all of the story. If you look at what's

going on with government, the Ministry of Human Resources is not only just

cutting the benefits and the rates for income assistance recipients; they're

also closing welfare offices.

I know that

perhaps some members think the debate here is unimportant. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard is busy working on his computer, as it's beeping away in

violation of the House rules. Perhaps he doesn't think the changes brought

forward by this piece of legislation impact his constituents, which I know is

false because I've met some of his constituents. I know many people on income

assistance in his very own riding of Vancouver-Burrard are very concerned.

Deputy

Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate for you to criticize the other member.

I would caution you to proceed with your debate.

J. Kwan:

I apologize, hon. Speaker. I was wondering if the member for Vancouver-Burrard

will rise up and speak in support of his constituents — the people who need

this government to provide support to them and not cut welfare rates, benefits

and eligibility for those who are in greatest need. I wonder if the member for

Vancouver-Burrard will rise up in this House and make those comments. I wonder.

It would take a moment of his time to rise up in this House and speak in support

of his constituents and not just toe the party line.

With the

office closures that this government is imposing, there are significant impacts

in the community where access to a welfare worker would be curtailed because the

offices would be closed. What would happen in those instances when an individual

cannot access a worker to assist them in getting support? Now that support is

not going to be there, because of these cuts. Still, if someone needed to talk

to a welfare worker, would they be able to get access to one?

Let's look

and see what offices are being closed. We see the office on West Broadway, the

employment services centre, is closed effective March 11, 2002. The Via Rail

employment services centre closed effective March 11, 2002. The Kingsway

employment services centre closed March 11, 2002. Commercial employment services

centre closed March 11, 2002. The Mount Pleasant West employment and assistance

centre closed March 29, 2002.

These are

offices in Vancouver which provide employment services to income assistance

recipients. This government claims that they want to help people get off income

assistance and find work. How exactly will closing access to employment service

centres help the recipients who are seeking support and assistance to get off

welfare?

[1555]

The child

care service office on East 41st will be closed effective January 5, 2003. In

the lower mainland, the Canada Way employment and assistance centre closed

effective March 31, 2002. The Squamish employment and assistance centre will

close effective March 31, 2003. The Burnaby West employment and assistance

centre will close effective September 30, 2002.

In the

Fraser North–Upper Valley area, the Agassiz employment and assistance centre

closed effective Feb-

[ Page 2878 ]

ruary 28, 2002. The Abbotsford employment services centre is closing soon, on

April 30, 2002.

In the

Fraser South region, the King George Highway employment and assistance centre is

closing effective June 30, 2002. The White Rock employment and assistance centre

is closing December 31, 2002.

In the

Kootenays and the Okanagan, the Invermere employment and assistance centre is

closing June 28, 2002. The Fernie employment and assistance centre is closing

September 30, 2002. The Kimberley employment and assistance centre is closing

December 31, 2002. Creston employment and assistance centre is closing December

31, 2002. Castlegar employment and assistance centre, March 31, 2003.

In the

central British Columbia area, the Bella Coola employment and assistance centre

closed March 28, 2002. Ashcroft is closing June 28, 2002. Clearwater employment

and assistance centre is closing June 28, 2002. Lillooet employment and

assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. Revelstoke employment and

assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002.

In the

Prince George and northern B.C. area, Dawson Creek employment services centre

closed March 31, 2002. The Hazelton employment and assistance centre is closing

August 31, 2002. Chetwynd employment and assistance centre is closing August 31,

2002. Fort St. James employment and assistance centre is closing June 30, 2002.

Houston employment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Terrace

employment services centre is closing March 31, 2004.

In the

North Vancouver Island area, Nanaimo employment and assistance centre closed

February 28, 2002. Port Alberni employment services centre closed March 31,

2002. North Island contracts for child care subsidy and vocational

rehabilitative services closed March 31, 2002.

In the

Victoria area, Sooke employment and assistance centre closed March 31, 2002.

Regional

services. The Vernon and the Penticton suboffices will close effective March 31,

We see

income assistance rates being reduced, income assistance benefits being cut,

access to employment services being reduced and welfare offices closing. Many of

them have already closed.

Particularly

in the smaller communities, travel is often difficult. I have travelled the

province in my years here in my Legislature, gone to the different communities

and seen their different, unique needs. One of the biggest issues for community

members outside the lower mainland, they often say to me, is that they have to

travel from community to community. In the winter months the travel is

particularly difficult because of the weather and road conditions.

[1600]

Here we

have the people who are most vulnerable, who need to get access for employment

support, government support, income assistance support and welfare support. They

will no longer be able to access some of the offices in their local community.

Those in Terrace — where will they have to go? Those in Houston, Chetwynd,

Hazelton, Port Alberni, the North Island, Lillooet, Revelstoke, Ashcroft, Bella

Coola — what kind of distance will they have to travel in order to get some

information, to get some support for employment services and welfare? Will they

be able to make those trips? Will they have the resources to make those trips?

If they don't, what happens to them? Are they left there on the streets on their

own, without any support? That's what this government is bringing about with

respect to income assistance cuts — cuts to benefits, cuts to rates, cuts to

and closures of offices.

One of the

discussions that we engaged in with the minister during estimates was issues

around part-time employment and how part-time employment is something the

minister wants income assistance recipients to move off so they'll be into

full-time employment. Then when I asked the question during estimates about what

the minister considers to be part-time, he made a suggestion that part-time

employment would mean someone who works perhaps four or six hours less than

full-time employment. That was the example he used. If you were working

part-time, here's why you need to get off welfare and work full-time and how it

would be better for you. However, if you look at the statistics on who is

working part-time right now, what their income levels are and how they're trying

to manage…. Yes, some people on part-time income assistance worked to get

their income supplemented by welfare because the amount of money they made did

not even reach the income assistance level. That doesn't mean that they're not

working and trying hard to transit out of welfare; it just means that's the

situation they're faced with.

There are

other people who may be working part-time because they have other obligations.

For example, they may have to take care of children for whom they're unable to

find affordable child care to place their children in when they're working.

Therefore, some of them could only work part-time.

Some people

may be going to school part-time because they want to move beyond the

minimum-wage scale. They want to enhance their employment options in the future

by upgrading in the educational system.

While the

Minister of Human Resources may see full-time employment as a desirable

alternative to income assistance, the statistics for B.C. show that part-time

employment is a reality for many of the people of this province. In fact, in

1997 B.C. had the highest part-time rate in Canada. The share of all employment

in B.C. that is part-time increased from 15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in

1999. Part-time employment rates are consistently higher for youth aged 15 to

24, with 43 percent of male youths and 54 percent of female youths involved in

part-time employment.

[1605]

On average,

women have a higher participation rate than men in part-time employment, with 30

percent of all women 25 and older participating, while less than 11 percent of

men aged 25 and older participate in

[ Page 2879 ]

part-time employment. The female-dominated retail trade and accommodation,

food and beverage services sectors accounted for nearly a third of all part-time

employment in 1999.

The Infoline

report states that the service sector is subject to uneven levels of demand

which provide a strong incentive for utilizing part-timers. This also means that

part-time employees are subject to less stability than full-time employment. The

reality of the economic situation in B.C. requires that the Minister of Human

Resources be flexible with people of B.C. in order to provide for the security

and well-being of each person, who is not always available, through

participation in the labour market.

Some 73

percent of all women working part-time say that they're doing it because they

have to. They choose this option because, as I mentioned earlier, they want to

accommodate their studies so that they have better employment opportunities in

the future. Some may be doing that because of personal illness or disability,

because they can only work part-time hours; others are caring for their children

or other relatives, even.

For many,

part-time employment provides an option for people who have a variety of

responsibilities beyond paid employment. In some instances, those individuals

would need a top-up from the government. Does that now mean to say that the

government is not going to be valuing those who work in the workforce on a

part-time basis and, in fact, they may even be penalized? What will the minister

tell the individual who is at home to take care of a sick relative, an older

person? Is the minister going to say: "You have to get out there and work

full-time, otherwise you'll be cut off welfare"? That's what this

legislation does. Let's make no mistake about it. After two years the person

will be cut off, irrespective of the person's circumstances — irrespective.

It was

reported in the media, in fact. There was this woman who had a child. The child

had a minor surgery. As a result of the surgery, something went wrong, and there

was brain damage — severe brain damage. The woman, who is a single mom, could

not enter the workforce because she had to stay home to take care of her child.

Now the minister's going to be saying to this woman and her family, after two

years on income assistance: "You have to get out and find a job. If you

don't, we will reduce your assistance by 25 percent." That's what this

legislation does, and that's the approach this government has chosen to adopt.

Part-time

employment. The share of all employment in B.C. that is part-time has increased

from 15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in 1999. While the minister would like

people to get off income assistance, to be working full-time, the fact of the

matter is the availability of work in the labour market. Where it is increasing

is actually in the part-time sector, not the full-time sector, as reported by

StatsCan.

[1610]

Then, when

we talk about impacts of finding work, even when you have children and when your

child turns three, you're forced to get out into the workforce. All in the midst

of that, the government's cutting child care support. Even for people on income

assistance, the subsidy for child care support is being reduced by this

government. The reduction is significant. Just one example: for a family of two

people, formerly the threshold for income level to be qualified for subsidies

was $1,582. Under this government, with the changes that are being put forward

and imposed by this bill, that would reduce to $1,297 — over $300 of

reduction.

This

government has cut the universal child care program. So where will people go

when they need child care? Where will they go? Just for the information of

members of this House, for those who have children…. Perhaps some of them know

this — how difficult it is to get good child care. These are just some of the

rates in British Columbia — how much it costs. For an infant of zero to 17

months it costs them $650 a month to support child care. For toddlers 18 months

to three years it's $547. For preschool it's $460 — that's a month in terms of

the rate. The costs are significant for people who are faced with child care

needs, and they may not be able to get child care support. If they don't,

they'll be cut off welfare because they have to work full time.

Hon.

Speaker, I have much to say with respect to this bill and the impacts of this

bill. At this time I'd like to move that the motion for second reading of Bill

26, intituled Employment and Assistance Act, be amended by deleting the word

"now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Why did I move this amendment? I move this amendment because this government,

this Liberal government, is trying to ram the bill through in less than 24 hours

in a second reading stage. The bill was first introduced yesterday —

yesterday, for the first time. The opposition saw the bill after it was

introduced. Community groups, affected British Columbians, many of whom would

not even have access to this bill just yet, would not have had the opportunity

to see what this bill is about and how it is going to impact them. They want to

provide input into the government. They want to provide their perspective on the

changes that are being proposed by this government.

The very

least that this government could do is abide by what they promise in their New

Era document, and that is it would be open, transparent, accountable and

consultative. The very least they could do is let British Columbians have an

opportunity to see what the bill is about, what the proposed legislation will be

and how it would impact British Columbians. The Government House Leader was the

critic then on many issues relating to the former government, not the least of

which was for the government to step back once it introduces legislation so that

people would have time to review it.

[ Page 2880 ]

[1615]

The

government complained about a mortgage broker bill that was introduced on the

Thursday and then later on was debated on the following Tuesday for second

reading. The then critic and former Opposition House Leader, now Minister of

Finance, complained that there was insufficient time for people to respond to

this bill, to review this bill. Now we have less than 24 hours. This government

introduced a bill yesterday and wants to bring it through the House, through

second reading, so that the public would not have the opportunity to make

comments on it. Is it because the government is ashamed of this bill? Is it

because the government really doesn't want the public to know how draconian they

are in their attempt to treat income assistance recipients?

Hon. Chair,

I see that the red light is on. I seek your advice with respect to my

opportunity to engage in debate on a motion for amendment. How much time am I

allotted?

Deputy

Speaker: Just one moment, please. I'll check with the Clerk.

Member, you

had the two hours as a designated speaker and basically just an opportunity to

introduce the amendment. Your time has expired.

J. Kwan:

Sorry, hon. Speaker. I seek your advice. After the amendment has been

introduced, I was under the impression that I would have 40 minutes to speak to

the amendment. I seek your advice on that issue.

Deputy

Speaker: Thank you, member. We'll just get some counsel here on this.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in a moment. May I just confer one

minute with my colleague? Thanks.

Deputy

Speaker: Yes, you have a few moments.

Just to

clarify for the House, speaking to the amendment as a designated speaker, you

have two hours.

MacPhail: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying that. We

appreciate your guidance on this.

colleague has moved what, in the parlance of this chamber in sometimes an arcane

way, is called a hoist motion. For those of us who are new to this chamber, let

me explain what it is so that every single Liberal MLA can understand the

opportunity afforded them right now, an opportunity that can assuage their

conscience and allow them to consider what has been a debate raging within their

own caucus, we know, about this legislation.

[1620]

This

hoist motion gives an opportunity for six months for the Liberal caucus to work

out their own differences on this matter that we know have spilled…. It's

certainly raged internally in the caucus and has also just spilled out into the

public in the shock and horror of this legislation.

This

government now has the opportunity…. It's not even a face-saver. We don't even

have to consider it a face-saver. It's a legitimate motion to thoughtfully

consider the legislation that now is before us for a further six months. That's

what the amendment says.

We can all

go back to our constituencies. Believe you me, every single — and I say every

single — MLA in this chamber is being inundated, and has been since April 1,

about the unbelievable draconian changes made to welfare — every single MLA.

We know it to be true. Some of you only have your answering machines on — in

fact, the majority of you only have your answering machines on — and some of

you have your doors locked so that you have to access by a buzzer. But every

single one of the Liberal MLAs knows that your offices are being inundated with

the most vulnerable in society saying: "How am I supposed to survive on

these cuts?" That goes true for every MLA, whether it be the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Burquitlam or the minister himself.

Now, with

this hoist motion, you have the opportunity to serve your constituents properly,

as you promised to do and as your Premier said he was going to do when he said:

"Don't worry, I'm not going to cut welfare rates." Perhaps those of

you who sit in caucus, where this debate rages, could explain how your Premier

stands up in caucus and explains that what he said then doesn't apply now.

Perhaps you at least have the ability to stand up and say: "Here's why my

Premier misled you people who have to rely on welfare before the election, and

here's why these changes are necessary." You could take the next six months

to explain it to your constituents.

Deputy

Speaker: Member, I would just remind you to address your remarks to the

Chair.

MacPhail: It was a generic "you," Mr. Speaker, but I certainly

take your advice. It was an absolutely generic "you," because in fact

each and every one of you, particularly the Minister of Health Services…. Even

though he comes from an upper-middle-class constituency, even he is being

inundated with calls from constituents, so perhaps he could pay attention as

well. Perhaps he could actually represent his….

Interjections.

Deputy

Speaker: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: It's so interesting to note that the Liberal members of this

chamber, when indeed they know they're so wrong, go on a personal attack. They

sink to the lowest level ever, on a personal attack. When I asked the Minister

of Health Services to represent….

Interjections.

[ Page 2881 ]

MacPhail: Oh, let me explain to the Minister of Health Planning what the

difference is between representing your constituency and a personal attack.

Shall we do that? The Minister of Health Services represents one of the

highest-wage constituencies in the province. That's exactly what I'm talking

about. I represent a constituency that is one of the lowest-wage constituencies,

and I represent it well, and I represent it completely according to the needs of

the community. That's all I'm asking the Minister of Health Services: for him to

stand up and represent the….

[1625]

You know

what? The upper-middle-class constituency of the Minister of Health Services is

as deeply concerned about these cuts to welfare as are those who collect

welfare. That's why he's receiving calls over and over again from his own

constituents, people who voted for him, saying, "What is your government

doing?" — let alone the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who actually

represents the most vulnerable affected by these cuts. There's the two points of

the spectrum: well-off British Columbians in the Minister of Health Services's

constituency who are outraged by these cuts, and the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, whose constituents are so harmed by these cuts that they're

flooding his office, saying: "Why don't you stand up and speak for me, not

against me?"

Interjection.

MacPhail: And the member for Vancouver-Burrard suggests somehow that every

single person in this province who is condemning these cuts is a fearmonger.

Mayencourt: No, just you.

MacPhail: Well, let me just quote, then, what Rafe Mair has to say. Let's

just see what Rafe Mair has to say about these cuts. This was this morning:

"It's

a demonstrable percentage in anything that you do. If you're going to look

at people fiddling the welfare system, you ought to look at people going

down to their local club and fiddling the tax system. Sometimes I feel

ashamed to be a British Columbian when I see what's happening. Folks, one of

these days soon in British Columbia we'll have to decide just what kind of

society we have. We're not talking about socialism or capitalism or any of

those sorts of things. We're talking about just plain human decency, just

plain offering a helping hand to those who need it."

It is

unbelievable what this government has done. Commentators who are not known to be

socialists…. In fact, Mr. Mair rightfully describes himself as a fiscal

conservative and a social progressive, and with both of those guiding his head

and his heart, he says that this government has let down the most vulnerable in

society. It is unbelievable what this government has done. Mr. Mair is saying

exactly that to this government — that it is a shame what this government has

done through these changes.

In the

paper today, as my colleague has already quoted: "All stick, no

carrot," says Vaughn Palmer, a fairly balanced columnist, one could say —

give him the benefit of the doubt — in his approach to policy. "The

change managed to offend critics on the right as well as the left as being both

counterproductive and mean-spirited." Where's the howling now by the

Liberal MLAs? Where's the howling of personal attack now by the Liberal MLAs,

somehow challenging that my colleague and I perhaps don't represent our

constituents? We represent our constituents. It's about time each and every one

of these Liberal MLAs got up and represented their constituents as well.

[1630]

The

Minister of Skills Development and Labour is being inundated with calls. How do

we know this? Because they call us and tell us that they can't get a response

from their MLAs. That's what they tell us — that their complaint, their plea,

goes to a voice mail, and they don't get a return call. So maybe, because my

colleague and I have all of those messages, we could go through them one by one.

Every single one of these Liberal MLAs can get up and tell us how we're wrong,

that they are representing their constituents, how the Minister of Health

Services is responding to those people in his constituency who say: "I had

no idea that when you gave me my tax cut, you were going to attack the

poor." That's what the calls are from his constituency, and they didn't

vote for my colleague and me. Who knows whether that's even important at this

stage? But they want my colleague and me to know that they care and that they

see these cuts as mean-spirited as they could possibly imagine.

The shame

with which they view the Minister of Human Resources is quite stunning. They had

actually hoped that the Minister of Human Resources's compassionate liberal

views would prevail at the cabinet table. They're in shock, as a matter of fact,

that somehow he lost the battle — that he lost the battle to the most

mean-spirited government that's ever been elected in this province. Did he lose

it to the Minister of Health Services? Did he lose it to the Premier? Did he

lose it to the Minister of Finance? Did he lose it to the member for Cariboo

South? How about to the member for Burquitlam, who mocked my colleague

disgustingly when all she was doing was defending the poorest in this province?

He didn't lose it to the will of the member for Vancouver-Langara. At least, we

assume that he didn't lose it, because the member for Vancouver-Langara at least

had the ability to stand up and put on record his views about this legislation.

You know,

let's see. Isn't this interesting? Isn't this interesting, when my colleague and

I stand here and have abuse heaped on our heads for our words from the member

for Vancouver-Burrard? Let me just read to you about a constituent of the member

for Vancouver-Burrard. This was a call today, made public, by Ryan. He lives in

Vancouver-Burrard. He's a person with a disability 2. He's HIV-positive.

I know some

members may say, "Oh, that's the next bill," but frankly, both bills

have to be read like this,

[ Page 2882 ]

because the cuts imposed by this legislation, the Employment and Assistance

Act — boy, is that Liberal newspeak — affect people on disability 2, as well

as the legislation entitled Employment and Assistance for Persons with

Disabilities Act — more newspeak.

Here's what

Ryan said, from Vancouver-Burrard — wherever you are. He'd been approved for

extra funding for bottled water, and when he met with the member for

Vancouver-Burrard, he said he wouldn't be affected by the changes in the

Ministry of Human Resources. Ryan had to be told, not by his member for

Vancouver-Burrard, but by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities that

people with disabilities are going to be reassessed, and many of them will lose

that very benefit that the member for Vancouver-Burrard said was not at risk.

[1635]

In fact,

the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities says that there's a

section in

the legislation that deals with the appeal process and talks about how former

decisions made by the tribunal process are open and that the government does

have the ability to reassess. So, member for Vancouver-Burrard, there's one of

the constituents from the riding of Vancouver-Burrard saying: "Why didn't

you tell me? Why did you tell me I wasn't at risk?"

Today in

the Legislature, less than 24 hours after this bombshell was dropped on the

province, the ministers had to introduce amendments. Does the right hand know

what the left hand is doing? Why not take six months and get it right? It's

unbelievable that in less than 24 hours they're already having to correct their

legislation. Are they just minor amendments? No, they're not, as a matter of

fact. They're substantive amendments, because already after this bombshell

legislation was dropped on the most vulnerable in the province this government

immediately started backtracking. Here we are with amendments right in there

already.

All my

colleague's amendment of "take six months to consider this

legislation" is saying is: "Hey, you've had to admit within 24 hours

that you've made mistakes, so why not take six months?" Talk to people in

this province about what these cuts mean. Go home and talk to your constituents,

I say, and find out. Answer some of those phone calls. Go home to Nelson. Check

in with Castlegar. See how they're reacting.

You know

what? Let's talk about what's happening in Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo will

be very interested in this, because I'm sure the member won't get up and tell

the truth about what's going on in his community.

I believe

one of the underlying tenets of this bill is that people have to become more

responsible for themselves. Is that not one of the underlying tenets in this

bill? Government shouldn't be just helping those who need welfare. Get out there

and help yourself. Communities need to do more to help the most vulnerable.

Well, guess what. The communities are stretched to the limit because of the cuts

in welfare and social services that this government has made to the most

vulnerable.

By the way,

we did hear from the Minister of Finance that tax cuts are working — didn't

we? We heard that tax cuts are working, and what's everybody complaining about?

I asked him that question in question period today: isn't he concerned about

higher interest rates dampening the economy? "Oh no, our government made

tax cuts." Now, let me see. A child whose mom is on welfare…. How would

that child benefit from tax cuts? Hmm. Not. How does that child become more

self-sufficient? Does that child take his or her diaper and tighten the belt on

the diaper? Gee, I guess that child should have known that.

Maybe the

community needs to step forward a bit more. Let's see how the community can help

in Nanaimo. This was from the Daily News in Nanaimo today:

[1640]

"Food

Bank Desperate for Money. 'For the first time in its six-year history,

Loaves and Fishes has had to cut back its services and offer food bags once

a week instead of twice,' says the organization's executive director, Brent

Cawley. The change will be effective April 22. The food bank might have to

close down if its donations don't increase.

"'In

fact, if donations don't increase, the food bank could close sometime this

summer,' he said. Cawley said: 'This year, Loaves and Fishes has been faced

with the highest demand it has ever seen. Normally the food bank looks after

about 400 people a week. This year it's averaging 500.'"

Oh my God.

I digress from the article, Mr. Speaker. Why aren't the tax cuts that the

Minister of Finance was lauding today working for those people? Gosh. Could it

be that the tax cuts for the rich in this province haven't done one whit of good

for the lowest income and the most vulnerable in British Columbia? Could that be

it?

Back to the

article. Oh, this is interesting:

"'We

started to notice the increase at the end of February and March just shot

right up and again this month,' he said, 'and our donations are down at the

same time. We just can't keep up with it.' Cawley blames government cutbacks

and layoffs at local mills for the increase in demand and decrease in

donations. 'We've had some people who have told us they were donors at one

time and now they are clients of ours. With the economy the way it is,

people who once had jobs and were donating to charities are being a bit more

careful. As a result, they aren't able to donate as much as in the

past.'"

I tried to

get the Minister of Finance to lobby on behalf of those very British Columbians

who used to donate to the food bank and now have lost their jobs. I said:

"Stand up for British Columbia. Tell the Bank of Canada that its higher

interest rates are going to hurt the softwood lumber industry even more."

Maybe the Minister of Finance needs an economics 101 lesson, but when interest

rates rise, the dollar goes up and the cost of our exports goes up, so fewer

exports leave the province. More jobs are lost. That's the chain.

Instead,

what does this government do? He denies that there's anything wrong, and then,

for the people who are losing their jobs, they cut the social safety net.

[ Page 2883 ]

Do you know that there are going to be some forest workers who won't be able

to claim EI and will have to go right on to welfare? But it'll be a cut welfare.

Because of

the cuts to EI, people in this province — perhaps forest workers who have

worked all of their lives or some new families just starting out — are not

eligible to claim EI. Now this very government is yanking the social safety net

that they have in terms of welfare away from them.

Does this

government stop for a moment and say: "Oops, maybe this isn't the time to

rip a big hole in the social safety net"? No, they proceed. They don't even

stop to think; they ram it through. They ram it through like they're afraid of

something. I wonder what it is they're afraid of. I wonder what it is. Maybe if

they allowed people to contemplate this legislation, the people would rise up

and say: "No, don't do this." Is that what they're afraid of? I'm sure

it is.

[1645]

What's

happening in Prince George? I was in Prince George this weekend — a very, very

strong community-minded town. They are hurting, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday morning

I got up and went to St. Vincent de Paul Society — a group of volunteers like

you have never met before. Well, actually, we meet them in our communities every

day. They're the Brent Cawleys that I just read about. They're the people who

run the St. Vincent de Paul in my community. They're the people who run the food

bank in Nelson. They proudly showed me around their new centre that is able now,

because of expanded kitchen services, to serve three square meals a day and have

snacks in the evening. They run a thrift shop. They do grocery bags for families

who need it.

Here's what

they told me. In the 20 years that one volunteer had been working in this St.

Vincent de Paul centre, she could remember two seniors who had to come in for

groceries — in 20 years. She said they were two wonderful older women who

needed to go to a funeral in Kamloops. They'd used their monthly budget for

transportation costs to go to the funeral, and therefore they ran out of money

to buy groceries.

Those were

the only two seniors that she could recall in 20 years. Then in February 2002 a

couple of dozen seniors showed up for groceries. She was in shock. Then in March

double those couple of dozen seniors showed up for groceries, and in April the

pace continues.

That's what

these cuts have done to this province. And somehow I hear from the member for

Vancouver-Burrard that we're fearmongering. Perhaps he'd like to go to the St.

Vincent de Paul and accuse them of fearmongering as they're handing out

groceries for the very first time to seniors — the very first time.

It's