British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 9, 2002

H0509pm-10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 9, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 10 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 9, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3333 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 3333 Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) Hon. S. Hagen Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50) Hon. G.

Collins Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51) Hon. R. Coleman The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act (Bill M204) B. Bennett Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3335 Actions against Liberal MLAs B. Lekstrom Health care in Mission R. Hawes Opportunities for B.C. youth K.

Manhas Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3336 Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3336 Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Preventative health care services for children J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Government support for farmers and agriculture industry B. Lekstrom Hon.

J. van Dongen Government support for forest industry R. Visser Hon. S. Hagen Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3339 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan S. Orr Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 3355 Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 3355 McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10) Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15) Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23) Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29) Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30) Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31) Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32) Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36) Food Safety Act (Bill 37) Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

3333 THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. S. Hagen: It's a great honour and privilege today to introduce some guests here from Thailand, from the beautiful city of Suphanburi, which is cer- tainly one of the more beautiful cities in that country. These are all folks who are here visiting the city of Courtenay, my hometown, because they are sister cit- ies. I'm not going to read all the names, but I've passed the list on to Hansard. They are accompanied by city of Courtenay staff Mickie Donley, Dennis Henderson and Raegan Spence.

Would the House please assist me in making them welcome. [1405] Hon. J. Reid: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e i n t h e House today my mother, Peggy Kubin, and my aunt and her husband, Joan and Norman Sagerson from Chicago. I'd ask the House to make them warmly wel- come. J. Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing a friend of many years, who is also the vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Lindsay Olson. She is with us today, and I would like the House to make her welcome. D. Hayer: I am very pleased to introduce a group of 70 grade 5 students from William F.

Davidson Elemen- tary in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, led by their respected teachers Mrs. Buckham, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs. Takhar and Mrs. Guilmont-Smith. Among them is my nephew, Shaun Bains. They will be visiting the Legislature tomorrow morning. Will the House please make them most welcome. S. Orr: I would like to introduce in the House today nine very, very special people who are not only special people, but they're my very good friends. I do have friends. These people are people that work in my con- stituency office and volunteer in my constituency of- fice.

These people make my life incredibly easy, and I cannot thank them enough, as none of us can thank our volunteers enough. They are Gill Wall, Catherine Campbell, Bev Mallett, Trish Fougner, Doris McLen- nan, Diane Patterson, Jane Simmons, Trisha Gerard and Vikki Simmons. Would this House please make them all welcome. B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce two constituents from the East Kootenay, Faye and Steve Street, who are ranchers. They own Mountain Meadow Ranch in the East Kootenay. They're up there somewhere.

They're down here doing what they're always do- ing, which is advocating for the ranching industry here in this province — two of the hardest-working people I know and great, great people. Would you all help me make them welcome. I. Chong: I'm pleased to introduce today a constitu- ent of mine, Mary McSevenry. She is in the gallery with relatives visiting from Argyllshire, Scotland. Mr. and Mrs. Tommy McCoban and Mr. and Mrs. Robert McSevenry have travelled across Canada by train, making various stops along the way.

While in western Canada they will be travelling around British Colum- bia, visiting other relatives and enjoying our very wonderful attractions and scenery. Would the House please make them all very wel- come. L. Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to introduce some individuals visiting here from Masset, British Colum- b i a , o n t h e Q u e e n C h a r l o t t e I s l a n d s . W e h a v e M r . D . Cyr from Tahayghen Elementary School, and he is joined by 22 smiling people from the grade 7 class at that school. Please make them welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environ- mental Assessment Act. Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Hagen: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this bill today, one that initiates a much- needed and prudent reform of British Columbia's envi- ronmental assessment process.

This bill puts in place a more streamlined and flexible process for conducting environmental assessments of major projects in the province. [1410] I'm pleased to say this bill supports the govern- ment's goals for a thriving economy based on sustain- able economic development of our natural resources. Importantly, this legislation improves the environ- mental assessment process without compromising high environmental standards and ensures that communi- ties throughout the province can benefit from sustaina- bly developed projects.

British Columbians have raised concerns about the inflexibility of the current one-size-fits-all process and the amount of time taken to complete reviews and make decisions under the current Environmental As- sessment Act. This government has listened. Under this bill, it will be possible to better tailor assessment pro- cedures to the circumstances and issues presented by each project. At the same time, the bill will continue to

3334 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 ensure that meaningful consultation with the public and first nations is provided for and that key issues are fully addressed. The neutral environmental assessment office will h a v e a n i n c r e a s e d r o l e t o p l a y i n o v e r s i g h t f u n c t i o n s and ensuring the act is implemented in a timely and responsible fashion. I move that the bill be placed on the orders for the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 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. ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 H o n . G . C o l l i n s p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ad- vanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 50 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Collins: O n b e h a l f o f m y c o l l e a g u e t h e Minister of Advanced Education, I'm introducing to- day Bill 50.

Bill 50 amends the Engineers and Geoscientists Act to authorize the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to make bylaws requiring that the members of the association carry both primary and secondary liability insurance. In ad- dition, the amendments will authorize the association to establish insurance fees and other fees, either by bylaw or under the authority of a bylaw. These amendments will enable the association to participate in a national secondary liability insurance program established by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

The amendments will also enable the asso- ciation to make bylaws establishing the circumstances under which its members are required to hold primary liability insurance. As well, this bill amends the Technical University of British Columbia Act so that the government can appoint a transition administrator to wind up the Technical University of British Columbia. The amend- ments will also provide for transfer of the university's assets and liabilities and for repeal of the Technical University of British Columbia Act.

After extensively reviewing a number of business plans from Tech B.C. and seven proposals from other institutions, government decided previously to have Simon Fraser University assume responsibility for stu- dents and assets of Tech B.C. and its operation at Sur- rey Place Mall. The decision not to proceed with the Technical University of British Columbia was made at an open cabinet meeting on February 7 of this year. This legislation will implement that decision. SFU will c o n t i n u e t o o f f e r T e c h B .

C . p r o g r a m s a n d e v e n t u a l l y integrate these with a Simon Fraser University degree program. Interjections. Hon. G. Collins: Our Surrey members, Mr. Speaker. Not only will SFU accommodate current Tech B.C. students, but they'll expand to 800 FTEs at the univer- sity's present location in the city of Surrey. This is great news not only for the students and staff at Tech B.C. but also for the growing community of Surrey. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 50 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. PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 51 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 51. This bill amends the Crime Victim Assistance Act, the Criminal Records Review Act and the Motion Picture Act.

The new crime victim assistance program will come into force this summer. It transfers programs and ser- vices for victims of crime from the Workers Compensa- tion Board to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. [1415] The new crime victim assistance program provides several new benefits to victims of crime. The amend- ments specify which benefits will be available for which category of applicant. The changes also stream- line the administration of the new program.

The criminal records review program protects chil- dren by requiring anyone who is employed, licensed or funded by the government and who works with chil- dren and who has unsupervised access to children through their work to get a criminal-record check. The program is funded entirely by government and costs $1.2 million each year to administer. Amendments to the Criminal Records Review Act will ensure that the program is sustainable by creating a cost-recovery fee to be paid by the individual or employer requesting the check. This fee will be in line with fees currently charged by police departments.

The registrar of the

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3335 criminal-records review program will have the discre- tion to waive the fee when appropriate. Another change will streamline the adjudication process and eliminate the appeal panel. This panel is not necessary, because since the program started in 1996, there have only been nine appeals.

Changes to the Motion Picture Act will ensure more efficient use of resources by allowing the province to adopt ratings for films, videos and new media from other jurisdictions rather than requiring the film classi- fication office to independently review each of these media, as is currently the case. The amendments will also eliminate the Motion Picture Appeal Board, which reviews classification decisions. Fewer than ten deci- sions are appealed each year. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 51 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. THE HUNTING AND FISHING HERITAGE ACT B. Bennett presented a bill intituled The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act. B. Bennett: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. B. Bennett: This is a very simple bill, but it's impor- tant to thousands of British Columbians.

This bill ac- knowledges the legitimacy of hunting and fishing that is done in accordance with the law and recognizes that hunters and anglers play an indispensable role in the wise management of fish and wildlife in this beautiful province. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill M204 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) ACTIONS AGAINST LIBERAL MLAS B. Lekstrom: In recent weeks there's been a dan- gerous escalation of the protest that has no place in our democratic system. For over 15 years I was on and worked with the executive of the Telecommunications Workers Union, Local 34, in my area. I fought hard at the bargaining table, and I walked the picket line, and I participated in many protests, which certainly is one of my rights. Never once did I consider attempting to thwart the democratic process through the aggressive and increasingly invasive tactics condoned and en- couraged today.

In particular, there are several recent examples that trouble me greatly: an early morning protest at the private home of an MLA, the forceful occupation of an MLA's office, a protest rally held at the private home of our Premier, and the unconscionable actions of six HEU members on a recent commercial flight and their appalling behaviour towards our Premier in the air- port. As a former union official I'm furious at the extent to which all of these tactics are tolerated, if not con- doned, by some union leaders.

Through their inflam- matory rhetoric and undemocratic tactics, they are drowning out constructive dialogue in our province. In my books any union leader or political leader that con- dones these tactics or, worse, fails to condemn them is not much of a leader in my eyes. HEALTH CARE IN MISSION R. Hawes: Mission Memorial Hospital and its dedi- cated health care providers have given excellent service to the Mission citizens for many, many years. In the wave of much-needed change sweeping across health care in British Columbia, Mission Memorial Hospital cannot exist as an island, untouched.

Health care pro- viders in the community have asked me to bring politi- cal pressure to bear on the government to stop the change. The government has, however, agreed with the British Columbia Medical Association, who have strongly stated that political interference in the day-to- day operation of health care has made long-term plan- ning impossible. They state that politicians should back away from manipulating the management of the health care system.

The government has agreed with this. [1420] I now wish to encourage Mission's health care pro- viders, its mayor Abe Neufeld, his council and others to continue showing great leadership by developing the progressive and innovative proposal we have dis- cussed in the past. This proposal would create new clinically, medically and fiscally sound and innovative services for the whole region and would see services we in Mission feel are essential preserved in the Mis- sion Memorial Hospital.

I urge the Fraser health authority to encourage this type of innovation and to work collaboratively and cooperatively with health care providers in an atmos- phere of respect and consultation. This will be critical to building an integrated and responsive system that works for all of us.

I would further urge the ministers of Health Services and Health Planning to ensure that there is a venue in the Fraser health authority — and, for that matter, in all health authorities — where the clinical and medical views of health providers will be consulted, and innovative proposals will not just be listened to but will also be encouraged and actually heard in a spirit of collaboration.

3336 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 OPPORTUNITIES FOR B.C. YOUTH K. Manhas: This week we mark B.C. Youth Week, a celebration of the efforts, energies and positive contri- butions of youth around the province and a recognition of the important role that youth play in their communi- ties year-round. We all know that young people play an extremely important role in the sustainability and future success of a community. But according to Statistics Canada, from 1996 to 2001, 45,510 British Columbians under 45 left the province. As a young person myself, I nearly left the province in those years.

The last government left B.C. in such a staggering state that many young people looked at better opportunities elsewhere. Alberta, on the other hand, seems to have gotten it right in attracting young people. Alberta managed to attract 126,565 people under 45 from other Canadian provinces during that same period. I'm tired of seeing young people feel like they have to pick up and move, to leave B.C., in order to build a positive future for themselves.

That is changing, and there is no doubt that this government's initiatives to increase viability of business and to attract trade and investment to B.C. will provide more opportunities for everyone in the province. The Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enter- prise are charged with developing a youth strategy. It is important that we remember how important youth are to the success of this province. We've got to keep y o u n g p e o p l e i n B . C . W e n e e d t o e n s u r e t h a t B .

C . youth want to stay in this province, because opportuni- ties exist for them to build a bright future here in B.C. We need to move forward with an articulated youth strategy and continued measures to address youth unemployment. We also need to attract more y o u n g p e o p l e t o c o m e t o B . C . W e ' l l d o t h a t i f y o u n g people start finding that they have the opportunities they need to succeed here in B.C. We need to create an attractive and exciting place for young people to stay in and move to, to build and create opportunities for their and our future. Introductions by Members Hon. R.

Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduc- tion. Leave granted. Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate it. Further to the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Jeff Morrison has joined us in the gallery today. He is an energy policy expert who moved here from Calgary after tax reductions were introduced by the Minister of Finance. This young man is joined to- day by his mother, Lily, visiting from Ontario. Would the House please make them welcome. Oral Questions NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS J.

MacPhail: Today we see once again that the doc- tors' dispute has degenerated into name-calling, and there are no new talks scheduled. The doctors and the government can't even agree on the most basic of facts. I wonder why the government has decided to do away with the binding arbitration mechanism that would be so important in these circumstances and why, without one, disagreements degenerate… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …into disputes that put patients at risk.

To the Minister of Health Services: at the beginning of today, another day of this dispute, will he now ad- mit that it was a mistake to get rid of binding arbitra- tion, and will he agree to a new binding arbitration process to end this dispute? [1425] Hon. C. Hansen: The previous government two years ago, as the member well knows, put in place a binding arbitration process that had very specific terms of reference attached to it to protect the interests of taxpayers in British Columbia.

Those terms of reference included a provision that the financial circumstances of the province had to be taken into consideration and that the operational and management needs of the health authorities had to be taken into consideration. In the arbitration process those two issues were not adequately dealt with by the arbitrator. The binding arbitration process did not work. It did not serve the purpose it was intended to serve. When the memoran- dum of understanding was signed with the B.C.

Medical Association six weeks ago, the Premier made it clear that binding arbitration was not on the table, and the presi- dent of the B.C. Medical Association acknowledged that at the time. She has acknowledged it on several occa- sions since. Quite frankly, I think it's inappropriate for physi- cians in British Columbia to be denying care to their patients throughout this province when in reality what should be taking place is negotiations at a negotiating table.

We are more than willing to resume those nego- tiations this afternoon, tomorrow or whenever possible so that we can put patient interests first and allow these other issues to be solved where they need to be solved — at a negotiating table. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: It's disappointing that the Minister of Health Services continues the name-calling. The gov- ernment is saying…

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3337 Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …that the doctors are asking for more money, and the doctors are saying that the minister isn't telling the truth. The government says the Canada Health Act does not require binding arbitration. The doctors say it does. Both sides are engaged in spin op- erations to present to the public their point of view. This is no way to handle a dispute that has the poten- tial to threaten lives. At the very least British Columbians deserve an independent assessment of the facts.

So if the minister won't agree to binding arbitration, will he at least agree to an independent third party to sort out, at least, who is right and who is wrong on the facts as both sides present them so that British Columbians can tell who is actually telling the truth? Hon. C. Hansen: We have a very good group of individuals who are negotiating on behalf of govern- ment, and the BCMA has a very good group that are negotiating on their behalf. These are issues that need to be sorted out at the negotiating table.

Good progress was being made up to 2 o'clock in the morning last Saturday, when the BCMA walked away from negotia- tions. There was good progress being made. The issues can be resolved at the table. Everyone's agreed that there's a $392 million cap to resolve all of the issues around physician compensation. The place to resolve those is at a negotiating table, not by com- promising the health care of British Columbians, which is what physicians are doing. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: You know, Mr.

Speaker, today I heard a commentator suggest that the BCMA and this Minis- ter of Health Services weren't even at the same table, let alone on the same planet. The tit-for-tat spin operations being employed by the government and the doctors are offensive to people in need of care. All British Colum- bians want is a government to keep its promise to de- liver health care when and where people need it. An independent third party will help get to the bottom of the mess, and it'll provide British Columbi- ans with the information that they want and, more importantly, that they deserve.

Will the minister today stand up, set individual interests aside and call for an independent third party so that patients aren't caught in the crosshairs of this ridiculous spin war? Hon. C. Hansen: We have made it very clear right f r o m d a y o n e t h a t w e w a n t t o p u t i n p l a c e a n i n d e - pendent third-party process to provide for a dispute settlement mechanism. Both parties have that objective. We've put a proposal on the table. We've asked the BCMA to comment on that.

We've asked them to sit down, and mutually we will come up with that inde- pendent process. [1430] It is not up to me to impose a third-party process on the BCMA. It is up to us, the BCMA and the govern- ment to sit down together to work out a third-party, independent dispute settlement mechanism that will work for everybody involved. We should not be doing the dispute on the backs of patients in British Colum- bia. It should be done at the negotiating table. PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN J.

Kwan: The government is allowing the Vancou- ver coastal health authority to cut back and outright abolish a number of extremely important programs aimed at children. Immunization programs, speech pathology programs and vision screening for children are all on the chopping block. These services are espe- cially important to kids that come from poor, transient families, many of whom live in my constituency. To the Minister of Children and Family Develop- ment: will he tell the House today whether or not he supports cutting these preventative health programs?

Will he tell us whether or not he asked his ministry for an assessment of the impacts these cuts will have on children's health? Hon. C. Hansen: The Vancouver coastal health authority is looking at how to better deliver programs within the financial envelope they have, as are all the health authorities throughout the province. In the cases of each of the three programs that the member just mentioned, they are reorganizing the way those pro- grams are delivered, but the programs themselves are not being diminished. Access to those programs is not being diminished. They are being reorganized.

They're going to be done in a more cost-effective way. I con- gratulate the health authorities for looking at more cost-effective ways of delivering the kind of programs we need. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: This government has new

definitions for words around protection. Cutting programs does not mean protection. Cutting programs does not mean reorganization. The Minister of Children and Family Development's job is to protect B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens, but his government is preparing to spend mil- lions of dollars on glitzy TV ads. Early intervention programs for children in Vancouver are disappearing. He doesn't have a clue how that impacts children's health. Will the minister at least, then, have the courage to stand up for the convictions that he had when he was in opposition and condemn his government for cutting programs that protect B.C.'s most vulnerable children from disease and illness?

3338 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 Hon. C. Hansen: What we inherited when we took over as government was a health care system that was not working. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. C. Hansen: Whether it was programs for chil- dren or whether it was health care programs generally in the province, the status quo was not acceptable. Fundamental change was essential. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C.

Hansen: We have now undertaken the challenge of reorganizing the way health care can be delivered so that we can deliver better programs, we can continue programs, and we can continue to give the service that individuals need, whether they're chil- dren or anybody else, but do it in the most cost- effective and responsible way possible. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FARMERS AND AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY B. Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Ag- riculture, Food and Fisheries. Agriculture has played an important role in the communities that I represent for over the last 100 years.

This makes the minister's recent attendance at the federal-provincial agriculture meeting in Ottawa all the more important to my con- stituents. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries please update us on what was discussed at that meet- ing? Hon. J. van Dongen: Since last June the federal government, along with the provincial and territorial governments, has been involved in negotiating a new agriculture policy framework.

Our goal is to develop a new policy that will foster a profitable farming indus- try in Canada — one that will be a world leader in food safety, environmental sustainability and innovation. We also want to ensure that the new agreement in- cludes a strong risk-management component and, in particular, a crop insurance policy that will help farm- ers deal with adverse, unforeseen weather conditions. We have a lot of work to do on this new policy, but we expect to have it in place before April 1, 2003. Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplementary question. [1435] B.

Lekstrom: I n m y r i d i n g w e ' r e h a v i n g a n e x - tremely late spring this year. The deadline for planting canola and other crops and having them insured under the crop insurance program is rapidly approaching. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries tell us what he is doing to assist the farmers who will likely not be able to seed prior to the May 10 deadline? Hon.

J. van Dongen: In the Peace River the farmers are certainly facing some adverse weather conditions that are delaying planting, and in the last two weeks we have been reviewing the eligibility deadlines for farmers to plant crops and still be eligible for crop in- surance. We have extended some of the dates, and I'll just mention them quickly here for the members. The ca- nola seeding deadline has been extended from May 10 to May 20. The oat seeding deadline has been moved from May 20 to May 25. The hard red spring wheat deadline has been moved from May 20 to May 25.

We've discussed all of these changes with the pro- ducers, and the B.C. Grain Producers Association sup- ports these changes. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FOREST INDUSTRY R. Visser: The resource sector is the cornerstone of B.C.'s economy and allows us to provide many impor- tant public services. At the same time, balancing wealth generation with environmental stewardship is the only way to make sure that they are available for future generations. Can the Minister of Sustainable Resource Manage- ment tell us what this government is doing to ensure the balanced management of our forests? Hon. S.

Hagen: Today is a great day for British Columbia. I'm pleased to tell the House and all British Columbians that the Premier and the Minister of For- e s t s are i n P ri nc e G e o rg e t o d ay t o m ark an i m p o rt ant milestone for the forest sector. Today the five-billionth tree will be planted in British Columbia — five- billionth. We are planting more than 200 million seedlings every year. By the year 2007 we will plant the six- billionth tree in the province. This is a tremendous tes- timony to the commitment that we have to the future of our forest sector. Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Island has a supplementary question. R. Visser: The current state of our forest industry has many British Columbians concerned about the economy. Despite that, we still recognize the continued need for reforestation and the important role this plays in sustaining the industry into the future. Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Manage- ment outline what other steps are being taken by this government to promote a sustainable forest industry? Hon. S. Hagen: This government has undertaken a very ambitious agenda to promote a sustainable forest industry in this province.

We want to build the forest

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3339 industry back from the doldrums that it's been in for the last ten years. We are dedicating $20 million this year to forest research and a further $6 million for tree improvement. We have launched a public review of our results-based code, which the member, I know, is very well aware of as he chairs the committee that's going to go around the province to get public input on this very valuable process. We will be moving forward with consultations on the…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. S. Hagen: Mr.

Speaker, I'm really getting tired of getting interrupted. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Please proceed. Hon. S. Hagen: It's too bad that some members have to be rude. We will be moving forward with consultations on the working forest initiative very, very quickly. We look forward to the public input that's going to come back from British Columbians on this very important issue.

Lastly, with our commitment to tax and regulatory improvements, we are confident that the forest indus- try will once again provide working families in this province with good paycheques. [End of question period.] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Order. [1440] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I understand members are getting tired as we near the end of the session. Despite that, I would like to call, yet again, continuing debate on Bill 27 in committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:42 p.m. On

section 2 as amended (continued). J. MacPhail: Before we broke for lunch, my col- league from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was exploring the concept of the new definition of what constitutes a disability under this new act. It is our premise, com- pletely unrefuted to date by the minister, that the gov- ernment is trying to limit the people who qualify for disability benefits in this province. Because the act has changed the words so dramati- cally, all we can do is rely on the minister telling us what conditions need to be present in a person with a disability in order to have him or her qualify.

There is no other way of determining this, so we will continue reading the…. They're not cases; they're diagnoses. They are existing conditions that could apply to any- one, to any member of our family or our friends. They're existing conditions that are not a case-by-case basis but a diagnosis. Does the diagnosis of arthritis qualify for disability? [1445] Hon. M. Coell: The member may recall that through BC Benefits, it was not on the basis of diagno- sis that an individual would qualify, and it won't be under Bill 27 either. J. MacPhail: No, I don't recall that. Perhaps the minister could expand upon that.

Hon. M. Coell: Under BC Benefits you had to show that you had a severe mental or physical impairment. It was not on diagnosis. J. MacPhail: Yes, and often the indication of that impairment was a diagnosis, so it's unusual for the minister to somehow suggest that diagnosis is irrele- vant. Is the minister suggesting diagnosis is irrelevant? Hon. M. Coell: It's a factor. J. MacPhail: Yes, so we will continue. The minister may be sensing what kind of purpose does this serve while people are being judged by the new rules as we speak and are preparing. People in this world are out there.

They're now eligible for disability benefits, and they're wondering, with a great deal of angst, about what it is they have to prove in order to get them either benefit that they now are eligible for. I must tell the minister that this information has come in. These questions have come in since my col- league last night was so ably raising so many of these issues. People were calling in and asking for these questions to be put because they had no comfort from the debate they watched last night when my colleague from Mount Pleasant was raising a series of very, very important questions. Bipolar disorder. Hon. M.

Coell: Both Bills 26 and 27 require that anyone seeking the designation as a person with a dis-

3340 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 ability meets two tests. BC Benefits also states that an individual must have a severe mental or physical im- pairment. This carries forward in this bill. I don't think I can be any clearer for you. J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, the diagnoses that I'm reading off to the minister now qualify. They were ap- proved. They're not individual cases, but the diagnosis represents a diagnosis upon which the person quali- fied. These are questions that are coming in.

So it would be appropriate, then, for the minister to say: "Yes, that does qualify you." Blood clots, epilepsy, anxiety, depression. Hon. M. Coell: We had a thorough discussion this morning on that. [1450] J. MacPhail: You know, I actually believe that this is one minister in this government who wants to com- municate as much information as he possibly can in a forthright manner. Now is the time to do it. We discussed earlier on about the way ordinary British Columbians can actually seek input into this government's decisions. The Income Assistance Advi- sory Council had been cancelled, repealed.

The minis- ter said he meets regularly. He wouldn't give any de- t a i l s o n m e e t i n g s t h a t h e ' d h a d , b u t h e d o e s s a y h e ' d meet regularly. People listen to the words of this minister and are calling in and want information. Does a diagnosis of breast cancer qualify? The Chair: Shall

section 2 as amended pass? J. MacPhail: Cerebral palsy — does that qualify? The Chair: Shall

section 2 as amended pass? J. MacPhail: I find it shocking, actually, when the minister knows why these questions are being asked and he could alleviate people's concerns out there and, instead, what he's done is contributed to the state of anxiety. There have been a couple of MLAs — good on them for raising particular situations — only a couple, but thank you for that…. Certainly, the minister was more than willing to respond to individual situations that other MLAs raised. I guess it was because they weren't from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleas- ant or me that he agreed to respond.

Now he sits there, and all the people can hope for, who are now eligible and rely on that disability bene- fit…. All he does is sit there and say nothing — abso- lutely nothing. In fact, I guess I'll have to add this particular minis- ter to my list of those whom I'm disappointed in — that he would play favourites and politics and refuse to give information to people who are directly affected by this. In a recent meeting with the deputy minister and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the dep- uty minister stated that the new definition as outlined in Bill 27,

section 2, is intended to cull out specific types of cases or medical conditions that are seen as the key unjustified cost pressures that flow from the current definition under the Disability Benefits Program Act. Perhaps the minister could list the key unjustified cost pressures, the types of cases or medical conditions that come under that guise. Hon. M. Coell: I would seek clarification. I'm not quite sure what the member is referring to. J. MacPhail: I'll read it again. In a meeting between the deputy minister and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the deputy minister stated that the new definition as outlined in Bill 27,

section 2, is in- tended to cull out specific types of cases or medical conditions that are seen as the key unjustified cost pressures that flow from the definition under the Dis- ability Benefits Program Act that this government is now changing. What are those types of cases or medi- cal conditions that are seen as key unjustified cost pres- sures? Hon. M. Coell: I understand from my deputy that she has been misquoted and that she did not say that. J. Kwan: We'll double-check this information and whether or not we have misquoted the deputy minis- ter, because it was provided to us by the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities. [1455] Let me ask the minister this question on the medi- cal conditions in this new definition under Bill 27. Peo- ple who have soft tissue injuries, chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, some forms of arthritis and depression — will they still qualify for income assistance under Bill 27? Hon. M. Coell: Again, it depends on an individ- ual's circumstances and the degree or severity as stated by a medical practitioner. J.

Kwan: The reason why I read out this list of medical conditions is because it is believed by the community, as an example, that these are some of the conditions the ministry will be looking to get rid of for qualification under Bill 27. Formerly, under the old act, people were qualified for disability 2 with these condi- tions. The list I have here states that very clearly. There are hundreds of different kinds of medical conditions for which individuals qualify for disability 2 under the former act.

Unless the minister can provide assurances otherwise, with the change under Bill 27 it is believed that these conditions will no longer qualify individuals to receive income assistance under Bill 27. In fact, from yesterday's debate…. There were peo- ple who were watching this debate. I have a case here t hat was s e nt t o m e b y e - m ai l . H e re 's wh at t he e - m ai l

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3341 reads. I'll just read part of it. This individual has a brain injury and has tried working and wants to be retrained, but even when she has worked here and there, she's not able to make enough money to get above disability level. People with dementia won't be able to answer accurately if their disability affects their daily life or not. In this case, will this person be qualified? Well, her experience is such that her husband and herself were forced to separate so that they could get benefits of some form for her disability.

When he works, he makes about $867 a month, at $8.50 an hour. Of course, with that calculation, they didn't get support from the ministry. Without the support, they were un- able to pay their hydro, and now they're being evicted. They couldn't pay their full rent, and they couldn't even cover food, their basic need. They are right now, at this moment, at the dollar-breaking point, and of course, the husband is being penalized for trying to work. The couple is contemplating that perhaps they need to split up in order to survive.

Maybe the minister can tell this couple: people with dementia, who won't be able to answer accurately if their disability affects their daily life — would they be able to collect income assistance under Bill 27? Hon. M. Coell: The member is actually talking about a situation under the BC Benefits Act, which her government introduced. [1500] J. Kwan: No. This was e-mailed to me yesterday, on the 8th. Effective April 1, the changes the minister brought in through the interim regulations are impact- ing this couple.

I know the minister would like to say, "It was the previous government; it was the BC Benefits Act," and so on and so forth, but the reality is that the changes being brought in are from this government, from this minister. Even though the act has not passed through this House, even though the regulations are not set, the minister said that effective April 1, changes were going to be taking place. They're impacting peo- ple's lives as we speak. The minister advised me of that when we did estimates.

When we were doing esti- mates, he said: "Effective April 1 changes are going to take place." Now e-mails are coming in, and people are being impacted. The minister would like to say it was the previous government. But you know what? It won't wash. It wasn't the previous government's regulations. It is this government's regulations. It is this govern- ment's bill that is causing these problems for people who are faced with disability challenges. Hon. M. Coell: I would correct the member. There have been no changes as of April 1 for persons with a disability. J.

Kwan: Let me try another tack, because the min- ister is obviously not answering the questions, creating even more anxiety in the broader community. When the opposition was in the House, we rose during second reading and raised these questions with the minister. Then every Liberal MLA was shouting and pounding their desks, heckling my colleague and me, suggesting that we were somehow fearmongering, scaremongering and so on.

Well, this is the time, in third reading debate, for the minister to give concrete answers — answers for people who are sending e- mails by the droves for us to ask these questions of the minister on whether or not they would be qualified and whether or not they'll be cut off as a result of changes in Bill 27. I n f ac t , i n a m o m e nt I am g o i ng t o f i n d t he e - m ai l from a person that's just e-mailed me. She's being cut off disability, and she did receive a letter from the min- ister telling her to go get a job. The minister yesterday said he did not send out such information to anybody.

In fact, after hearing that debate, individuals in the broader community sent in such a letter which the min- ister did send to them, and then subsequent to that, about how they were being cut off. I will find that in- formation in just one moment. I want to go back to the question here around these medical conditions. The minister likes to flip and flop. He wants to say: "On the one hand, these are individ- ual cases, so we can't deal with them." Then when we say: "Okay. These are medical conditions that I'm high- lighting.

Will the minister confirm that these medical conditions will qualify people to receive income assis- tance?" Then the minister says: "Well, gee, it's not up to me. It's up to the practitioner." Well, the practitioners have already decided on the basis of these medical conditions for people to receive disability 2, under the previous act. We already have that information. We already have the medical practitioners who have spo- ken on that issue. It is now up to the minister to advise what his intention is for this act and the change he's now bringing forward under Bill 27.

Last night, when we were talking about the issues relating to HIV and AIDS, I asked the minister whether or not there was a qualifier attached to it if someone's been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. The minister said something about fatigue being another qualifying fac- tor. I want to ask the minister, then: on the issue around fatigue, would that mean that soft-tissue inju- ries, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, cyclical manic fa- tigue disabilities — and that's the person who e-mailed me; she has this fatigue disability — MS, Parkinson's and a host of other disabilities qualify under this act? Hon. M.

Coell: It will depend on the individual circumstances and severity. J. Kwan: The circumstances and severity are such that they now qualify for disability 2 under the former act, which required the individual to show…. "…as a direct result of a severe mental or physical impairment, requires extensive assistance or supervision in order to perform daily living tasks within a reasonable time frame, or requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, and who has confirmation from a medical practitioner that

3342 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 the impairment referred to in paragraph (b)" — which I just read out —"exists and is likely to continue for at least 2 years or is likely to continue for at least one year and is likely to recur." Under those conditions physicians have deter- mined the individual is qualified for disability 2. [1505] The minister yesterday tried to say that there are no substantive changes here under this act that we're de- bating right now, under this section. He tried to say: "Don't worry; be happy.

Those people who need to qualify will qualify." Well, the people who need to qualify did qualify under the old act. I now want to know: where the minister says, "Don't worry; be happy. They will qualify," would those people under this new act…? Will he confirm in the House right now that those people, who did qualify under disability 2 with these medical conditions, will continue to receive that assistance? Hon. M. Coell: I may have already said this, but some of the questions are quite repetitive. The ministry will not be requiring all DB-2 clients to reapply.

For example, the ministry is working with the Ministry of Health Services, mental health division, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to identify clients with mental health disorders who are receiving treatment and those who are developmen- tally delayed and living in group homes. These clients will clearly meet the new criteria, so they will not need to reapply. They will be advised that a review of their designation has indicated that they meet the new crite- ria for continuous assistance.

Similarly, the ministry is reviewing all client files to determine the extent of information already available. If there is sufficient information on a client's file to de- termine eligibility based on the criteria, their designa- tion will be confirmed. J. Kwan: You know what? The minister can read that list as many times as he wants to, but he's not an- swering the question. He's not answering the question that's being posed to him. Will these individuals, who now qualify for disability 2 under the previous act with these medical conditions, qualify under this new act? I don't think it's that complicated.

Does the minister not know what his intent is with his respect to this act? Hon. M. Coell: As I've said before, it will depend on the severity and individual circumstances. I have a commitment to persons with disabilities. I know that this legislation and the continuous assistance will pro- vide the support for safety and security. J. Kwan: The minister said yesterday that the changes that are being brought about in this act will not substantively affect people in terms of their eligibil- ity. In fact, it wasn't just my colleague from Vancouver- Hastings and I who asked these questions.

The mem- ber for Vancouver-Langara stood up and asked the question. He rose up and said: "It is not clear under this act in terms of who would qualify and who wouldn't qualify." In fact, the member for Langara had a won- derful suggestion, and that is for the minister to stand down

section 2. I rose up and said that we would be happy to stand down

section 2 and work with the member for Van- couver-Langara and the minister and the community to make sure that it is clear that individuals who ought to qualify and should be receiving support from govern- ment would continue to do so. The minister then got up and said: "No need to do that. It is very clear in terms of who qualifies and who doesn't." Well now, it is not clear to me at all who qualifies and who doesn't. I want to get into the specif- ics by asking the minister.

If he says the intent is the same as the previous act, and there are no substantive changes in that regard, then it ought to follow that the people who were assessed by medical practitioners on the severity of their illness, on the severity and the im- pact of their disability and who qualified for disability 2 under the previous act, ought to qualify now, today, under this new act. All the minister has to do is confirm with the list that I have received from the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities, which lists all the medical conditions, that the people who have already been assessed will continue to receive support from government under this act and that new people who come forward with the same medical conditions, too, will receive support. [1510] If the minister can do that, then I have no more questions. I have no more question on

section 2. If the minister is not able to do that and keeps on saying that he doesn't know and that it's somebody else's respon- sibility to decide, then we have a problem. We have a problem in this

section of the bill, because it is unclear and the minister has not satisfactorily answered the questions to make it clear for individuals in the com- munity to understand who is qualified and who is not qualified for disability assistance under Bill 27. P. Wong: I ask leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members P. Wong: I am pleased to introduce 56 students from St. Andrew's School in Vancouver. These students are from grade 4 and grade 5 and are led by their teachers and parents: Mr. Samson, Mrs. Riccardi and Mrs. Scali. Would the House please make them wel- come.

Debate Continued Hon. M. Coell: Just to answer the member's ques- tion, some individuals' medical conditions change. They can in some cases improve. They can in some cases deteriorate over a period of time. It's therefore not possible to make blanket statements.

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3343 J. Kwan: I don't know what is possible for this min- ister. It seems that nothing is possible. It seems that none of the questions that are being asked of the minis- ter, he can answer. It seems that he cannot give any assurance whatsoever to allay the fears in the broader community. It seems that his answers are contradictory in their nature. They first say: "Yes, they're qualified." Then they say: "No, they're not qualified." Then there are additional qualifiers attached to it around eligibil- ity.

Let me just review from yesterday's Hansard on the questions around HIV and AIDS. The question was asked: can the minister please explain and give what assurance he can to the individuals who have HIV and AIDS that they would qualify to receive income assis- tance for disabilities under Bill 27? The minister's an- swer: "Currently, under BC Benefits, HIV-positive do not qualify on the basis of diagnosis, because they have to show either a severe mental or physical impairment. That won't change." Then I rose up and challenged the minister on that, because I have been identified with people with AIDS.

They have come forward to say that they have been diagnosed with HIV and AIDS, and while their dis- ability is not 100 percent symptomatic, because of dis- ability they need extra resources for them to perform their daily activities. It costs them extra to simply sur- vive, and so on. They were and are receiving disability 2. I rose up and asked the minister that question. Again, the minister's answer says: "I think the easy answer is that if someone is diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, they will qualify." This is a direct quote from Hansard last night. Then discussion went on for a little bit.

I asked the minister the question for further clarification. Then the m i n i s t e r c h a n g e d . H e g o e s o n t o s a y t h a t c u r r e n t l y , under BC Benefits, they do not qualify on the basis of the diagnosis. If they show that they have a severe mental or physical impairment because of that diagno- sis, then they would qualify. In the same breath, the minister has changed his position around whether or not a person qualifies. Then he goes on to say: "A person with AIDS will need assistance for a range of reasons. One of them could be, as I said before, fatigue.

They will qualify." [1515] Then, following precisely on this statement made by the minister, calls and e-mails started to come into our office. People wanted to know: if fatigue qualifies them, then would another diagnosis, such as fi- bromyalgia, qualify the individual for continuous benefits? The list is actually in an e-mail sent in by real people out there, not stuff that I'm just making up. People just sent in and said, "What about this condi- tion? What about this condition?" on the basis of what the minister said. Would the minister please answer the questions for British Columbians? Hon. M.

Coell: For clarification, fatigue was an example of one factor in consideration for HIV/AIDS. J. Kwan: The minister says fatigue is one factor with HIV/AIDS. If you have HIV and AIDS and you have fatigue, you would qualify, and you will meet the medical assessment and the daily living test. That's what the minister said yesterday. Then he went on to say: "Just to reiterate again, we fully expect that some- one diagnosed with HIV/AIDS will qualify." Then I asked the question: are there any conditions attached to that? The minister did not get up to dispute or to add any conditions to it.

Then it just stopped with him say- ing that someone diagnosed with HIV/AIDS will qual- ify. Is the minister now saying that if someone is diag- nosed with HIV/AIDS and has fatigue, then they would qualify? Like, how many conditions are at- tached to eligibility for a particular illness that are cur- rently now eligible to receive disability? Hon. M. Coell: I am not a medical practitioner, and those are decisions best left up to medical practitioners. J. Kwan: Well, the minister would like to just pass it off to the medical practitioners.

I've already said this to the minister, and I hope he can hear me: the medical practitioners have already confirmed the diagnosis. They have already confirmed that these individuals should be on disability, and they are on disability right now. They're on disability 2. The minister will not, however, confirm whether or not, on that basis, where that confirmation has already been received, people with these medical conditions will continue to receive disability. Why won't he? What is he hiding? Hon. M. Coell: The person could have a mild diag- nosis or an extreme diagnosis.

That's why it's left up to a medical practitioner. J. Kwan: How will medical practitioners know what is deemed to significantly restrict the person's ability to perform daily living activities when in the act it is not at all clear? In the former act it was clear, be- cause anything that is deemed to be beyond reason- ableness would be deemed to be a significant restric- tion on an individual's ability to perform daily living activities. Well, that's now gone, so there's no guidance whatsoever for the medical practitioners.

People will be looking to the minister who has put forward this bill, who is sponsoring this bill, for that clarity to un- derstand what those intentions are. What is the inten- tion of government in this regard? Hon. M. Coell: The medical practitioner will use an assessment tool. The tool is under development by the ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Health Planning and the Ministry of Health Services to assist in the development. J.

Kwan: That gives no information whatsoever to the public now, the people who are waiting and who are try- ing to understand what the ramifications are with respect to this bill. It gives them zero assurance whatsoever.

3344 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 [1520] I received another fax from another individual, who wants to know from the minister: "How will peo- ple with diabetes qualify — learning disabilities? Who says that a person who does not need assistance with daily living will qualify for disabilities?

What in the act says that they will qualify?" Then the letter goes on to say: "Unfortunately, in this field, lawyers go by written stuff, not the minister's statements." Then the person wants the minister to give examples, to give clarity on understanding "directly and significantly" in the act under this section, which refers to: "…directly and sig- nificantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities…." The person wants to know, actu- ally, what the budget is for people who are diagnosed with disabilities. What is the maximum rate which the person would be able to receive? Hon. M.

Coell: I'm not sure what the member means by rate. J. Kwan: The rate means the dollars, the dollar amount which the person would be able to receive. I know that in the act later on it does talk about the rates. If the minister wants to skip that answer, maybe the minister can answer the previous questions. Let me just reiterate what the questions are. How will people with diabetes qualify? Learning disabilities…. What in writ- ing says that people who do not need assistance with daily living will qualify for disability benefits? What in the act says that they will qualify? Let me stop there. Hon. M.

Coell: A s I ' v e s t a t e d a n u m b e r o f t i m e s , and I'll clarify the definition for you again, the defini- tion creates a three-step test: (1) is there a severe mental or physical impairment, (2) will the impairment last two years, and (3) does the impairment directly restrict the person's ability to perform daily living activities? J. Kwan: Quite frankly, the minister hadn't an- swered this person's question either. I'll send her Han- sard on the minister's response. Let me ask the minister this question.

Senior mem- bers of the Ministry of Human Resources have in- formed the community that the continuous assistance classification will include a category known as "multi- ple persistent barriers" and that there will a reduction in income for those who fall into this category. Could the minister please confirm whether or not there will be such a category and please define this category in terms of eligibility criteria? How does it differ from the other categories? Hon. M. Coell: That category will be under Bill 26. J. Kwan: That category is under Bill 26.

Bill 26 is for people with regular income assistance, not continuous assistance. I want to say again, and I want the minister to be very clear on this…. Senior members of the Minis- try of Human Resources have informed the community that continuous assistance classification will include a category known as multiple persistent barriers and that there will be a reduction in income for those who fall into this category. Continuous assistance is not under Bill 26. It is under Bill 27. [1525] Hon. M. Coell: The definition of persistent multiple barriers is in Bill 26.

It also has the ability to provide continuous assistance. Both bills actually have continu- ous assistance. J. Kwan: Actually, I remember we canvassed these questions in estimates as well, and we talked about people with what are called multiple persistent barri- ers. I used examples of people with perhaps substance misuse and mental illness, amongst other issues. The minister assured me that those individuals would qual- ify for the continuous categories. Continuous categories. As far as I can see, in both of these acts, the continuous only fall under Bill 27.

Continuous means that the person would need ongo- ing assistance. Then I also asked the minister: if the person can find work but find that they are not able to sustain their job, and they are either fired or let go because of their illness, what would happen in that instance? The minister replied that there would be a thing called rapid reinstatement. That's what people with a con- tinuous disability would qualify for. Here we have a situation that's being asked exactly of that. A person faced with multiple persistent barriers ought to qualify for continuous assistance for disability under Bill 27.

The minister just said no, they would not qualify for it under Bill 27 but rather would qualify under Bill 26. That is a direct contradiction not only to the information given to the community groups by the deputy minister but to what the minister said during estimates. Hon. M. Coell: Persons with persistent multiple barriers to employment are not expected to be able to achieve independence through employment. They will get continuous assistance under Bill 26. J. Kwan: The minister has just changed his position.

He's changed his position to say that those people who are faced with persistent multiple barriers are not qualified for disability benefits under Bill 27. That means that when they qualify under Bill 26, after two years, if they are not able to sustain a job, even if they have persistent multiple barriers, they will be cut off. That's what Bill 26 says. People with persistent multi- ple barriers are not considered individuals with dis- abilities. Is that what the minister is saying? Hon. M. Coell: People with persistent multiple barriers are exempt from time limits. J.

Kwan: The people with persistent multiple barri- ers are exempt from time limits. Are those who qualify for disabilities then not under Bill 27?

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3345 Hon. M. Coell: No. Persistent multiple barriers will be under Bill 26. [1530] J. Kwan: The minister, during estimates, used a number of examples of people with persistent multiple barriers. He used examples of people with physical disabilities, HIV and AIDS, mental illness and fetal alcohol syndrome, amongst others. The minister had said that in those instances where people are unable to keep a job because of their illness, there would be a thing called rapid reinstatement.

Then he went on to say that those who have these conditions — multiple barriers — would be put back on income assistance immediately and that they wouldn't have to go through a three-week pre- employment training. Then he went on to add that people on continuous assistance would be able to earn up to $300 a month. As I understand, the only people who can earn up to $300 a month are those individuals who qualify under Bill 27. It appears that there is a discrepancy. Maybe things have changed between then, when the estimates process was in place, and now, and the minister has had time to re-evaluate the situation.

Is he now saying, for the record, that those with multiple persistent barriers would be qualified for in- come assistance and would not be subject to a time limitation and that if they lose employment as a result of their disability, their illness — whatever barrier it is that they're faced with — they would receive rapid reinstatement? That, in the minister's view, is continu- ous assistance under Bill 26, not Bill 27. Hon. M. Coell: That's essentially correct. J. Kwan: I just want to put this on record.

This is something that I want to advocate for the people that I fear are going to be cut off because of the time limitations. I want to say very clearly to the minister that by his con- firmation today, I will be developing a fact sheet, if you will, on this issue and sending it out to the broader com- munity for every individual who ought to qualify so that they can bring this piece of paper to the welfare office and not receive any hassle and threats of being cut off. I want that on the record, to be very clear about it.

When individuals come back with problems, it is the word of the minister that I'm taking at this point. I will now let go of this issue in terms of questions to the minister relating to people with persistent multiple barriers. It is the minister's word that will ensure that these individuals are qualified. I want to thank the minister for that commitment. Hon. M. Coell: I need to clarify for the member that it is based on an assessment. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I have to give my colleague a break here, because she is reaching a conclusion where she has got the minister to finally land on a definition and reiterates the minister's own words. Then the minister clarifies by standing up and saying: "No, no, that's based on an assessment." An assessment of what? If the person is not eligible for income assistance under Bill 27 for people with dis- abilities, what are we assessing in terms of multiple barriers? [1535] Hon. M. Coell: It will be based on an employability assessment.

Essentially, the category is for those people who do not have a disability but have social barriers or other barriers that prevent them from seeking work. J. MacPhail: Y e s . W e l l , i n a d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f g o v - ernment that understands barriers and how they create disabilities, I think the previous government classified that as a disability 1. Is that correct? Hon. M. Coell: It is different than disability 1, and we're actually back debating Bill 26 at this point. It will allow people with invisible barriers, who were not able to get DB-1, to be identified and to receive continuous assistance.

J. MacPhail: All right. I appreciate the minister's comments about us being back debating Bill 26, but the reason why we're raising these issues right now is that by the ministry serving notice to pretty much every- body who's on income assistance — and we still heard from people last night who are on disability and were very much in the dark about their future as well — there are many people who are trying to figure out exactly how their lives will change.

I take it from the minister's comments, then — and I have to confess that I'm not nearly as well informed as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — that there will be a category under Bill 27 that's disability 1 and disability 2. How many categories are there? Hon. M. Coell: Under Bill 27 there is one category: persons with a disability. J. MacPhail: That's why, I guess, the person that my colleague read out said: "How much are we earning?" There will be an opportunity for us to explore this later on, but as I understand it, this Liberal government has removed, then, the category of disability 1.

Is that correct? Hon. M. Coell: We've changed the category under Bill 26 to persons with persistent multiple barriers. J. MacPhail: Okay. So the assessment…. Hon. M. Coell: I j u s t w a n t t o c l a r i f y t h a t . I t ' s n o t DB-1. We have a new category, which is persons with persistent multiple barriers. J. MacPhail: Well, I guess that's where everybody's confusion is coming in now. What a previous govern- ment recognized in, I would say, a fairly compassion- ate way — that people are disabled by their multiple

3346 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 and persistent barriers — this government just looks at as an employment issue. Is there a special adjustment for people with multiple and persistent barriers? Is there a category of assistance that's different from those without multiple and persistent barriers? Hon. M. Coell: As I say, we're still in Bill 26.

If the members would like to carry on, we're obviously going to get another chance to deal with Bill 26. [1540] Just for clarification, the barriers in persons with persistent multiple barriers will include things like poor work history and poor education that make it difficult for someone to seek work — that aren't in the DB-1. They will have enhanced medical and other sup- ports and also the $300 earning exemption. J. Kwan: That $300 earning exemption applies to people who qualify under Bill 27 — the continuous category, not for the people who are faced with persis- tent barriers? Hon. M.

Coell: People with persistent multiple barriers will also have that $300 earning exemption. J. Kwan: We will then canvass this issue some more when we deal with Bill 26. This was brought up under Bill 27 because it was believed and understood by the community, through not only my estimates process with the minister in the questions and answers but also through the process of discussions with the deputy minister and community groups…. They were led to believe that those individuals who are faced with per- sistent multiple barriers would qualify for continuous income assistance under Bill 27.

Clearly, that informa- tion was wrong both in the replies from the minister in the estimates process as well as in the meeting that took place with the deputy and the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. At this time I'd like to move an amendment. In all of the discussions we've had so far, I have received zero comfort from the minister for people with disabili- ties around who qualifies and who doesn't. It causes me grave concern.

Reviewing yesterday's discussion, the minister ad- vised that the individuals who are qualified now don't have a lot to worry about because everything is essen- tially staying the same. At that time it was suggested that

section 2 be stood down and for the minister to come forward with wording that will rectify this prob- lem not only for the opposition members but also for government members. Particularly, I want to give credit to the member for Vancouver-Langara for raising these issues. I would now like to table an amendment to this

section of the bill. The amendment is as follows: [Section 2 is amended by adding the text highlighted by underline and deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough: 2

(1) In this section: "assistive device" means a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living activity that, because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person is unable to perform; "daily living activity" has the prescribed meaning; "health professional" means a person who is authorized under an enactment to practice the profession of (

a) a medical practitioner, (

b) a registered psychologist, (

c) a registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse, (

d) an occupational therapist, (

e) a physical therapist, or (

f) a social worker.

(2) The minister may designate a person who has reached 19 years of age as a person with disabilities for the purposes of this Act if the minister is satisfied that the person has a severe mental or physical impairment that (

a) in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and (

b) in the opinion of a health professional (

i) directly and significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities either (

A) continuously, or (

B) periodically for extended periods, and (ii) as a re sult of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), (

a) a person who has a severe mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder, and (

b) a person requires help in relation to a daily living activity if, in order to perform it, the person requires (

i) an assistive device, or (ii) the significant help or supervision of another person.

(4) The minister may rescind a designation under subsection (2). In this Act: "person with disabilities" means a person who at the time this

section comes into force was a handicapped person under the Disability Benefits Program Act or a person (

a) who is 18 years of age or older (

b) who, as a direct result of a severe mental or physical impairment, (

i) requires extensive assistance or supervision in order to perform daily living tasks within a reasonable time, or (ii) requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, and (

c) who has confirmation from a medical practitioner that the impairment referred to in paragraph (

b) exists and (

i) is likely to continue for least two years, or (ii) is likely to continue for at least one year and is likely to recur.] On the amendment. J. Kwan: I'm moving this amendment because this definition that was formerly in place under the old BC Benefits Act states clearly who ought to be qualified and who ought not to be qualified. It sets out the pa- rameters on reasonableness in determining what sig- nificantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily living activities. It sets out clearly, with a test of rea-

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3347 sonableness, the reasonableness of the amount of time for a person to perform these daily living activities. [1545] It further provides for the option for individuals who could overcome the challenges that they face to perform daily living activities….

However, by over- coming these challenges they have other issues that they're faced with, issues that would require them to have additional resources to survive — whether it be additional resources for the purposes of transportation, for special diets or for any matter that is required and needed for the individual. That provision is there un- der this amendment, and it allows for that broad un- derstanding for qualification and requirement for qualification for people with disabilities.

Given that the minister has said that it is not an issue around trying to cut people off disability under Bill 27 and given that the minister said last night that there are no substantive changes with respect to this act and what was formerly in place under the BC Benefits Act, then the minister ought to have no trouble what- soever adopting and accepting this amendment. J. MacPhail: I think this amendment tabled by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant goes a long way to resolving a lot of the concerns expressed by pretty much everyone who has spoken to date on sec- tion 2.

I think it resolves a lot of the concerns and still allows the minister to proceed in a way that matches the rest of the legislation under Bill 27. Here's the reason why it is so crucial that this gov- ernment once and for all puts to rest the concerns and the level of anxiety amongst people who are currently collecting a disability 2 pension. The definition in this grandfathers — basically grandparents — people now who are already eligible for disability benefits. Let me read this letter.

It's to the Minister of State for Mental Health, and it's from a mental health worker in the Vancouver coastal health authority. It was re- ceived just moments ago. It was sent yesterday to the Minister of State for Mental Health. "Dear [Sir]: "I am a community mental health case manager in Vancouver with an MSW degree and 12 years experience in community and hospital mental health. I was heartened last year by your appointment and new role and hopeful that it signalled better treatment for the mentally ill in British Columbia.

"I am now writing with grave concerns about recently announced changes to disability benefits by the Ministry of Human Resources. I foresee terrible impact these changes will bring to the health and lives of our clients. I have seen a letter co-written by yourself with the Minister of Human Resources and was not reassured nor convinced you fully understand the ramifications. "Fully 75 percent of my caseload of 56 seriously mentally ill clients receive disability benefits level 2.

Mental health workers have responsibly assisted their clients to apply for this pension and seen the tremendous benefit of secure, adequate support on their mental health and in their lives generally. The freedom from welfare stigma has been as important as the extra benefits which allow for decent housing in safe areas, transportation, participation in rehabilitation programs and dietary supplements. "As you know, the changes in the proposed legislation focus on changing the definition of disability and on employment for the disabled.

Your point that mental illness is now recognized in the legislation is well taken. However, I point out also that the emphasis in definition on the need for daily supervision would disallow virtually all of our clients, who are encouraged to be as independent as possible.

And of course, although cursed by hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, depression and difficulty organizing and thinking clearly, our clients are able-bodied and not requiring such supervision. [1550] "Regarding the emphasis in the new act on employment for the disabled, you must be aware that mental health clinics all over the province already assist their clients to function as productively as possible. We all know how important this is toward maintaining wellness. We have a wide variety of programs designed to this end, which recognize the specific difficulties faced by the mentally ill in finding work.

To shift the responsibility for assessing capability for employment to Ministry of Human Resources staff is very poor policy, destined to disaster. To require mental health staff to reapply on behalf of our clients would be wasteful and time-consuming. "This week already" — as an aside, Mr. Chair, the letter was written May 8, 2002 — "I have responded to six different clients' anxieties about their financial future. They have brought clippings from newspapers outlining changes. They are full of fear and anxiety about the uncertainty. I have even seen guilt in folks who haven't been able to work for many years.

Of my 56 clients, only four are regularly employed, and two of those are off frequently due to poor stress tolerance. The vast majority have never worked in competitive employment in their lives. It seems to me both more humane and more cost- effective to leave these people alone, with decent support and no pressure to seek to work or justify themselves to welfare reviews. "I have one client who was recently inexplicably turned down for DB-2, disability benefits 2, who has $85 per month to exist on after his rent is paid.

We are working hard to gain his trust, despite his paranoid thinking, and trying to avert his moving to the downtown east side, the only place in the city with rents in the range of welfare rates. Of course, our clients who do gravitate to that dangerous part of town end up living short, often addicted and painful lives.

"We must do better, [Minister of State for Mental Health], for them and for us all." As I read this letter from an expert who works with these people every day, the member for Vancouver- Burrard says: "Oh, what, are they watching the Legisla- ture parliamentary channel?" Completely dismissing in an unbelievable way the expertise…. Interjection. The Chair: Member, order, please. Proceed. J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I just read a letter from a community mental health worker with 12 years' ex- perience and a graduate degree, and the member for

3348 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 Vancouver-Burrard says that he doesn't understand what's going on. L. Mayencourt: I clearly understand what's going on. J. MacPhail: The member for Vancouver-Burrard says this expert doesn't understand what's going on. I was reading the concerns raised by the mental health worker, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard says this person doesn't understand what's going on. Interjection. J.

MacPhail: It is unbelievable that that member, whose constituents are directly and negatively affected by these changes, sits there blindly heckling and some- how suggesting that these concerns are not legitimate. The fact that the member sits there and breaks p r o m i s e s t h a t h e m a d e t o p e o p l e i n h i s o w n c o m m u - nity to raise exactly these issues is outrageous. His con- tribution from his silent seat, his cheap shots to an ex- pert in the field…. L. Mayencourt: Point of order. The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Burrard. L.

Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver- Hastings has made an allegation that I have broken a promise to my community. I would ask that she please withdraw that. That's not correct. J. MacPhail: That's not unparliamentary. L. Mayencourt: I would ask that she withdraw that comment because it is not true. The Chair: Member, the comment is not unparlia- mentary. L. Mayencourt: I will apologize to the Chair for that. [1555] J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, my colleague and I are standing here in the Legislature as…. Perhaps it's fair to know that the public can't see the things that are coming in here.

These are not situations that my col- league and I have made up. These are people who are unable to have their voices heard in any other fashion to date. That may change, Mr. Chair. Rightfully, that may change. Some members have had the courage to get up and put their concerns on record. The community of people with HIV/AIDS have asked that their concerns be raised and thought that their concerns were going to be raised by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

In fact, the questions have had to be put in careful detail by my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who is working closely to ensure that accurate information is distributed. My colleague gets the answers and distributes the very words of the Minister of Human Resources. That's her job. Unfortunately…. The Chair: Member, perhaps we could get back to the debate on the amendment. Interjection. J. MacPhail: It's not her job. Yes, Mr. Chair, exactly. This is right on point. The very concerns that are being raised here are addressed by the amendment that my colleague has put forward.

The very concerns that are being addressed by this 12- year, unbelievably dedicated and expert specialist. When the letter came in, I hadn't had a chance to read it before I stood up and read it into the record, yet it is so on point to supporting this amendment. It's but one of dozens of missives that have come in. All the minister has to do is accept this amendment to the definition, and it won't affect one commitment that he's made here — not one commitment that the minister has made here. If what the minister has put on record and if the minister has been sincere, without any misleading….

If the minister has been truthful in de- scribing how his…. The Chair: Member, member. I think…. J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. My apologies. As the minister has been truthful, we accept, in his description of his intent, then this amendment meets the test of actually putting the words properly to what the minister's commitment in debate has been so far. The one example is what I just read, where it is the test now…. As the minister has said, the test will be a f u n c t i o n a l t e s t .

T h e m e n t a l h e a l t h w o r k e r s a y s i t i s a functional test that we strive for, for people with men- tal illness. Yet they are still mentally ill. They still, as he said, have hallucinations; they have delusions; they suffer from paranoia, depression and have difficulty organizing and thinking clearly. Yet they are func- tional. That is but one example of why this amendment merely does the work that the minister says he's com- mitted to achieving. The Chair: The Minister of Human Resources, speaking to the amendment. Hon. M.

Coell: I think it's very unfortunate that there has been misinformation in the media and that it has caused this stress. I can respond by saying that we are committed to people with mental health disorders and that I am con- fident that these people will find the safety and secu- rity they need in these two acts. [1600] The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, speaking to the amendment.

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3349 J. Kwan: Given that the member for Vancouver- Burrard has not risen to ask any questions during this debate on Bill 27, I have a list of questions that I have received from community members from the member for Vancouver-Burrard's area. They have a lot of con- cerns in this area, and they all pertain to the amend- ment that I have tabled.

The amendment that I have tabled speaks directly to the issues that they are con- cerned about, and they have asked for the minister to make sure that those issues are indeed protected under the new definition of disability in Bill 27. Let me just read this into the record. Here are the concerns that were asked about by the Pacific AIDS Network to the member for Vancouver-Burrard to raise these matters in the House, which he has not to date. The concerns are as follows: "Unusual and continuous costs have been removed from the definition.

The cur- rent definition provides that applicants can qualify for disability status if they can demonstrate that they have need of assistance or have disability-related costs. Why has this been removed, and how will the new act ad- dress this issue?" The amendment puts this back into the act so that it will address this particular issue that's been raised by the Pacific AIDS Network that the member for Van- couver-Burrard was supposed to ask the minister, which he has not. The cost criterion has now been removed.

The amount of money a person may need to spend in the care and management of his or her disability has no bearing on the application for disability benefits. This will affect, for example, people who may not need as- sistance but who have ongoing costs related to their disability. The amendment puts back the previous re- quirement to allow for an option for consideration for disability, and that is extra expenditures related to dis- ability. To qualify for disability benefits, applicants will have to be directly and significantly restricted in the ability to perform daily living activities.

Daily living activities will be defined in the new regulations. Will P W A s b e r e q u i r e d t o s h o w t h a t t h e y n e e d h e l p w i t h specific activities? What is the difference between sig- nificant assistance and extensive assistance? This word- ing change signals that there may be criteria more re- strictive than are currently in place. Can you explain the rationale behind this change? This change, as we see it, would disqualify many PWAs from qualifying for disability benefits. Have we misread the bill's in- tent, or will the regulations address this concern?

The minister has not answered these questions appropri- ately or satisfactorily to allay the fears that now lie in the hearts of PWAs. To that end, the amendment addresses exactly that point: that the fear this government has caused — the member for Vancouver-Burrard has refused to raise these questions on behalf of his own constituents — is now going to be addressed through the amend- ment. "Performing tasks within a reasonable period of time" has been removed. This change indicates that the ministry will not consider the length of time that it takes an individual to perform tasks unaided.

PWAs who struggle to remain self-reliant despite the difficulty and length of time it takes to perform daily tasks may not qualify. Again, have we misread the bill's intent, or will the regulations address this con- cern? Just so there will be no confusion, once again, the amendment addresses this issue. It puts back the issue around "reasonable period of time to perform daily tasks" so that there is no confusion whatsoever around eligibility. Questions continue. Will PWAs currently in receipt of a monthly health allowance — that is,

schedule C — continue to receive the full amount awarded them by the minister or as the result of a tribunal or appeal de- cision? Will an individual with HIV/AIDS be entitled to disability benefits based on their doctor's advice? If so, will there be any changes in the criteria a doctor must consider when recommending a patient is dis- abled and should be provided disability benefits? Will a PWA be required by the ministry to see a doctor other than his or her own for any reason? If so, to whom, and when will this apply?

Given that Bill 27 has removed the designation of "permanent disability," can a PWA receiving disability assistance reasonably expect that if they return to work and become too ill to continue working after a period of time, they will be entitled to disability assistance within a reasonable time frame?

And would there be interim assistance while the person is waiting for rein- statement to disability assistance? [1605] What kind of support programs are being contem- plated to assist a PWA in preparing to return to work and would be available to enable them to continue em- ployment, given the bill's emphasis on employment?

Will the new bills and regulations allow a PWA that h a s a n i n c o m e t h a t i s t h e s a m e o r s l i g h t l y m o r e t h a n the disability assistance levels — those on Canada Pen- sion long-term disability in a low-income job or with some other income — to receive medical services only? Medical services only provide for some items of medi- cal need, such as wheelchairs, walkers, etc. These are the questions that have been asked by the Pacific AIDS Network for the member for Vancouver- Burrard to raise with the minister. The member for Vancouver-Burrard did not raise these issues during second reading.

He did not raise these issues during committee stage reading on precisely the definition that changes eligibility. The amendment I've put forward addresses all of these concerns, and I'm asking the minister, on behalf o f t h i s g r o u p : w h y w o u l d n ' t h e s u p p o r t t h i s a m e n d - ment, when all of these concerns and the fears that have been caused in the broader community by this government's change on the eligibility criteria and the definition of disability would be addressed? [1610] Amendment negatived on the following division:

3350 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 YEAS — 2 MacPhail Kwan NAYS — 47 Falcon Coell Hogg Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Masi Lee Thorpe Hagen Murray Plant Collins Nebbeling Stephens Neufeld Coleman Chong Jarvis Anderson Orr Nuraney Brenzinger Long Chutter Bennett Hayer Krueger Bray Nijjar Wong Bloy Cobb K. Stewart Visser Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Manhas J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Kwan: I just recognized that sitting in the gallery is Aaron Jasper.

He is the president of the Vancouver- Burrard Riding Association. Would the House please make him welcome. Debate Continued J. Kwan: I wonder if it's all right, before we pick up on

section 2, for us to take a ten-minute break. I would like to attend to some biological needs, if I may. The Chair: We'll take a ten-minute recess and re- sume at 4:25. The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:25 p.m. [H. Long in the chair.] On

section 2 as amended (continued). S. Orr: I've listened, obviously, intensely to the de- bate. I have all the four previous bills. I've had a few things clarified, but I would like to ask…. I'm trying to get through all the debate and zero in and get a very clear picture. Obviously, this is to do with my constitu- ents, because that's the people I represent. Yesterday I did hear from the minister very clearly that the daily living activities were going to be defined in the regula- tions, so I've put that to one side. Where I want to get comfo

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0509pm-10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0509pm 10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	25788152ae90356ef878ff0975cd16b6ec6c97c2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).