British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, April 16, 2002

H0416pm-09

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 16, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 6, Number 9 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 Tuesday, April 16, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 2863 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 2863 Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Hon. K.

Falcon Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 2864 Referendum on treaty negotiations B. Bennett Anxiety disorder awareness E. Brenzinger Law reform B. Suffredine Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 2865 Impact of interest rates on B.C. economy J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Powers of municipal governments J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling Hon.

G. Campbell Mining industry in B.C. D. MacKay Hon. R. Neufeld Reduction of government regulations K. Johnston Hon. K. Falcon Medical Services Plan coverage J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 2868 Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued) J. Kwan J. MacPhail

2863 TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members P. Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some important people from an important town in British Columbia, Fort St. James. The mayor of Fort St. James, Jim Togyi, is here today, and Councillor Kathy Bessette and her husband, Norm. Please join me in giving them a great big welcome. B. Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce, in the pre- cinct today, Mr. Jim Mann. Mr.

Mann represents an organization called YouthQuest, which provides edu- cational outreach to groups and individuals, as well as drop-in centres for gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgen- dered kids. It is important that these adolescents have a safe place to go. Thanks for the work you do, Jim. Would the House please make him welcome. Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, today I'm sure members of the Legislature recognize that it is the Min- ing Association of B.C.'s Mining Day here in the Legis- lature. There are literally dozens of people who are involved in the mining industry who have joined us in Victoria.

I hope the House will make them welcome as we build the mining industry back to the strength it had in the past so that we have a brighter mining fu- ture in British Columbia. [1405] Hon. M. de Jong: I've known Dave and Lee Holm- b e r g f o r m a n y y e a r s a n d i n t h a t t i m e h a v e b e e n t h e recipient of much sage advice from Dave, in particular. I remember him telling me to hang on to my eight- track tape. I remember he told me not to place too much stock in a young upstart golfer by the name of Woods.

Probably the most dubious advice he ever gave was to a then Leader of the Opposition when he suggested that a young lawyer from Matsqui might make an ap- propriate MLA for the area. I'm glad for all their sup- port and the fact that Dave and Lee are here today. I hope all my friends in the House will make them wel- come. Hon. C. Clark: Today in the gallery I have two very good friends. Jane Shackell and Joe McStravick are joining us today. I hope the House will make them welcome. We have another young man who I met in the hallway for the first time today and persuaded to join us for question period.

Roland and his mom and dad, up in the left-hand side of the gallery, are joining us today. I hope people will make them welcome as well. Hon. G. Hogg: L a s t w e e k 1 2 C a n a d i a n s p a r t i c i - pated in a major international sporting event, an event considered the world's toughest foot race: the seven- teenth Marathon des Sables, a seven-day, 240-kilometre race across the Sahara Desert in temperatures up to 55 degrees Celsius, going over 200-foot-high sand dunes and facing sandstorms. There were 615 participants representing 30 coun- tries.

Four British Columbians, including three from Surrey–White Rock, participated in this: David Secord, Gerry van der Wint and Ferg Hoch, all members of the Peninsula Runners Club. Ferg Hoch was the top North American finisher. He finished in eighth place, a re- markable feat by a remarkable young man. I'd ask you to please join me in providing congratulations to these valiant and some would say crazy British Columbians. Hon. L. Reid: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e s o m e - one in this gallery who has been a friend of mine for more than 25 years.

I'd like the House to make very welcome Alice Mann. Hon. R. Neufeld: In the gallery today are members of a group of 75 delegates of the mining community representing B.C. cities and towns, the industry and mining suppliers, who are meeting in Victoria today. The day was sponsored by the Mining Association of B.C. Russ Hallbauer is the chairman and Gary Living- stone the president and CEO. They're making their rounds and visiting MLAs through the building to talk about how important mining is to the province of Brit- ish Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome. B.

Penner: Visiting the precincts this afternoon are approximately 60 grades 7 to 9 students from Mount Slesse Middle School in Chilliwack. They're accompa- nied by their teacher, Ms. Anderson, and, I believe, five adult chaperons. Would the House please make all of these people welcome. J. Wilson: Today I see in the gallery a very familiar face, none other than the mayor of the city of Quesnel. I ask that the House make Steve Wallace welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills DEREGULATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 Hon. K.

Falcon presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

2864 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 2002. Bill 35 amends several statutes to remove 250 unnecessary regulatory requirements and cut red tape for the public and private sectors and for individuals dealing with government. [1410] This is our second deregulation bill this session and another important step towards meeting our new-era commitment to reduce unnecessary red tape by one- third within three years.

For the edification of members of the House, we define red tape as nonessential procedures, forms, li- cences and regulations that add to the cost of dealing with government and anything that is obsolete, redun- dant, confusing or that diminishes the province's eco- nomic competitiveness and stands in the way of job creation or wastes taxpayers' time and money.

Bill 35 cuts red tape for individuals, businesses, colleges and universities by amending the Barbers Act, the Cosmetologists Act, the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Financial Institu- tions Act, the Society Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Home Owner Grant Act. Bill 35 also cuts red tape in the forest, mining and oil and gas sectors with amendments to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Petro- leum and Natural Gas Act, the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act.

Bill 35 also repeals obsolete or unproclaimed provi- sions in the Motor Vehicle Act, the British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act and the hospital foundation provisions in the Hospital Act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS B. Bennett: I have five simple points that I want to make today in support of the referendum on treaty- making. Before I make my five points in the short time I have, I want to say that I consider this a very serious and important topic. It's a topic that I've been speaking on a lot in my riding. It's a topic that will shape the lives of everyone alive here in B.C. today and everyone yet to be born who will live in B.C. after we are gone. My five points: 1. The referendum is not about whether the prov- ince should negotiate treaties.

This government sin- cerely wants to negotiate treaties, but the process is stuck and must be reinvigorated. Getting the general public engaged in thinking about treaty-making will start that rejuvenation. 2. The cost of the referendum is reasonable. The treaty process has already cost $500 million with not one treaty signed yet. The cost of not reinvigorating the process is far greater than the $10 million cost of the referendum. 3. The referendum is not the majority telling the minority what to do. There are three independent par- ties to treaty negotiations: British Columbia, Canada and the aboriginal people.

B.C. cannot tell the aborigi- nal negotiators what positions they should take on behalf of the people they represent. Similarly, B.C. has every right to develop its own negotiating mandate in consultation with all the people of the province — abo- riginal and non-aboriginal. 4. The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently ruled that the referendum does not threaten constitu- tionally protected aboriginal rights. The referendum is not illegal. It is not racist. It is not disrespectful.

It is a transparent attempt of the provincial government to find out what those to whom we are responsible and accountable think about the province's bargaining posi- tion. 5. The referendum provides all British Columbians with their first-ever opportunity to respectfully engage in a conversation about the treaty process. The referen- dum has already begun to stimulate a lively discussion that will help energize treaty-making in B.C.

I s a y t o t h e p e o p l e i n m y r i d i n g o f E a s t K o o t e n a y and to other British Columbians: don't believe the nay- sayers who claim the referendum will harm the treaty process or will lead to deadlock. With $500 million spent and not a treaty signed, we already have dead- lock. Don't believe those elitists who claim the people of the province do not have the right or perhaps the intelligence to state their respectful views. I say: move the treaty process forward. ANXIETY DISORDER AWARENESS E.

Brenzinger: D i d y o u k n o w t h a t s o m e t y p e o f anxiety disorder will affect approximately 400,000 Brit- ish Columbians over the age of 18? A hundred thou- sand British Columbians will be faced with a chronic or seriously disabling condition as a result of an anxiety disorder. It is estimated that over 54,000 children in B.C. between the ages of five and 19 will also be af- fected. [1415] Anxiety disorders are a group of conditions that are characterized by a sense of foreboding and impending doom.

Although anxiety is a normal emotion — hu- mans could not survive without it — a problem may exist when the emotion becomes excessive or is acti- vated by inappropriate triggers like a crowded place or leaving the house. There are different types of anxiety disorders: panic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, phobias, generalized anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders. A panic attack is a sudden rush of intense fear that is accompanied by things like heart palpita- tions, dizziness, sweating and nausea. People often fear

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2865 that they are about to have a heart attack, go crazy, lose control or do something embarrassing as a result of the panic attack. The most important point I would like to make today is that anxiety disorders can be effectively diag- nosed and treated. I know from experience in my fam- ily that anxiety disorders can be overcome. I encourage people to seek treatment and to talk openly about the issues of mental illness.

I understand that the Minister of State for Mental Health has arranged funding for the anxiety disorders strategy, a report that has been completed and pre- sented to the minister by the Anxiety Disorders Asso- ciation of British Columbia. I encourage the minister to continue towards finding ways to improve services for people with anxiety disorders. Anyone who wants more information should check out the webpage for the Anxiety Disorders Association of British Columbia at anxietybc.com. LAW REFORM B.

Suffredine: Today I'd like to speak briefly about the importance of law reform and the good work being done by our B.C. Law Institute. Since the 1980s this group of volunteer professionals has provided us with a wealth of information on a variety of topics where we need statute reform.

They've provided advice on changes to commercial tenancy, municipal law, con- dominium corporations, personal property security, debtor-creditor legislation, trusts and estates, contract law, co-ownership of land, floating charges on land, vicarious liability of the Motor Vehicle Act, reciprocal enforcement of judgments and much more. I have here a stack of reports that contains a wealth of information and knowledge. Some of their advice was acted on, but, sadly, most of their recom- mendations were not used and stayed on the shelf. The need for reform of much of our statute law re- mains.

Some of the wording is archaic. Sometimes procedure is outdated or impractical. One example is the recommendation for legislation to assist creditors in forcing judgments against securities like shares. Currently, the procedure is governed by the English Judgments Act of 1838, adopted when British Colum- bia became a province. The procedure is to obtain a charging order, something most judges or lawyers are completely unfamiliar with. There are many more examples. I know that our Attorney General is supportive. He showed that support when he attended a meeting of the Law Institute on March 14 in Vancouver.

I know that he looks forward to working closely with the B.C. Law Institute in the future. I encourage all the mem- bers of this House to review the work done to date by what was the Law Reform Commission, now the B.C. Law Institute, and to encourage recommendations to enact their recommendations. I also encourage mem- bers to express their support for law reform to the B.C. Law Institute members so they may know their work is valued. Oral Questions IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES ON B.C. ECONOMY J. MacPhail: The B.C. economy has taken some very hard hits in the past few months.

Our unemploy- ment rate is now at 9 percent, one of the highest in the country. Today, in spite of all that, the Bank of Canada is raising interest rates, further threatening B.C.'s very fragile economic situation. We know that in the past, B.C.'s economy has been hurt by central Canada's indifference to our economic situation. My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he support the premise that the Bank of Canada's decision to raise interest rates comes at a very bad time for British Columbia? And can he tell the House what action we can take to persuade the bank to change its course? Hon. G.

Collins: I t ' s n o n e w s t o a n y o n e t h a t t h e Bank of Canada rate is at 40-year lows presently. It's gone up a quarter-point.

I want to advise the member opposite that I met this morning with Sheryl Kennedy, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, and gave her my impression of British Columbia's economy, both our strengths and our weaknesses. [1420] It's not up to me to tell the Bank of Canada how to adjust interest rates across the country, but I think it's certainly important that we convey our messages and the on-the-ground information that we receive as members of the Legislature and as ministers of the Crown here in British Columbia. I've done just that. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be more encouraged if the minister had actually told me exactly what he did say and which way interest rates should go. In fact, it is up to the provinces to advise the Bank of Canada on how their policies affect the provincial economy. Indeed, there have been some positive economic signs, but those positive economic signs have been driven by low interest rates. It's also true that many of the eco- nomic indicators are telling a very bleak story. Thou- sands of forest workers are out of work. Consumer bank- ruptcies are on the rise, and B.C.

Stats says that private sector investment in B.C. is expected to fall this year. The Bank of Canada does not seem to understand that our economy, particularly in the interior, is at risk. Will the Minister of Finance please stand up and either tell us exactly what he did tell the deputy governor, or will he stand up now and take a stand on behalf of every unemployed British Columbian and tell the Bank of Canada to reverse its policy of raising interest rates? Hon. G. Collins: I haven't been in this job nearly as long as the member opposite was in it, but I don't recall

2866 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 her ever standing up in this House and telling the Bank of Canada exactly what to do. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to reaffirm… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: …that I gave the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada very strong indications of what we think benefits British Columbia, what our position is in the global economy and the unique position Brit- ish Columbia has, as a result of softwood lumber and other issues.

I also want to state that the revival in the economy is affected, partially, by low interest rates — those are definitely beneficial to British Columbians, and I con- veyed that as well — but also as a result of low taxes and the fact that people have more money left in their pocket, something I know the previous government did very little to correct. I also want to refer to the fact that the member, while raising the unemployment rate, failed to mention that of the 88,000 jobs that were created last month in Canada, 11,000 were created right here in British Co- lumbia. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: M r. S p e ak e r , i n t he p as t B . C . F i nanc e ministers have taken a very strong, proactive stance against Bank of Canada's actions when they hurt B.C.'s economy. All Finance ministers in the past have done that but for this one. The fact is… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …that the low-tax pursuit for the rich- est in this province has brought hardship to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.

Instead of benefit, we've seen the most mean-spirited, hard-hearted poli- cies introduced by this government. We're debating them today here in this Legislature. The interest rate rise will only make those policies even more mean- spirited, as forest workers have to rely on welfare. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order. Order. Would the member now please put her question. J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This interest rate rise is going to deal a further blow to our softwood lumber industry.

Why doesn't the Minister of Finance stand up for British Columbia, tell the Bank of Canada that their made-in-Ontario interest rate policy is harm- ing British Columbia? Hon. G. Collins: I've been very clear with the Bank of Canada's representative, telling them… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: …what the position of British Co- lumbia is and how their decisions impact on British Columbia workers. I'll never hesitate to do that. I'm not going to tell them exactly what they need to do; I'm going to tell them what the impact is here in British Columbia. With regard to taxation, Mr.

Speaker, for the first time in this province they have a government that's putting more money back into people's pockets instead of taking it out. In fact, the people earning $60,000… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The minister has the floor. [1425] Hon. G. Collins: …or less here in British Columbia pay the lowest rate of personal income taxes of any- where in the country. And this year alone, there'll be more than $1 billion left in the pockets of British Co- lumbians instead of the pockets of the government. POWERS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS J.

Kwan: This Liberal government like to say that they giveth. But you know what? On the other hand, they taketh. Just ask the Minister of Human Resources about all the welfare cuts that this government is im- posing on British Columbians. The Premier says he wants first nations government to be just like municipal government. Yesterday we saw this means a reduced role in land use planning, a crucial issue for first nations. The Premier says the only powers he wants first nations to have are those that are delegated by the province. This would include, I pre- sume, the authority to tax.

Will the Minister of State for Community Charter tell us what new taxation powers are to be granted to municipalities and, by extension, to the first nations governments? Hon. T. Nebbeling: For the third day in a row, for the third time, details pertaining to the charter will be revealed in this House in the very near future. At that time the questions that the member has been bringing to this side will be answered, I hope, to her satisfaction. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: This minister doesn't know what he's do- ing.

Yet this Liberal government is telling British Co- lumbians to vote on a question where this Premier has said self-governance is going to be the municipal style

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2867 of governance. They don't even know what the authori- ties are. The authority to tax is based on the consent of those being taxed, and that means representation. Mu- nicipalities will be getting increased authority to raise money, because this government will be asking them to pay more for more services — services that this gov- ernment is cutting. To the Premier. In his vision of first nations gov- ernment, tell us: just how will the rights of those who live on first nations treaty lands be represented under a municipal government? Hon. G.

Campbell: F i r s t o f a l l , I w a n t t o b e c l e a r that this government, unlike the previous government, is actually opposed to downloading. The hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that the previous gov- ernment downloaded onto local property tax payers will not take place. This government is clear that it believes in aborigi- nal self-government. We believe that aboriginal self- government should have a municipal form of dele- gated authority from the provincial Legislature in Brit- ish Columbia, from the federal Parliament of Canada… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G.

Campbell: …similar to the kind of govern- a n c e m o d e l t h a t w e ' v e s e e n i n S e c h e l t h e r e i n B r i t i s h Columbia or that we see throughout the Yukon Terri- tory. We indeed believe that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, deserve the right to vote for governments that are controlling their lives. MINING INDUSTRY IN B.C. D. MacKay: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f E n - ergy and Mines. Historically, mining has played a major role in both the communities that I represent and across this province. I live in Smithers.

It was once a bustling community servicing the mining industry. They looked after those exploration companies looking for minerals in the north. Under the previous administra- tion, mineral exploration dropped by 80 percent in the province. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what he is doing to reverse this trend and bring prosperity back to the province of British Columbia and the min- ing industry? Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia has a huge challenge, first, to work on getting industry confidence back in British Columbia after spending the last ten years under an NDP administration that basically booted the mining industry out of the province. We have to recognize the importance of the industry in creating jobs, investment and taxation in the province so that all British Columbians — all, including every- one in this House — can continue to receive the health care and education that they receive today — our two top priorities. We're reducing taxes.

The Minister of Finance has done that already… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] Hon. R. Neufeld: …to encourage investment. Red tape. My ministry is working on that with the Minister of State for Deregulation. He just introduced some today. Access to the land base from the Minister of Sus- tainable Resource Management. This is a new era in British Columbia, and we're looking forward to the mining industry coming back and being the giant it was once before. Mr. Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley– Stikine has a supplementary question. D.

MacKay: British Columbia is blessed with an a b u n d a n t s u p p l y o f m i n e r a l s t h a t h a v e y e t t o b e d i s - covered and developed for the people of the province. An Hon. Member: Parks. D. MacKay: Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us how much in investments he expects these changes to bring back to B.C.'s mining sector? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of minerals. We're also blessed with an abundance of parks, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you, Mr.

Speaker, we're going to make that land that's not parks available to the mining indus- try so that they can go and do the important things that they have to do. In fact, we're hoping that this year, after a decade in decline, we will actually see a dou- bling — a 100 percent increase — in exploration in the province of British Columbia. REDUCTION OF GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS K. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of State for Deregulation. Recent media reports have questioned the need for the government's deregulation initiative.

Some reports have suggested that this process will pro- vide very little benefit to B.C. taxpayers. Can the Minis- ter of State for Deregulation tell us what impact reduc- ing the regulatory burden will have on British Colum- bians? Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as I've travelled across this province and spoken to small business folks from every single part of this province, there's a common message. That message is that a dec- ade of NDP socialism has been devastating in terms of red tape and regulation. That's why I'm proud of the fact

2868 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 that we're going through a very thoughtful and prudent process of reducing the regulatory burden on small business while at the same time protecting the important values of public health, safety and the environment. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Fraserview has a supplementary question. K. Johnston: A great many British Columbians are seeking clarification on how the government will de- termine which regulations to eliminate. Can the Minis- ter of State for Deregulation outline the process? Hon. K.

Falcon: As I indicated earlier, we're going through a very thoughtful process. Each ministry has prepared three-year deregulation plans to, in a very thoughtful way, lay out how they're going to reach the targets within their ministries, keeping in mind of course the fact that they're going to be consulting with interested stakeholders. That process is underway, and I can tell you that at the end of the day we in British Columbia are going to have a smarter, more effective regulatory climate that's competitive with the rest of Canada and North America.

That's going to be good for British Columbia, good for the mining and forest industry and the oil and gas sector, and we're going to get this province moving once again. MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN COVERAGE J. MacPhail: Last November the Minister of Health Services said that it was fearmongering to suggest that he was planning to increase MSP premiums — strike one. In January seniors told the minister that increases to Pharmacare deductibles would reduce access to im- portant medicines, and again he called that fearmon- gering — strike two. This minister is way behind in the count, and now for the third pitch.

We have reason to believe that in the coming weeks the minister is plan- ning a major push to delist more MSP-covered health services. Would the minister like to take another swing and a miss? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question concerns future government policy and is out of order. The min- ister may answer if he wishes. Hon. C. Hansen: We have an ongoing process of trying to address the needs of British Columbia pa- tients to make sure that we get the best value for health services delivered in this province. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1435] Hon. C.

Hansen: We have an ongoing process of reviewing what is covered in the $10.4 billion Health budget, and we will continue to do that. We will make s u r e t h a t w e h a v e t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e — cost-effective and medically effective — services available for British Columbians. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26. Second Reading of Bills EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT (continued) J. Kwan: Just prior to the lunch break I was quoting a paragraph from the Fraser Institute's Fraser Forum

article from January 2002, which in my view highlights the Liberal government's approach to addressing in- come assistance. The philosophy around it centres around the paragraph which states that the Fraser In- stitute believes, at least from this article, that the people who are on income assistance are people who already have their basic needs met. Therefore, they're not poor enough to be on income assistance. In fact, people who need government assistance need to be poorer than they already are. That, hence, is the problem with the income assistance approach or model.

What we have today in this Legislature is two pieces of legislation. Although this is Bill 26, Bill 27 will be debated at a later time — today or tomorrow — for second reading. The whole approach is to look and see how government could cut income assistance recipi- ents off. In other words, this government actually be- lieves that people who are on income assistance, people who live in poverty, are not poor enough. They need to be poorer; they need to be more desperate. They need to be, perhaps, living on the streets before they could qualify for assistance from this government.

That is the Fraser Institute's analysis. It is the Liberal government's analysis in spite of the fact that, before the election, the now Premier said he would not cut welfare rates. He's broken that promise. We've seen that since the election. He's broken many promises since the election. This is yet another one. [1440] The right-wing ideology has now become the un- derpinning of this piece of legislation — legislation that is looking to be punitive to the people who are in greatest need in British Columbia.

The analysis, if you will, or the ideology this government espouses in this piece of legislation is very flawed. The people who have done research in this area will tell you that people living in poverty, people who are on income assistance, are suffering great hardships because they don't have the means to support themselves. In fact, a study was done with respect to those who are falling behind. This is a study done by the group called SPARC-BC. They sent out a press release on the

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2869 work that they have done with respect to income assis- tance and those who live in poverty. Their new report was released on December 6, 2001. The Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., SPARC-BC, shows conclusively that income assistance — that is, welfare rates in B.C. — is not sufficient to meet recipients' needs. The report, entitled Falling Be- hind: A Comparison of Living Costs and Income Assistance Rates in B.C. , calculates the gap between welfare bene- fits and what it really costs to live in this province.

It provides detailed costs for food, clothing, personal care, transportation, shelter and other costs of daily living. According to the report: "Welfare benefits only cover 45 to 65 percent of the cost of daily living," de- pending on the family type.

"Reductions to income assistance of any kind — whether in rates, types of benefits or eligibility — must not be considered by the provincial government, as the government is already failing to meet its obligations to these citizens." According to Michael Goldberg, who is the re- search director at SPARC-BC and co-author of Falling Behind: "The findings in the report show that the poor- est of the poor are getting even poorer. In 1982 a single recipient received $175 a month to cover food, clothing, transportation, personal care and other non-shelter costs.

In 2001 the benefits for a single person are only $185 to cover those same costs." Says Goldberg: "Tak- ing inflation into account, a single person would now require $339 a month to be able to purchase the same goods and services as in 1982." Based on the analysis that SPARC-BC has done, SPARC-BC recommends that the Liberal government immediately raise income assistance benefits to meet the minimum costs of living for all recipient groups, as outlined in the report; create a single overall benefit that allows recipients to make their own spending de- cisions by eliminating the separation between the shel- ter and support components of income assistance; ex- tend enhanced medical coverage to all recipients of basic income assistance; establish and empower a pub- lic review committee with responsibility for developing an adequate income assistance rate structure, with the operations of this committee being transparent and open to scrutiny; fully index income assistance rates to cost-of-living increases between each review of the overall adequacy of the rates; recognize that single par- ents have the same privacy requirements as couples with children, and shelter allowances need to take this into account; recognize the fact that the cost of raising children increases as they grow older and that the rate structure needs to take this into account; and immedi- ately raise the asset levels in determining eligibility for singles and couples without children to the previous minimums of $2,500 for singles and $5,000 for couples without children.

The government, instead of moving forward on changes in income assistance that would reflect the current study — this study was released on December 6, 2001 — and in a direction that would relieve hard- ships, is going the other way. They are looking at cut- ting benefits, they are looking at cutting rates, and they are looking at making eligibility even more difficult so that people who are the poorest of the poor would not be able to gain access for government support when they need it the most. Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I assume that for the purposes of time, you are the designated speaker. J.

Kwan: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. [1445] J. Kwan: Thank you. What is the rationale behind this move of the gov- ernment? Is it that they believe that the people cur- rently living on social assistance are not really poor, that how you define "poor" would be the definition that has been put out by the Fraser Institute and that that is the preferred definition, focusing on a basic- needs approach, which leads them to the conclusion that those on welfare are generally able to cover for the basics and are not poor?

If that's the case, I challenge any member in this House to live for one month on the rate of a single per- son on income assistance. I challenge them to do that and then come back to this House and say that the poorest of the poor, living on welfare, have too much money given to them by government and that their life is one that provides for more than the basic needs. If members in this House take on this challenge and go live such a life and could come back in this House and still say and believe in the Fraser Institute's definition of poverty….

If they're able to do that, then we can engage in a different kind of debate. I suspect that members of the House would not and could not live on the rate which income assistance recipients receive, especially with the reduced rates that this government is now imposing through this piece of legislation. I grew up living in poverty, although my family didn't collect income assistance when we immigrated here. We didn't know there was such a system as in- come assistance. For the first while when we first came here, my mother worked as a farm worker for a family of eight.

She made $10 a day to support a family of eight, while my father went out to gain ESL training so he could try and get employment in his field. He's now retired, but his training was in the tailoring business. When we first came here, he couldn't get employment because he didn't speak the language. I come from a traditional family, and in Hong Kong when we were growing up, my mother took care of the six kids, managed the house and took care of the seven of us, including my dad.

When we first came here, we had no financial support in any way, shape or form, so my mother went out and did the work that she knew how, which was essentially the work of a labourer. She went out as a farmworker. She would pick strawberries in the summertime. She would plant vegetables in the springtime. She would work 12 hours a day, and she would bring home $10 to support the family.

2870 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 We were often on the verge of not getting enough to eat. On the issue of housing, we lived in a two- bedroom basement suite of 700 square feet, and we would just all pile on top of each other. That's how we lived; we lived in poverty. I've experienced it, and I've experienced what it is like to be hungry. I'm glad my family no longer lives in poverty now.

I can tell you that for people who are on income assistance, with the rates they get from government, it's hardly sufficient for them to meet their basic needs. [1450] Here we have a government bringing forward leg- islation that will further slash the rates and cut off benefits, impacting adults and children alike. I have to ask: what is the logic behind that? Why is government doing that, and why aren't members in this House speaking up, saying: "That is not acceptable. That's not why I ran for office. That is not why I'm here"?

Why wouldn't the Minister of Human Resources r i s e u p i n h i s o w n c a u c u s a n d s a y : " Y o u k n o w w h a t , Premier? I am not going to bring this piece of legisla- tion in. I used to be a social worker. I understand how h a r d i t i s f o r p e o p l e t o b e o n i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e a n d how hard it is for them to survive. The fact of the mat- ter is the rates and benefits they get now hardly sup- port their day-to-day living.

As a minister who under- stands these issues, who has spoken with the people in the community and who has worked in this field, I will not bring in a piece of legislation that would devastate the support, the income assistance, that individuals and families need in British Columbia." It isn't just the issue of being compassionate or un- derstanding what it is like to be in poverty. I know the member for Vancouver-Langara said this earlier. He was saying someone had made a comment to him sug- gesting that the issue around compassion centres around where your heart is.

It is good that your heart is in the right place, being on the left side and in the right place, but if your head is also in the same place as your heart, then you're in trouble. This was the comment the member for Vancouver- Langara made, a suggestion from a friend of his who tells him that if your head is in the same place as your heart, then you're in trouble. The member for Vancou- ver-Langara, to his credit, rose in this House and said: "Hmm. I don't know about that. I'm not sure that if your heart and your head are in the same place, it somehow leads to trouble." He made that comment.

I will go on to say further that if your head and your heart are not in the same place and if you just want to use your head for the purposes of analy sis of the impacts of this bill on people on income assistance, then let's look at something financial. Perhaps only the bottom line matters with this government. Then let's look at some of the financial aspects of this bill. Most recently, there was a study done in Toronto.

The report looked at welfare recipients who could not afford to meet their basic nutritional needs because of the lack of support they were getting from government b y w a y o f a s s i s t a n c e . T h e r e p o r t c a m e t o t h i s c o n c l u - sion. It is by Valerie Terasuk, a University of Toronto nutritional scientist, who cites the results of the study. She advises that many people can't scrape together — and in Ontario they receive $160 a month — what it costs for an adult to eat well, as outlined by the prov- ince's own Health minister.

From her perspective, she states that welfare has become a health problem. She goes on to say that to try to maintain people on benefit levels below basic needs ultimately has to jeopardize people's health. When people have to dole out much of their welfare benefits for shelter, they have to scrimp on healthy food and therefore their health is jeopardized. When their health is jeopardized, what happens? They end up in the hospital. They end up in the emer- gency room. They end up costing the health care sys- tem more money than otherwise.

There is such a thing known as preventive health, but when people cannot take the necessary steps to keep healthy and stay healthy because they haven't got the resources to do it, then it has the ripple effect of impacting and costing our health care system. [1455] It's not just the health care system that would have an impact. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, when people get desperate and they're unable to feed or clothe their children, what would they do? Some per- haps may well resort to criminal activities.

As an ex- ample, they may well have to break into somebody's car to steal what they can so that they can put food on the table. In my own personal experience with my mom and dad, with six children and $10 a day to support us, I know what they did. My parents often didn't eat just so the children could. We didn't get a lot to eat. We got a bowl of rice, but my parents would sometimes forgo that. We could see them getting unhealthy. The chil- dren could see it. We would get worried about mom and dad not having the strength. That's what happens when people get desperate.

They'll forgo food, and then they may become sick. They may resort to other ways of getting some kind of support. That may mean criminal activities. When that happens, what does that mean? It's an increase in costs for our judicial system, for the policing system, for the community on the whole, for insurance support for the people whose car or house has been broken into. That is not thinking about what is right, what your heart tells you is the right thing to do, but rather look- ing at it from a fiscal responsibility point of view. How does that make sense?

It makes no sense that the gov- ernment is introducing legislation, when they said they would not cut welfare rates during the election. It has now brought into the House dramatic cuts to welfare. It doesn't make any sense. Those who are advocating for the government to act differently….It's not just from myself. I know many of the members in this House are perhaps thinking: "Well, of course she would say that. She's a bleeding heart." Maybe I am. It's okay. I don't mind being la- belled as such if I care about people's well-being. I've said this in the House before. Call me whatever you

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2871 want. I don't really care. I don't. What I care about are the people who are going to suffer. What I want — and that's why I got into politics — is to make sure that as best as we can, as a society as rich as we are, we pro- vide support for those who are in need, to make sure that we break the cycle of poverty and to make sure that children who grow up in poverty have the oppor- tunity to break out of that cycle. I was granted that opportunity, and I thank my parents for that. I owe everything that I am today to them.

But you know, there are a lot of people who don't necessarily have that support. Government does have a role to play. The govern- ment's job is to make sure there is fair and equal oppor- tunity for all and not just for the privileged. The gov- ernment's responsibility is to make sure that those who are in greatest need receive the support they need and not have government come around, cut those supports and be punitive, as we'll see in this piece of legislation. That is exactly what this government is doing. The economists in our community have called on this government not to cut.

There was an open letter from B.C.'s economists to the Premier and to the Minis- ter of Finance. It was dated February 7, 2002. I'll quote a little excerpt from the letter: "Now is not the time to cut spending…and it is certainly not the time to cut access to welfare and welfare benefit rates. Such in- come support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic stabilizer." [1500] Who are the economists who signed this letter?

Charles Blackorby, professor, department of econom- ics, University of B.C.; Paul Bowles, professor and chair of department of economics, University of Northern B.C.; John Bratton, associate professor, school of busi- ness, University College of the Cariboo; Maxwell Cam- eron, associate professor, department of political sci- ence, University of B.C.; Nancy Clegg, instructor, de- partment of economics, Kwantlen University College; Ronald Correll, economics instructor and college liai- son, Contract Training and Marketing Society; David Donaldson, professor emeritus of economics, UBC; Gregory Dow, professor, department of economics, Simon Fraser University; Sigrid Ewender, instructor, department of economics, Kwantlen University Col- lege; David Fairey, economist and director, Trade Un- ion Research Bureau; David Green, associate professor of economics, UBC; Marjorie Cohen, economist and professor of political science and women's studies, SFU; Michael Goldberg, research director, Social Plan- ning and Research Council of B.C.; Robin Hanvelt, as- sistant professor and health economist, department of health care and epidemiology, UBC; David Hay, VP of the B.C.–Yukon Canadian Council on Social Develop- ment; Terry Heaps, associate professor, department of economics, SFU; Stuart Jamieson, professor emeritus of economics, UBC; Seth Klein, director, B.C. office, Ca- nadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Marc Lee, re- search economist, B.C. office, Canadian Centre for Pol- icy Alternatives; Phillip Legg, director of policy devel- opment, B.C.

Federation of Labour; Fiona MacPhail, assistant professor, department of economics, Univer- sity of Northern British Columbia; Stephen McBride, professor and chair, department of political science, SFU; Christopher McDonnell, economics instructor, Malaspina University College; Alan Morris, Capilano College; Graham Riches, professor and director, UBC school of social work and family studies; Edward Shaffer, professor emeritus, department of economics, University of Alberta; Linda Welling, associate profes- sor of economics, University of Victoria.

These are just some of the people — economists — who have signed a letter written to the Premier and the Finance minister asking the government not to make these cuts to welfare and welfare benefit rates and to recognize that such income support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic stabilizer. These people, I presume, are using an argument that comes from the head, from their training in the area of economics. They're coming forward to say to this government that this approach to welfare cuts makes no sense. It hurts the poor, and it hurts our economy in the long term.

You might be wondering just what exactly are these cuts. If you listen to the minister's statements, you wouldn't necessarily know that there are cuts. This is the way the Liberal government has engaged with all of its major policy changes, with all of its major policy announcements. They don't tell the public what it is that they're cutting. They dress it all up in fancy and euphemistic language to sound as though these policy changes are somehow really good for the people who bear the brunt of these cuts in the end. What are these cuts? Let me just go through them for you.

Shelter allowances for families with two or more will be reduced. Shelter allowances will be elimi- nated for adult recipients living with an adult relative. This will increase the risk of homelessness, of course, for vulnerable individuals whose lives are improved through sharing accommodation with a relative. There's no regard for that. Their shelter allowance will be eliminated. [1505] Support allowances for employable welfare recipi- ents between the ages of 55 and 64 will drop between $47 and $98 a month.

This amount is a 20 to 35 percent cut in the non-shelter portion of social assistance for elderly recipients. Low-income seniors, those over 65, will also see cuts in their small incomes, because subsidized transit passes, of course, were scheduled to be taken away. Their medical prescription subsidies will also be re- duced due to cuts to the Pharmacare program.

Now, the government will say, "We gave back the seniors bus passes," but all the government has done on the seniors bus pass issue is off-load that expense to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, saying to them: "You tax the people and then pay for that service so we can turn around and say we didn't cut the seniors passes." That's all the government has done in this re- gard.

2872 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 Welfare benefits for employable single parents will be cut by $70 a month. This is an 18 percent reduction in the support portion of social assistance, which will affect families. There are approximately 60,000 children in this category who will be impacted. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the members of this group are single women with children. I don't hear the Minis- ter of State for Women's Equality rising up to speak on behalf of single moms with children whose rates are being reduced by this government by $70 a month.

O f c o u r s e w e d o n ' t s e e t h a t f r o m t h i s M i n i s t e r o f State for Women's Equality, because we've heard, in other instances, that what she's said is: "Go and make more money." That's her answer to people who are faced with cuts by this government: "Go and make more money." Those were the words of the Minister of State for Women's Equality who is supposed to, in this government, be the advocacy voice for women in the province. We can see by her comments earlier that she's no advocate at all.

Perhaps that's why, in this House as we debate this very important bill that would impact single women and their children, we see the Minister of State for Women's Equality completely si- lent — completely silent. The family maintenance exemption will also be eliminated. All child support paid will be deducted dollar for dollar from income assistance benefits. Until now, if a single parent on income assistance was receiv- ing child support payments from a spouse, they were entitled to keep $100 of these payments. With this piece of legislation, all of that will now be deducted.

I fail to understand how taking money away from children would help children develop. I fail to under- stand how taking money away from single parents would help single parents break out of the poverty cycle. I fail to understand how that is affording all Brit- ish Columbians equal opportunities. I fail to under- stand how this minister and this government and this Premier can get up in this House and say they're pro- tecting the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable.

Tell that to the children from whom this government is picking the pockets of $100 of their maintenance pay- ment. [1510] Earnings exemptions. Earnings exemptions will be eliminated for employable recipients. This exemption allowed people on welfare to work and keep $100 if they are single and $200 if they have children or are in a partnered relationship.

The earnings exemption is meant to be an approach which provides incentive for income assistance recipients to make a little bit of money, to engage in the workforce, to gain some ex- perience, to gain some self-esteem and, hopefully, to assist them to move off income assistance. Now that incentive is gone completely — completely gone. This g o v e rnm e nt c l ai m s t hat t he i r e f f o rt i s t o a s s i s t i nc o m e assistance recipients to move from welfare to work, but they have taken away the incentive that would assist income assistance recipients to do exactly that.

It isn't just the left wing who argue for income as- sistance recipients that their earning exemptions should be there. Even some members of the right wing argue that. Recently, at SFU, I spoke with a business person who belonged to the chamber of commerce, and he said: "I don't understand why the government is doing that." They will do what they can to try and lobby the government to change its mind. Obviously, they have not succeeded. In total, these measures mean that some single mothers could see a drop of as much as $370 a month.

In the income of a single mother with one child, this would represent a 46 percent cut to the support allow- ance available to her. As mentioned earlier, the Social Planning and Re- search Council, SPARC-BC, in its December 2001 re- port on living costs and income assistance in B.C., con- cluded that before the cuts announced by this govern- ment, social assistance met only 45 to 65 percent of the minimum monthly costs of single-parent families and single adults for food, clothing, household supplies, personal care, transportation, child care, shelter and other basic costs.

And that's not it; I've only just begun to list the cuts that income assistance recipients are facing with the imposition of this bill. Single parents will now be considered what they call employable after the youngest child reaches the age of three, down from the age of seven. Advocacy organizations for children and youth report that this change will affect the care of approximately 15,000 young children. This change comes just after the gov- ernment of British Columbia repealed legislation whose goal was universal access to affordable, safe child care.

The government is saying: "Get out there and work." But you know what? The universal child care program that the former government had brought in is now gone. There won't be child care support, but get out there and work anyway. The government will introduce welfare time limits. Employable people without children will only be al- lowed to receive income assistance for two years dur- ing any five-year period. After two years they'll simply be cut off. If you can't find a job, too bad. You're on your own. If you have no support, perhaps a street c o r n e r i s y o u r o p t i o n .

T h a t ' s w h a t t h i s g o v e r n m e n t i s doing with this piece of legislation. Similarly, employable parents with children older than three years will only receive full benefits for two out of the five years, after which time they'll see their support allowance cut by 25 percent. Even if you have children, you're not exempted from the punitive ap- proach of this government. Their right-wing, ideologi- cal approach thinks people on income assistance have too much money. This government thinks the more punitive they are, the more they can get income assis- tance recipients off welfare.

O f c o u r s e , t o o u r k n o w l e d g e , n o g o v e r n m e n t i n Canada has ever imposed a flat time limit on eligibility for income assistance. This would mean that some Brit- ish Columbians will simply be refused social assis- tance, quite frankly, regardless of their need. Full-time post-secondary students will no longer be eligible for welfare. They have to turn exclusively to

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2873 student loans, which are not adequate to support full- time study. In addition to the criminal penalty for fraud, those found guilty of welfare fraud — which might include failure to report, perhaps, a gift — will be banned from receiving welfare. [1515] Before even being able to apply for assistance, indi- viduals will have to undertake a three-week self- directed job search. This will apply to everyone, includ- ing families with children.

Most people have exhausted all of their avenues of survival before turning to welfare and appear at the welfare office having no income, assets or any other means of support. Many will be on the verge of losing their housing. The three-week rule increases the risk of homelessness, illness and extreme psychological stress for people. I've seen it in my work as the MLA for Van- couver–Mount Pleasant. People who go to the welfare office have run out of all options. They have no hope whatsoever. They have no ability to get support from anyone anywhere, so they have gone to the welfare office.

They're being turned away and told, "Come back in three weeks, and then maybe we'll help you." Where does the minister think the people will go? What options do they have? Is it underneath the viaduct that they can find shelter? Is it in the garbage bins that they'll be able to find food? Where should these people go? The government intends to start the welfare appli- cation process with an assessment of whether or not an applicant is expected to work. An individual's entitle- ment and treatment by the ministry will depend on this assessment.

Those in the community are concerned about the quality of these assessments. They are con- cerned for the hidden unemployable who will fall through the cracks — for example, survivors of abuse or trauma in residential schools, refugees or adults who have undiagnosed mental illness, intellectual im- pairment, fetal alcohol syndrome, learning disabilities or substance-misuse challenges. These hidden unemployables — what will the gov- ernment do with them? How will they be assessed? In the estimates process I asked the minister this question.

He said there would be special provisions for them, yet he didn't know how, on the ground, those would ap- ply. He didn't have answers for these people who will be faced with these challenges. Now the government is making changes before they even have answers. What will the options be, then, for these individuals? Quite frankly, the street. Young adults 19 and over will have to demonstrate that they have lived independently of their parents for two years before being eligible for welfare.

The con- cern, of course, is that the youths, the young people, who are perhaps escaping violence or abusive family homes would have to go without support because they would not qualify for income assistance. People are very concerned about that. What kind of message is this government saying to young people? Maybe they're just saying: "Stay in the home in which you're faced with abuse. Live there for two years or become independent." To become inde- pendent, if you have no skills and you're unable to get a job…. What does that mean? I've seen it in the streets of the downtown east side in my own community.

The alternative may be for young people to sell their bodies just so they can get some financial support so that they don't have to sleep on the street. Is that the option? Is that what this government is saying to young people today? Politicians, the Liberal government members, say: "You are the future of our tomorrow." Yet, at the same time they're saying: "We're not going to provide you any support, even for those who are most vulnerable, who are at risk." [1520] Individuals who have left jobs voluntarily will be ineligible for income assistance. Voluntarily — what does that mean?

People are very concerned that indi- viduals may be considered ineligible for welfare even if they have left jobs because of sexual harassment at the w o r k p l a c e , u n s a f e w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s o r l a b o u r s t a n - dards violations. Any one of those could happen to a person, and they may well quit their job because they f e e l u ns af e i n t he i r wo rk p l ac e . W h at hap p e ns t o t he m when they have no income to support themselves or perhaps their family, and they show up at the welfare office?

The government is saying they're not eligible for income assistance because they quit their job voluntar- ily. Refugee claimants, who are not currently allowed to work without special authorization, will no longer be eligible for assistance. Refugee claimants whose status has not yet been determined are a particularly vulnerable group. They are poor, and they are socially isolated. Many of them may well have language barri- ers, but the government is not there to support that segment of the community.

The Disability Benefits Program Act will also be repealed, and we'll engage in those discussions with the minister in this Legislature under Bill 27. Others may identify other categories of individuals who will be ineligible for assistance. Reduced shelter allowances for families with two or more children, combined with reduced support allowances and time limits on eligibility for social assistance, will predicta- bly result in increased numbers of homeless people in British Columbia, increased numbers of people living in overcrowded, inappropriate and desperate condi- tions.

The government's approach rests on assumptions that the majority of social assistance recipients are em- ployable people who choose not to work and that work is available for them. However, British Columbia is currently experiencing a downturn in its economy, due to various factors. My colleague from Vancouver- Hastings mentioned in question period just today that the unemployment rate is up to 9 percent — the high- est. We see the resource sector economy faced with a downturn. What happens? The official unemployment rate is going higher and higher.

At the same time, training programs across gov- ernment, including those designed for young, low-

2874 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 income people…. Some of them, quite frankly, are scheduled for termination. I know from the Ministry of State for Women's Equality, who has employment training programs to help women to transit, a bridging program for women faced with violence to transit into the workplace…. They have no assurance from this government that their funding will continue. We have an environment in which training programs are being eliminated — many of which are uncertain in terms of whether or not they will get continuous government support to continue their programs.

New programs that the minister claims are slated to be in place are not yet in place — criteria unknown, effects unknown. In spite of this uncertain environment, the govern- ment is bringing forward legislation that says: "Get out there and find a job, and if you don't, we'll cut you off." The community groups have gotten together to raise their concerns not just with this government but beyond. They've brought the matter to the United Na- tions.

They've written a letter to the United Nations asking them to look at what the B.C. government's do- ing, asking them to pay urgent attention to the massive assault on the social and economic rights of the poorest people in British Columbia, asking them to make a judgment on whether or not the British Columbian government, the Liberal government, has violated the UN covenant on human rights and on issues around poverty. [1525] The community groups have written to the UN on this matter.

I state from their letter to the UN: "The announced changes to social assistance and social services clearly do not comply with the government of British Columbia's obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the rights set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

"In light of Canada's recent record of adopting retrogressive measures and as a follow-up to the committee's 1998 recommendations, the undersigned non-governmental organizations request that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights give urgent attention to the actions of the government of British Columbia." That was dated back on February 11, 2002. There are a number of organizations who have signed on to this. They are very concerned. Who are they? The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., End Legislated Poverty, United Native Nations, B.C. Human Rights Coalition, B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities, Seniors Net- work B.C., Alliance for the Rights of Children, Justice for Girls, B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., Working Group on Poverty, West Coast LEAF Association are just some of the groups who have voiced their con- cerns. The women's centres across British Columbia have come forward to condemn the changes to the income assistance legislation. This is just released. It is hot off the press. The women's centres — here's what they have to say.

And I do hope the Minister of State for Women's Equality would pay attention to what the women's centres are saying. She is the minister, after all, who is responsible, Mr. Speaker. She is supposed to b e t h e a d v o c a t e f o r w o m e n , s o I h o p e s h e d o e s p a y attention. I'll read the press release into the record, and I h o p e s h e ' l l g e t u p a n d r e s p o n d . I h o p e s h e ' l l g e t u p and respond and tell people what she's thinking.

The press release reads as follows: "'Don't get sick or injured in B.C., don't inherit any diseases, don't grow old and have your health fail, don't be a woman, and don't count on this government to care about you if you're anything but healthy and employed,' says the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres. "The latest nightmare in the struggle for dignity in B.C. has just unfolded. The Minister of Human Resources has tabled legislation that will in fact cost people their lives and quality of life.

The most outrageous changes include: having a lien put on your home after six months of receiving income assistance, the requirement to repay benefits given to you, the requirement for two years' consecutive employment prior to being eligible for income assistance, the redefining of disability which will no longer include excessive drug costs, the total absence of an equitable and just appeal system, a restricted right to appeal and the complete change in the basic philosophy of a social safety net." [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] "The government of B.C. has outdone itself with this latest move.

After attacking unions, hospitals, schools, services to children with autism, seniors, women and children, they are now stealing basic entitlements from the people worse off in B.C. "Dodie Goldney of the Kamloops centre says: 'The only people in this province paying for this agenda and for big business are the ones who have the least to give. This government is shameful.' "'It is as if we are all being picked off one at a time in this province.

Survival of the fittest is an elitist pro- business attitude that has no place in government,' says Deborah Critchley of the Vernon Women's Centre. 'Anti- poverty advocates, women's groups and others are once again appalled at this government's lack of consultation and, on the eve of new legislation, have little or no information in order to do their jobs. This government is everything except honest, transparent and accountable.' [1530] "The Minister of State for Women's Equality apparently had nothing to say and held true to form of abandoning women and children in this province.

There are no advocates for the poor in this government. Not one member of the government has lived up to their responsibility to ensure security or safety of British Columbians. "Women will be forced to stay in abusive relationships, children over 16 will be told to find work, families of adults with disabilities will have the rug pulled out from under them, and all British Columbians will be hurt by this legislation. Communities will be faced with increased crime, increased poverty and escalated degrees of desperation.

"We urge this government to immediately halt pushing this legislation through and begin consultation with those most affected. We urge this government to come to their senses and end the attack on the poor in B.C. The B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres puts this government on notice. We will not accept this draconian

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2875 and regressive legislation. We will continue to resist and fight for the rights of women in British Columbia." I hope the Minister of State for Women's Equality will rise up and respond to the women's centres across the province.

I hope she will have more to say to the women who are being pushed off of income assistance by this piece of legislation than to say to them: "Go make more money." I hope this minister understands the plight of women who are in poverty today, what they're faced with and the ill effects this government is going to cause them as a result of this piece of legisla- tion. Media reports, leaked documents and the estimates process have said over and over again that the Ministry of Human Resources will be emphasizing employment over assistance.

However, it has become abundantly clear that this emphasis on employment is at the ex- pense of the well-being, safety and security of the most vulnerable people in the province. Employment is un- doubtedly a desirable goal for most British Columbi- ans. Unfortunately, the introduction of this legislation repeals all of the previous supports and incentives to seek and maintain employment. Even Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun has put it this way: the new act is "all stick, no carrot." The Minister of Human Resources has said over and over again that "getting and keeping a job makes all the difference.

Having a job that gives a sense of accomplishment builds hope and self-esteem and pro- vides economic security for the individual and the fam- ily." However, the minister doesn't address what it means for a family when they are unable to find suffi- cient or suitable employment. How is their self-esteem and economic security affected when the government no longer provides assistance? A warning from Dr. Marge Reitsma-Street, profes- sor of studies in policy and practice in health and social services at the University of Victoria.

Here's what she had to say: "The significant cuts in benefits, eligibility and appeals and the drastic increase in surveillance of workers and applicants imply a qualitatively and ethically different legislative framework for people living in B.C., not just for those in need but also for those who serve them, for relatives, neighbours and guests and for politicians and their managers. "The B.C. employment and assistance law does not propose a new benchmark of civility or citizen responsibility. Instead, it will increase the poverty of material and civil life in British Columbia.

Curiously, the proposed law will not save money as the government claims; rather, financial and human costs will increase. [1535] "Unlike B.C. Benefits, the proposed law does not speak at all about the larger employment or child care context or society's obligation to 'preserving a social safety net that is responsive to changing social and economic circumstances.' Rather, the focus in the proposed law is on personal responsibility and reduction of the number of applicants and welfare payments.

Both workers and applicants in the proposed law will be expected to decrease the use of welfare and to increase paid employment, regardless of pay or working conditions, the job market, housing or transportation issues, or other obligations to children and family members. If unsuccessful at finding paid work or decreasing requests for welfare, the financial assistance workers and applicants will be blamed. As individuals, they'll be denounced as not performing, not meeting standards, and therefore less worthy or deserving.

The proposed law points workers and the public to examine the responsibility and personal faults of individual workers and applicants, blaming them if there are problems, thus diverting attention away from the societal responsibility for policies that generate insecure, insufficient jobs, training or child care." Dr. Reitsma-Street has more to say — more analysis on the changes that the government is putting forward: "Significant increase in the use of for-profit firms de- termining eligibility and enforcing cuts and restric- tions." That's one of the things that the government has installed.

"New players are being introduced into the B.C. welfare scene, particularly large for-profit technology firms which will be paid millions of contract dollars to implement the hardware and software programs with the new B.C. eligibility rules and benefits embedded.

Other players who will enforce the proposed act include the smaller, local for-profit companies with contracts to train welfare applicants, to place them in jobs — if jobs are available; their contracts and profits depend on meeting targets like 'clients do not return within 12 months.' "Both the transnational and local for-profit firms must earn profits for their shareholders. That is their goal.

For example, the Andersen, now Accenture, Company that is on contract with the Ontario government…was reported by the Ontario auditor general as charging five times the hourly rate for similar work previously performed by comparable ministry staff. Andersen directors average $575 per hour…while clerical work was billed at $85 per hour…. These consulting fees and profits for firms doing welfare work are paid for by public taxes or from 'savings' in drastically reduced welfare benefits to those who are in need." In other words, businesses profit.

They profit on the reduction of welfare and the diversion to employment in an insecure job market. That is a feature of the proposed B.C. legislation. "Significant increase in monitoring daily behaviours of workers and applicants. There will be more procedures that regulate and monitor workers, applicants, neighbours and other professionals.

Compliance will be enforced much more vigorously with enhanced verification and criminal fraud investigations, even though Canadian and international research by scholars and auditors such as Peat Marwick repeatedly discover overpayment and fraud in fewer than 5 percent of the cases, often for minuscule amounts less than $100. Rather than finding fraud, investigators are more likely to find underpayment. "Applicants and recipients will be expected to complete more electronic and paper forms that investigate every aspect of people's lives — their finances, their relationships, their job and volunteer performance.

If documents and evidence are not produced in a prompt, accurate and regular way, such as reporting exactly how much money was earned on a newspaper route or the $50 family gift that is being used

2876 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 to pay a hydro bill, then workers and applicants will be judged as not meeting standards." Significant increase in punishments.

If you should be found to be defrauding the system, the punishments on applicants are particularly severe: no benefits and cuts in benefits if incorrect information is supplied or late or if a condition of the employment and assistance agreement signed by the applicant is not met. [1540] When the professor investigated the first year of enforcement of the harsh Ontario Works law in Sud- bury in 1996, one-third of the persons were cut off wel- fare each month because forms were not completed correctly or on time, a finding corroborated by other research on reasons people "exit" or are forced off wel- fare.

The worst punishment, one that in other jurisdic- tions is being litigated as cruel and unusual punish- ment and against constitutional rights to the security of people, is that B.C. citizens convicted of welfare fraud — whatever the amount, whatever the reason, what- ever the condition — will face a lifelong ban from assis- tance. This punishment is not used against those con- victed of income tax evasion, a more sophisticated and costly form of welfare fraud. Not just applicants for welfare but employed people also face repercussions for inadequate conduct according to the proposed law.

Workers may lose their jobs, managers their bonuses and small firms their profits if performance targets are not met. Those workers with professional degrees risk losing their professional membership if they make de- cisions contrary to the value basis of the profession. "Drastic reductions in accessible, public, fair negotiating procedures regarding eligibility and benefits. With the introduction of more managerial standardization and computerized rules that workers cannot override, professional discretion responsive to needs for assistance will diminish.

The language in the ministry website about streamlining processes of complaint and appeals is quite confusing, except it is clear the current independent income assistance appeal board will be abolished. "There will be some form of streamlined review mechanism, but whether internal or independent is not known. Furthermore, there will no longer be a statutory mechanism legislating the possibility of legal assistance for poverty and welfare law appeals." These come at the expense of people who need the support for advocacy. The Attorney General, as we know, has cut legal aid support by 38.8 percent.

"In addition, all legal aid funding for matters relating to disputes regarding welfare eligibility, termination or cuts has been eliminated, as has funding to most native and community law centres. Without access to legal aid, legal knowledge, representation or appeal procedures, what access will applicants and workers have to justice about matters of basic survival? "Conspicuously absent from any material on the proposed changes is mention of the existence or obligations of the Income Assistance Advisory Council. Under the current B.C. Benefits Act, there is provision for this council.

Its members may be appointed by the ministry and may be paid a daily fee. Some council members are to be welfare recipients and community agency members. "It is not clear how active this council is now, nor whether they were being consulted about the proposed new law.

It would be a serious loss if there is not an independent council with experienced, concerned members who were authorized and supported to review welfare legislation and monitor its implementation." The paper goes on to say on the issues around cate- gories of eligibility and ineligibility: "Given the drastic restrictions in eligibility, following is a closer inspection of the proposed categories and comments on the processes authorized to establish eligibility.

"There are four categories of benefits, each with a specific separate process to determine eligibility: (1) no assistance, (2) disaster relief, (3) temporary, (4) continuous. Benefits rates are very low for those eligible for disaster relief and temporary. The April 2002 rates are lower than the 2001 rates and far below what is needed for necessities and dignified living. For those eligible for continuous benefits, rates are somewhat higher but still inadequate and lower than 2001 rates. "The continuous benefit category replaces what was known as disabilities 2.

It will be reserved for people with serious, permanent health concerns or multiple barriers to employment. "Very problematic is the planned disappearance of public knowledge about benefit rates. Under the 2001 B.C.

Benefits system, maximum rates and policies were posted on the ministry's website…but even this limited access may disappear, as there are indications that specifics on benefit rates will not be posted. [1545] "In this supposedly more transparent, publicly accountable Liberal regime, how will recipients, service providers, family members and advocates know the benefits and rights of applicants?" The study goes on to list those people who are categorized as receiving no assistance. Those are young people over 19 living away from a family or a foster home or a substitute home for less than two years.

They are ineligible, as mentioned earlier. Whether they l e f t p a r e n t a l h o m e s b y c h o i c e o r w e r e f o r c e d o u t b y abuse or neglect, young people are ineligible for in- come assistance until they have lived independently somewhere for two years. If fortunate and able, young people may get a job that pays more than $6-per-hour training wage — the training wage this government has brought about, re- ducing the minimum wage from $8 to $6 an hour.

If able to work 40 hours a week, they could afford a $600- per-month small apartment, with $600 left for food, transportation and other necessities, or they may win a bursary, go to school and live in a residence or post- secondary educational institute. If less able or inter- ested, youth may have to couch-surf or live on the streets. For young people under 19, current practice al- ready places severe restrictions on their eligibility for assistance. Only 1,000 in the province were eligible in September 2001. It is, of course, expected that these restrictions will continue and become more onerous.

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2877 As mentioned earlier, under this "voluntary depar- ture from the workplace," persons who leave work are ineligible for whatever reason; whether faced with har- assment in the workplace or unsafe working condi- tions, it doesn't matter. When you leave your work- place voluntarily, you, too, could face punishment by the government when you seek income assistance. People who are employable receive income assis- tance for two years. After that, they are not eligible. This will affect over one-half of the 246,000 persons who, as of September 2001, need assistance.

"With this provision for ineligibility, British Columbia takes a regressive, uncivilized path." As mentioned earlier, it's the first time in a Canadian jurisdiction that a govern- ment has put forward a time limitation with respect to income assistance. I do wonder whether or not this government is act- ing in violation of the federal transfer payment agree- ments. The federal government provides dollars through transfer payments to provincial governments to provide for health care, education and social ser- vices.

By putting a time restriction on eligibility, is the government acting in violation of the transfer payment act of the federal government? Is this government go- ing to create yet another scenario whereby they're be- ing challenged in court? We have seen in the short eight months that this government has been in office how many court cases are arriving at their doorstep. In this first year of their mandate — before the completion, even, of the first year of their mandate — court case upon court case is being brought for consideration because of this gov- ernment's ill-thought-out approach to government policies.

Is this yet another scenario whereby the gov- ernment will be faced with a court challenge? Is it only by this means, when someone challenges this government on issues around violation of a Char- ter right, a violation of the government's obligation and responsibility…? Is it only under such circumstances that government would start to consider and recon- sider their approach? [1550] So far, this government has displayed that they're not listening to anyone. They're plowing ahead. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly. Their skin must be so thick. They can get up and say: "I'm protecting you.

I'm acting in your best interests." Meanwhile, you can see the attack, the draconian measures this government is bringing forward. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly. Does it take a court case challenge before the gov- ernment will back down and admit that they were wrong and that these ill-thought-out policies are not the way to go? Is that the only way in which people will get representation and be heard by this govern- ment? If you think these cuts are bad, that's not all of the story.

If you look at what's going on with government, the Ministry of Human Resources is not only just cut- ting the benefits and the rates for income assistance recipients; they're also closing welfare offices. I know that perhaps some members think the de- bate here is unimportant. The member for Vancouver- Burrard is busy working on his computer, as it's beep- ing away in violation of the House rules. Perhaps he doesn't think the changes brought forward by this piece of legislation impact his constituents, which I know is false because I've met some of his constituents.

I k no w m an y p e o p l e o n i nc o m e as s i s t anc e i n hi s v e ry own riding of Vancouver-Burrard are very concerned. Deputy Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate for you to criticize the other member. I would caution you to proceed with your debate. J. Kwan: I apologize, hon. Speaker. I was wonder- ing if the member for Vancouver-Burrard will rise up and speak in support of his constituents — the people who need this government to provide support to them and not cut welfare rates, benefits and eligibility for those who are in greatest need.

I wonder if the member for Vancouver-Burrard will rise up in this House and make those comments. I wonder. It would take a mo- ment of his time to rise up in this House and speak in support of his constituents and not just toe the party line. With the office closures that this government is imposing, there are significant impacts in the commu- nity where access to a welfare worker would be cur- tailed because the offices would be closed. What would happen in those instances when an individual cannot access a worker to assist them in getting support?

Now that support is not going to be there, because of these cuts. Still, if someone needed to talk to a welfare worker, would they be able to get access to one? Let's look and see what offices are being closed. We see the office on West Broadway, the employment ser- vices centre, is closed effective March 11, 2002. The Via Rail employment services centre closed effective March 11, 2002. The Kingsway employment services centre closed March 11, 2002. Commercial employment ser- vices centre closed March 11, 2002. The Mount Pleasant West employment and assistance centre closed March 29, 2002.

These are offices in Vancouver which provide em- ployment services to income assistance recipients. This government claims that they want to help people get off income assistance and find work. How exactly will closing access to employment service centres help the recipients who are seeking support and assistance to get off welfare? [1555] The child care service office on East 41st will be closed effective January 5, 2003. In the lower mainland, the Canada Way employment and assistance centre closed effective March 31, 2002. The Squamish em- ployment and assistance centre will close effective March 31, 2003.

The Burnaby West employment and assistance centre will close effective September 30, 2002. In the Fraser North–Upper Valley area, the Agassiz employment and assistance centre closed effective Feb-

2878 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 ruary 28, 2002. The Abbotsford employment services centre is closing soon, on April 30, 2002. In the Fraser South region, the King George High- way employment and assistance centre is closing effective June 30, 2002. The White Rock employment and assistance centre is closing December 31, 2002. In the Kootenays and the Okanagan, the Inver- mere employment and assistance centre is closing June 28, 2002. The Fernie employment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. The Kimberley employment and assistance centre is closing Decem- ber 31, 2002.

Creston employment and assistance cen- tre is closing December 31, 2002. Castlegar employ- ment and assistance centre, March 31, 2003. In the central British Columbia area, the Bella Coola employment and assistance centre closed March 28, 2002. Ashcroft is closing June 28, 2002. Clearwater employment and assistance centre is clos- ing June 28, 2002. Lillooet employment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. Revelstoke em- ployment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. In the Prince George and northern B.C. area, Daw- son Creek employment services centre closed March 31, 2002.

The Hazelton employment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Chetwynd employ- ment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Fort St. James employment and assistance centre is closing June 30, 2002. Houston employment and assis- tance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Terrace em- ployment services centre is closing March 31, 2004. In the North Vancouver Island area, Nanaimo employment and assistance centre closed February 28, 2002. Port Alberni employment services centre closed March 31, 2002.

North Island contracts for child care subsidy and vocational rehabilitative services closed March 31, 2002. In the Victoria area, Sooke employment and assis- tance centre closed March 31, 2002. Regional services. The Vernon and the Penticton suboffices will close effective March 31, 2003. We see income assistance rates being reduced, income assistance benefits being cut, access to em- ployment services being reduced and welfare offices closing. Many of them have already closed. Particularly in the smaller communities, travel is often difficult.

I have travelled the province in my years here in my Legislature, gone to the different communities and seen their different, unique needs. One of the biggest issues for community members outside the lower mainland, they often say to me, is that they have to travel from community to commu- nity. In the winter months the travel is particularly difficult because of the weather and road conditions. [1600] Here we have the people who are most vulner- able, who need to get access for employment support, government support, income assistance support and welfare support.

They will no longer be able to access some of the offices in their local community. Those in Terrace — where will they have to go? Those in Houston, Chetwynd, Hazelton, Port Alberni, the North Island, Lillooet, Revelstoke, Ashcroft, Bella Coola — w h a t k i n d o f d i s t a n c e w i l l t h e y h a v e t o travel in order to get some information, to get some support for employment services and welfare? Will they be able to make those trips? Will they have the resources to make those trips? If they don't, what happens to them? Are they left there on the streets on their own, without any support?

That's what this government is bringing about with respect to income assistance cuts — cuts to benefits, cuts to rates, cuts to and closures of offices. One of the discussions that we engaged in with the minister during estimates was issues around part- time employment and how part-time employment is something the minister wants income assistance re- cipients to move off so they'll be into full-time em- ployment.

Then when I asked the question during estimates about what the minister considers to be part-time, he made a suggestion that part-time em- ployment would mean someone who works perhaps four or six hours less than full-time employment. That was the example he used. If you were working part- time, here's why you need to get off welfare and work full-time and how it would be better for you. How- ever, if you look at the statistics on who is working part-time right now, what their income levels are and how they're trying to manage….

Yes, some people on part-time income assistance worked to get their in- come supplemented by welfare because the amount of money they made did not even reach the income assistance level. That doesn't mean that they're not working and trying hard to transit out of welfare; it just means that's the situation they're faced with. There are other people who may be working part- time because they have other obligations. For example, they may have to take care of children for whom they're unable to find affordable child care to place their children in when they're working.

Therefore, some of them could only work part-time. S o m e p e o p l e m a y b e g o i n g t o s c h o o l p a r t - t i m e because they want to move beyond the minimum- wage scale. They want to enhance their employment options in the future by upgrading in the educational system. While the Minister of Human Resources may see full-time employment as a desirable alternative to in- come assistance, the statistics for B.C. show that part- time employment is a reality for many of the people of this province. In fact, in 1997 B.C. had the highest part- time rate in Canada.

The share of all employment in B.C. that is part-time increased from 15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in 1999. Part-time employment rates are consistently higher for youth aged 15 to 24, with 43 percent of male youths and 54 percent of female youths involved in part-time employment. [1605] On average, women have a higher participation rate than men in part-time employment, with 30 per- cent of all women 25 and older participating, while less than 11 percent of men aged 25 and older participate in

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 2879 part-time employment. The female-dominated retail trade and accommodation, food and beverage services sectors accounted for nearly a third of all part-time employment in 1999. The Infoline report states that the service sector is subject to uneven levels of demand which provide a strong incentive for utilizing part-timers. This also means that part-time employees are subject to less stability than full-time employment.

The reality of the economic situation in B.C. requires that the Minister of Human Resources be flexible with people of B.C. in order to provide for the security and well-being of each person, who is not always available, through participation in the labour market. Some 73 percent of all women

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0416pm-09
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0416pm 09
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4621803a49c7b311f0758b81db2c2dee89f69750

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