1996 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 25, 1996

Afternoon

Volume 2, Number 5,

Part 2

[ Page 955 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I call continuation of the great debate on Bill 15. With regard to Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

DISABILITY BENEFITS PROGRAM ACT

(second reading continued)

G. Wilson: My remarks tonight are going to be brief. I have probably been the most vocal and, I think, the only critic to actually vote against the B.C. Benefits program. In the last couple of evenings, I've taken the government to task for what I believe, in principle, are some serious directions that we might not want to travel.

I think if one is to be taken seriously as a politician, one has to also have the opportunity to put it on the record when you think the government is doing something right, and in this particular part of the legislation, I would argue that they have indeed made some correct decisions. I think that this particular bill is different in some very important and significant ways from the other pieces of legislation we've seen under B.C. Benefits. Because of those differences, I'm certainly able to stand up and support it.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

One of the principal differences is with respect to the area of training and other programs, where clearly this legislation is designed to be open-ended and as flexible as possible and to provide an opportunity for people with disabilities to access the necessary training that is required. They are not subjected to the same levels of direction and mandate we've seen in other legislation.

More significantly than that -- and I think this is really an area that the government is to be congratulated on -- is the degree to which there are consequential amendments placed in this bill that provide for a greater degree of capacity for people who have disabilities to develop a certain level of financial independence. I think that is something we clearly want to see more of.

I would say only this. As we look through this bill and as we go through this bill, there are several areas that need to be touched on that I hope this minister will take note of, because they are areas where there are concerns. One has to do with the disability allowances and benefits

section and the manner by which those disability allowances and benefits are applied, keeping in mind that there are people within the category of this bill, people with disabilities, who currently still have to struggle and fight with guardianship regulations and with the notion that somehow they do not or are not able to look after their own finances and well-being.

I raise this whole question of guardianship because it becomes even more important as we recognize that people -- and clearly this doesn't apply to all people with disabilities, but there are a significant number -- are at the moment having a great deal of trouble with financial institutions. They should be able to have those financial institutions provide on an equitable basis the levels of finance they require in order to deal with things like their home purchase, possibly, or renovation work that is necessary to be done, even in a rental accommodation where there's an agreement between landlord and tenant, but they cannot get the security.

It's interesting, hon. Speaker. I won't take up the time of the House tonight, but I have letters from a number of financial institutions, saying: "Look, we have trouble with this and our customers have trouble with this, so we need to find a way to make some amendments with respect to the provisions to allow us to be able to act in this financial area." So I would suggest that when we start to look at the question of disability allowances and benefits with respect to people with handicaps, this is an area I think we have to explore. There are some problems here that need to be dealt with.

I raise that issue because I have personal experience of those people who currently are having difficulty, and the financial institutions that would like to see some clarification with respect to how these dollars can be administered.

The second area I'd like to look at and ask for the minister's attention to be paid to deals with matters with respect to the information that is being supplied. I'm assuming -- I guess this is an assumption that is reasonably safe -- that the same amendments we've seen in the other B.C. Benefits legislation with respect to the sharing of information that restrict and limit those powers are going to come forward and be applied to this bill.

Having said that, the one area I would suggest this government might want to look one step further at and deal with by certain levels of legislation -- I know that the minister is listening intently to this issue, because it's one that will be on his desk shortly -- is the guardianship question: how the trustee may be involved in the guardianship issue and the information exchange that may occur between the trustee and the guardian of somebody who is deemed to have disabilities that would not allow them to be able to make decisions on their own.

That decision is a grey area in some cases, as the minister, I'm sure, is well aware. He has been in this business for a long time, and I know he would have had as many constituents as I've had who may have come forward.

So those are really problematic areas that this bill doesn't really address, and I guess it wasn't intended to. I want it to be on the record that those three areas I've identified -- the matter with respect to finances, the question of financial institutions and the ability for those to be dealt with independently -- need to be addressed. Similarly, we need to address the issue with respect to the training component and recognize that there may be some concerns there, again, with respect to access and ability.

Lastly, there is the whole question of the Adult Guardianship Act, which was a creature of this government -- or of the one before it, but they're both the same animal, really. That has caused considerable problems in terms of relationships between the trustee, the guardian and people with those disabilities. Those areas need to be addressed.

Having said that, let me say that I'm pleased with the flexibility that this bill provides for the individual. If I could sum it up, and I will, it would appear that there has been a greater degree of consultation with the people affected by this bill than we've seen in the other B.C. Benefits acts, because the language, direction and tone of this bill are greatly different from the others. It therefore gives me pleasure to support it.

As I said at the outset, even though I've been a very vocal and harsh critic of two of the other bills that have come before us in this packet, I think that this particular component is worthy of being taken out and given support. With that, I offer my support for Bill 15.

[6:45]

[ Page 956 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to thank all members and all parties that are represented in this House for their unanimous support for this historic bill and the changes it speaks to, from both a philosophical and a practical point of view. In response to some of the points that were raised during the course of second reading debate -- and in response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands in particular -- let me say that there are obviously going to be some fiscal impacts in terms of reducing the welfare rolls as things get transferred from one ministry to another.

But the purpose of this legislation is not to generate some kind of fiscal fa�ade; rather, it is to speak to the very points that your colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara made. I accept your point, because I think....

Deputy Speaker: I have to make one comment, hon. minister, and that is that the minister is closing debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: You just interrupted me in full stream. Should I sort of rewind now and...? [Laughter.]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's an uncharacteristic error on the part of the Chair.

In any event, the bill is there for the reasons that were outlined by the member for Vancouver-Langara, who I know has a long history on these matters. I also appreciate the comments from the Reform Party, in terms of their support for it, and the comments from the representative from the PDA. He takes the view that this bill is an improvement over the earlier bills. That's only because we listened to what he had to say and made all the changes -- and if he believes that, he'll believe a lot of other things. Hon. Speaker, with that said, I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Disability Benefits Program Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 16.

BC BENEFITS (APPEALS) ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Streifel: With that, I would like to thank my colleague for going through second reading of a bill in a jurisdiction that we share.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, give me a little bit of your pay.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. My colleague requests that I give him a little bit of my pay, and in fact I will give him a little bit of my pay on this. I'll buy him a nice fresh glass of water to cool us all down on this warm summer evening.

Hon. Speaker, I rise now for second reading of Bill 16, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act. This bill, like the others in the B.C. Benefits package, is a key component in the legislative framework for implementing B.C. Benefits, this government's strategy for renewing the social safety net. Essentially, it takes the established appeal provisions currently found in the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, or the GAIN Act, and improves them and makes them applicable to the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act and the Disability Benefits Program Act.

Under these new acts, anyone dissatisfied with the government's decision to deny, reduce or stop their benefits may request an internal ministry review. For those dissatisfied with the outcome of this process, Bill 16 guarantees access to two further levels of appeal: to a community-based tribunal and, where there remains a dispute, to the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board.

For those who aren't familiar with it, I'd like to outline the tribunal process currently used under the GAIN Act, because this is the process we are now proposing to extend to the B.C. Benefits legislation generally. Each tribunal is unique and comprises three individuals from the client's community: one chosen by the client, one chosen by the ministry and the third, who acts as chair, appointed jointly by the other two members.

For the most part, this system, in place since the 1970s, has provided fair and timely resolution to disputes on a case-by-case basis. However, there are circumstances where one side or the other is dissatisfied with the outcome of the tribunal process. Until last year the only recourse in those cases was through the courts -- a very costly and time-consuming process. So in the 1995 sitting of this House, the Income Assistance Appeal Board was established. It is a quasi-judicial body whose members are familiar with the principles of administrative law and have some directly related experience.

Under Bill 16, the Income Assistance Appeal Board will be renamed the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board to reflect its application to the B.C. Benefits legislation. The board's central mandate, which is quite narrow, will remain unchanged. It will continue to review tribunal decisions which may be in error of law, and the board will operate more effectively under new provisions we are introducing with this legislation. These provisions will allow the appointment of a vice-chair of the appeal board so cases can proceed even when the chair is not available.

They will also allow for the appointment of additional board members above the current limit of six, and they will give the chair or vice-chair discretion around the issue of panel size. These measures will help the board to expedite its decision-making.

British Columbians agree that those truly in need are entitled to assistance. We also agree that rights without means of redress are meaningless. The bill before us now will provide a fair, accessible and timely appeal process for those who feel they may have been treated unfairly under the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act or the Disability Benefits Program Act.

I move that Bill 16, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act be read a second time now.

V. Anderson: I'm tempted to get out Hansard and read back my comments that were made when the GAIN Act was amended some time ago, because we spoke solidly against those amendments at that time. I will speak even more solidly against the whole of the bill, because the "improvements," as the minister called them, have worked completely in the opposite direction as far as the clients across the province are concerned. The minister, who was not the minister at that time, may not be aware of the strong representations that were made, particularly from low-income groups and from people who had been using the tribunals quite effectively up to that time.

[ Page 957 ]

The history is that prior to the last amendments to the GAIN Act, which brought the appeal board into place and doctored up the tribunal process, British Columbia had one of the most effective, fair, and respected tribunal systems in Canada, and it was almost, without exception, applauded by all those who used it -- the exception being the government itself, which was not satisfied that people should have their cases heard according to the legislation rather than through the

interpretations of regulations which were developed by the ministry itself.

Just to put it into context, I personally had the opportunity to sit as chair on many of those tribunals. The tribunals were established by the ministry appointing one person, and interestingly enough, in most cases it was a person who at one time had worked for the ministry and was therefore very qualified and very knowledgable about the legislation and who was no longer involved in the ministry but volunteered to be a member of the tribunal on the ministry's behalf. The other person was a person from the community, quite often from one of the volunteer advocacy groups for low-income people, who again volunteered to represent the person who was bringing the appeal.

These two would agree on a chairperson, another volunteer from the community who would agree to be chair. These three would come and hear representations from representatives, official staff of the ministry, about their side of the case, and they would then hear the representation from the person who had brought the appeal. They, along with their representative, would have the opportunity in that appeal to ask questions.

When they had asked all the questions -- and there had been a very warm and friendly exchange of ideas with very supportive comments from staff in every instance I was involved in -- they would excuse the participants and those three would decide. A majority of two of three was needed for the decision that was made, but in my experience it was nearly always an unanimous decision either for or against the appeal that had been brought forward. Often it was not just a yes or no, but it was recommendations as to how best to meet the need of that person and the needs of the ministry at the same time.

These recommendations were in the majority of cases accepted by the ministry and implemented without a problem. Now, in the odd case, the decision may not have been right, but in over 90 percent, in my experience and from the reports I've heard from everyone else, they were fair and just decisions.

Because of those odd cases, the ministry then, in their new-found wisdom of developing new processes, decided that they had to do something different, because the only appeal the ministry had -- and they were usually the only ones who wanted to appeal the tribunal -- was to take the case to the court. Even when they did that, they were not very sure that they would win the case. The reason behind that is that the tribunal used a different basis for deciding than the social workers had to use in making the case in the first place, or than their supervisors used when they had to review the case.

They were required by the ministry to act upon the regulations which were dictated for them, whether the regulations fit that particular case or not. They had no freedom to negotiate.

I don't know exactly, but in probably over 50 percent of the tribunals I had the privilege of sitting on, I would have social workers, often those who were going to be making the appeal, advising me that although they would not be able to help out in the appeal, if I looked at this or that

section of the act itself, then I would better understand what the appeal was about. In almost every case, when I looked at the act with their advice, it was beneficial to the person who was bringing the appeal.

So that was the history and the experience. There was really no one -- except for maybe one or two, periodically -- complaining about the process. In fact, they were very happy with the process...

An Hon. Member: And supported it.

V. Anderson: Yes... and supported it wholeheartedly, as my colleague says -- until the ministry began to step in. They stepped in by saying that, first of all, they wanted a line of appeal that the ministry could make, primarily. Although, of course, they said that it was for the benefit of the client, it really was for the ministry so that they would have the freedom to step in and correct not only the odd misjudgment but any case where they felt we had misinterpreted the act, and particularly when we had gone against the regulations.

They reworded it in such a way that the regulations took priority over the act itself when you went to the appeal. So the appeal process took away the freedom and the fairness of the tribunal system.

At the same time, in going to the appeal process, they started to put into place a bureaucracy of persons that were chosen and "trained" or, as some people would say -- and not even facetiously -- indoctrinated in how they would deal with that appeal process.

They used the term that they had made "errors in law." So what had been a very warm and friendly concern for the client now became a very legalistic system, which, like so many of the other legalistic systems in the whole of Social Services -- and particularly I might say in child protection and child apprehension, and lack of care -- has now gone over into this new system. This was universally objected to by all kinds of groups across the province.

Naturally we voted totally against it from the very beginning, but of course we weren't heard, or else we were heard and ignored. They ignored the letters, the requests, and the petitions that came to them from across the province. If I had been really fair to those groups tonight, I would have gone into my file and brought them in. But this having been brought in on short notice -- in the summertime when those groups are not meeting -- they don't have the opportunity they had last time to protest. They have taken it and run around the very groups which they say they're trying to support. I think that is...

An Hon. Member: Shameful.

V. Anderson: ...shameful. Thank you. I was looking for a good, fair word to use. That way is shameful...

An Hon. Member: Disgusting.

V. Anderson: ...and disgusting. Thank you to that member of the NDP. I agree wholeheartedly that it was disgusting. I'm sure there are some members of the NDP who will agree wholeheartedly with him, because their groups are going to be telling them exactly the same thing.

[7:00]

Also, when it comes to the amendments that the minister referred to, to improve the system, what they have now done is take the inadequacies, the unfairness and the rigidity, which they put into the appeal board, and move them down to the tribunals themselves. Let me point out that the tribunals will

[ Page 958 ]

have three persons: one chosen by the ministry -- and under their new system of choice I'm not sure they're going to choose the kinds of qualified persons that we used to have -- one chosen by the client; and then, instead of that person whom both of these people trusted as being sympathetic to them, from the community, they now have to choose from a list of prequalified persons who have been chosen, trained, educated, prepared and indoctrinated by the ministry to be chair of the tribunals. So they have loaded the tribunals now, instead of having the openness and the fairness that they had before.

Not only have they done this, but they are now setting up an expensive system which will take away from the finances that are available for the clients. Not only are they going to pay the tribunal people, and particularly the appeal board people, their travel expenses and their hotel expenses and their meal expenses and whatever other expenses they might have, they also may be paid a remuneration, an honorarium, a salary for the work that they're now doing.

So they have created a whole new group of persons who are not doing this because they believe in it, necessarily; they're not doing it because they're really concerned about justice being done. They're doing it because they get paid to do it.

An Hon. Member: Payoff.

V. Anderson: Payoff, some people are saying. That's the danger. And the other is that if you're getting paid for something, and particularly if it becomes a fairly lucrative pastime, and you're busy -- as you certainly will be under this process -- then it becomes part of your income. You're going to seem to be, even if you aren't, always coming down on the side of the person who pays your bill.

When you're someone in financial difficulty and in low-income circumstances, to have the people being paid who are sitting with you and helping you, when you're not being paid to be there, when you're not being paid for the appeal and when you're not getting the expenses to go to the system where they have asked you to come, the whole thing takes on a completely different attitude and unfairness.

Whereas we fought hard against the previous amendments when the appeal board was brought into being, we have to say in all fairness that this is even worse. Much worse, because it gets into a system called B.C. Benefits, which purports to be a better system. The qualities and fairness of Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act, which we talked about just a few minutes ago, are offset by the inequities of this particular bill. At the very least, what they might have done was exclude the Disability Benefits Program Act.

Because of the very nature of the disabilities that those people have that qualifies them for that program, they of all people are going to be most disadvantaged by this new tribunal and appeal system.

I know the minister and others on his side, in the government, will come out as they have again and again with their rationalization that this gives fairness and appeal and opportunity for everybody else. Hogwash! That's not the reality that's out there. I know if I use some of the language that is used to me and that I know all of the members of this Legislature have heard, if they're talking to the people in their communities, it would be ruled out of order in this Legislature. The Speaker is shaking his head, it would be ruled out of order. He knows exactly what I would be saying because he has no doubt heard exactly the same thing.

For whatever credit we've given the ministry in the previous bills in the benefits package, in which we would have said with delight we'd vote for the disability bill and, with some agreement, support the others and argue about the deficiencies in committee stage.... All of that is undermined and the whole validity of it undone by this particular bill, particularly with the additions to it that have made it even worse than it was before.

Hon. Speaker, there is no fair, rational, reasonable reason for this bill to be brought in in its present form. If they had really wanted to be consistent with the other benefits bills, what they would have done is turn back to the tribunal system before it was ruined by bringing in the appeal process and adding the other misqualifications to the tribunal system itself. If they really had wanted to be in touch with the other parts of the B.C. Benefits package, I would recommend to the minister....

If there was any way of moving an amendment, I would move the amendment in committee stage to say, "Let's go back to where we were in the tribunal system," which was fair, just, open, easy to use, cost-effective, and understood and appreciated by the people who used it on both sides -- the ministry's front-line social workers, the clients who used it and the persons who volunteered to be part of it.

The only ones dissatisfied with it were the top brass within the ministry, because it allowed the people to look after their needs themselves, to make their own decisions and to deal with the legislation upfront like good, fair-thinking citizens. The top brass apparently could not endure that. I can see no other reason why it was changed in the first place, and I can see no other reason why it has been continued and why it has continued to be made even worse.

If I had my way and thought it would be effective, I'd filibuster all night long on this bill. The minister shakes his head; he'd be happy to listen to me all night.

I'm sure there are others who will say exactly the same thing. You get your point across not by a lot of speaking but hopefully by simply saying: this is the wrong bill at the wrong time in the wrong place for this B.C. Benefits package. It is disgraceful, inadequate, unfair, unjust. Hopefully that at least gets some of the anger across that I hear across this province.

Let me use one illustration in trying to display that anger. When I was teaching in the theological college, we had one gentleman who came as a student. He was in his mid-forties. He had lived most of his life on the street, in difficulty and hardship -- a very poetic guy, a very able and clever person. Finally he decided that he would go into the ministry.

When we got into so many of our discussions, he made the rest of us angry; he made us mad. We had the darnedest, damnedest discussions you could think of, and everybody would go out of those as mad as they could be. One day I went to him and said: "You're clever enough.

You know that what you're doing is just ripping everyone up and making them angry, and you know you don't need to do that in order to get your point across." He looked me straight in the eye and said: "Yes, I know that, but if I didn't come with that chip on my shoulder, if I didn't present that anger and that frustration, I wouldn't be fair to the people I represent from the street. They're angry and they're frustrated, and if we can't learn to deal with that, then you haven't got my message."

We wanted him to adapt to our way of doing it, but what he was trying to say and demonstrate to us was that if we really were concerned about those people, we would change our way to their way of doing it, to their way of thinking

[ Page 959 ]

about it and to their language. In the tribunal system, we had a system which they understood, which they could use and which was fair to them. They did not need lawyers or a university degree. They weren't talking about law; they were talking about fairness and justice. They could interpret the legislation as well as anybody with a university or a legal degree, and they didn't need those kinds of people.

Under this, you have to have an advocate; you have to have a lawyer; you have to present a case history; you have to make a legal presentation to the appeal board; and you have to hire a lawyer. Where can you get a lawyer? There aren't enough legal aid lawyers to go around, and if there were, we'd have to pay the legal aid lawyers, and they'd be adding more into the system.

The whole thing has gone in the totally opposite direction to the rest of these bills. I say to the minister and the members of this House, I trust that you will have enough wisdom to say: "Whoa, let's take it back; let's put it on hold without passing it; let's look at it, because it destroys the rest of it. It destroys the credibility of the whole package, particularly the disability.... They look at that and say: "They've heard us; they've responded to us; they've redone the definition of disability. Then they throw this at us, which is not consistent with that definition or with that bill or with what the minister has said they're trying to do."

I think, in fairness to the present minister, he didn't know what he was getting into. He bought the package which was sold to him, but I trust his sincerity and his credibility. If he wants his ministry and himself to see in a new era of credibility and responsibility, at the very least he will step this bill down and say that he will take a second look at it and come back with it at another time, after he has done consultation across the province with the people....

I recommend that sincerely, not on a political basis, one way or the other, but on behalf of the people of the province and the credibility of the system. This is not it. If the minister were to do that one simple thing for his credibility, he might even salvage his whole reputation in this discussion we've had over the last couple of weeks. In all sincerity, I say this is not it, this is not fair, this is not just, and it's not in keeping with the rest of what you presented in these other bills. It's a carryover from the worst of the GAIN system; it's a carryover that has no place within this, in any way.

[7:15]

G. Wilson: In rising on Bill 16, I have to say the only time I remember the member for Vancouver-Langara giving as good a speech as he gave just now was the last time he fought against the very same thing he's fighting against now. Hon. Speaker, I commend this member, not only because he explained clearly the history of what has brought us to where we are, but because I think he explained so clearly why this is bad legislation that really doesn't warrant me or others -- not that it should preclude others -- standing up and going through it again. It was an outstanding speech, an excellent speech.

All we really can do is punctuate it by saying to the minister: "For goodness' sake, listen to what the member for Vancouver-Langara has said." Had the government listened the first time to this member -- who has both a personal history and experience with this area and who has, in the past, brought forward that level of instructed and informed information to the government -- we wouldn't be where we are now on this. We would have recognized that this is not the way to go.

I have to say ditto, over and over again, to what was just said: for goodness' sake, listen. I would go one step further, however, than the member for Vancouver-Langara has. It's inconceivable to me, because of the way these bills are tied, that this government would be prepared to step it down. Goodness knows if they're prepared to do it, to step it down.

But if they're going to force it on us, if they're going to ram it through, then for goodness' sake, strike an all-party committee of this House to review how we can amend it, change it and bring it back to the system that the member for Vancouver-Langara so eloquently and correctly pointed out was a more humane, more sensible and better way to do business.

If they're not prepared to step it down -- and I would strongly urge they do step it down -- they should strike an all-party committee of this House to recommend to this government how we should restructure this appeals process to return to a system that works, a system that people have faith and trust in, a system that virtually everybody accepted. They applauded it, for the most part. There were a few, obviously, that didn't, but the vast majority of clients and servers said that yes, this is a good system. The member for Vancouver-Langara is absolutely correct.

It was heralded right across the country as a system that worked. It made no sense to change it when this government chose to do so, and it was voted against by members of the opposition. It makes even less sense, now that they're trying to restructure B.C. Benefits, to go further in that direction, as has been so eloquently and so brilliantly pointed out.

I have to say that was a brilliant speech; it really was excellent. I just hope somebody on the benches over there was listening to it, because it was a brilliant oration on what is wrong with this bill. All I can say is congratulations to the member for Vancouver-Langara for doing so, and I applaud the fact that that member has so clearly, so directly brought to this government a statement of why this is the wrong way to go.

As the members know, I took a broader view of the B.C. Benefits package in general, which wasn't supported by the Liberal opposition; nevertheless, on this bill, I certainly think this member has hit the nail right on the head. An all-party parliamentary committee is the route to go. If this government is prepared to stand it down, then stand it down and refer. That's a very good idea, which perhaps this government will accept.

If it chooses not to accept that -- because I understand the appeals process is woven into the package -- then refer it anyway so that we can amend it and bring it back in the spring of next year and put in place a system that is more humane and works. If the government is listening, I think that's what they'll select to do.

R. Neufeld: Briefly, I'm just going to put on the record the Reform Party's position on this bill. I agree with the Liberal opposition on the way the member for Vancouver-Langara put it. There's no need to go over the whole process again, because I recall listening to the member a number of times before talk about these same instances, these same things that have taken place in the past. Obviously nobody has listened and no one has learned. I think it is something that the government should listen to closely.

The government does have a certain amount of agreement from the opposition with these bills and with the change in the welfare system. I can only say that I think these things are much easier if you have agreement from the parties within the House on legislation that you're putting forward.

I think it's an excellent idea from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to refer this bill. I agree; I don't think the present minister will stand it down. I would hope that maybe some of his colleagues have spoken to him about it and

[ Page 960 ]

advised him of what would be the wise thing to do, which is to send it to an all-party committee so that we can really look at this bill with the collective wisdom that's in this House on all sides and try to design something that will serve the people of British Columbia, and those people who really need the benefits, in a much better fashion. I would second the recommendation from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to send this to an all-party committee so that we can look at it in a different way. The B.C. Reform Party will be voting against this bill.

M. Coell: I, too, would like to add my opposition to this bill. There was a system at one time that worked; the government changed it. The government is attempting to modify those changes and, as my colleague said, is just making it worse for people who have to deal with this system. I think the whole umbrella package on reforms that has come forward is tainted by this. It sets a tone that isn't working with people. It isn't working with community groups; it isn't working for the people who have frustration with the system. I think that it takes away from all of the other bills that have been presented to change the social welfare umbrella.

I would encourage the members of the government back benches to look very carefully at this bill when they're voting, because they're going to be the ones dealing with the problems that come from this bill in their community offices. When they go back to their homes and find out that people are frustrated and can't get satisfaction from the government or from this disappointing new act, they will the ones dealing with it.

I hope they give some thought to encouraging their cabinet colleagues to stand this bill down and refer it to an all-party committee for some discussion, so that when this comes forward -- and it's an essential part of all these bills -- it has the agreement of the vast majority of people in this House. I add my disappointment with this act, and I hope the minister will have the courage to take a second look at what is being put forward here today.

Deputy Speaker: Are there no further speakers? I recognize the Minister of Social Services to close debate.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members opposite for their comments and their well-thought-out positions. It's not a position that was unexpected, quite frankly, from the opposition members; it's their lot in life to oppose. Governments govern and oppositions oppose. In light of the recent election campaign and their commitments to cut benefits to welfare recipients by hundreds of millions of dollars, I wouldn't expect them to change on that position.

But, in fact, it's an integral part of the overall change in the welfare system that we brought to British Columbia, a system that modernizes, is fairer overall and gives more hope to poor families with the family bonus program, training in Youth Works and access to child care, and which finally takes the disabled community out of the welfare system once and for all and gives new hope in British Columbia. What we're talking about here is an integral part of a complete package of legislation that does change the welfare system. With that, I move second reading of the bill.

[7:30]

Second reading of Bill 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Brewin

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Farnworth

Smallwood

McGregor

Janssen

Hartley

Orcherton

Kasper

Walsh

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Bowbrick

Stevenson

Pullinger

Calendino

Waddell

Kwan

Ramsey

Streifel

Hammell

Boone

Cashore

Zirnhelt

Evans

NAYS -- 33

Gingell

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Sanders

Plant

Stephens

de Jong

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

van Dongen

Thorpe

Penner

Weisgerber

G. Wilson

Neufeld

Barisoff

Krueger

McKinnon

Masi

Nettleton

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Abbott

Symons

Hawkins

C. Clark

Hansen

Reitsma

J. Wilson

Bill 16, BC Benefits (Appeals) Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 14.

BC BENEFITS (INCOME ASSISTANCE) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, before we get into

section 1, I'd like to be able to make some comment on the

preamble, if that's appropriate.

The Chair: The

preamble gets discussed after we've finished all the rest of the bill. We come back to that. We go through the 57 sections, and then the next question after that is: shall the

preamble pass? That's when you can discuss the

preamble.

Interjection.

The Chair: It has happened sometimes that a lot of generalities are discussed under

section 1 in some bills, so that may be open to you.

V. Anderson: It's kind of like the government to do it backwards. You discover the reason for doing it, and then you discover how to do it and do it in reverse. The

preamble, which sets out the reason and the philosophy for doing things, should be there in the very beginning. So to do it backwards is not very helpful, but I can understand why this government might want to do it that way.

When we say an "applicant," does that include a person of any age, background, description or category? Or is there a

[ Page 961 ]

limitation as to who can apply? Can you apply if you are a refugee? Can you apply if you're not a landed immigrant? Can you apply whatever age you are? What does applicant mean here? It says "a person who applies.... " I want some clarification on that.

Hon. D. Streifel: Before I get into a long and involved answer for the hon. member opposite, I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me today. I have Lyn Tait, Garry Curtis and Isobel Donovan to give support and clarification on sections of this bill.

As I understand the question -- is an applicant anybody who applies? -- the answer, hon. member, is yes.

V. Anderson: If anyone can apply, what are the conditions or the regulations that they'll face as to whether they're acceptable or not? If you say anyone can apply, then you're implying that anyone is eligible. Does applicant mean eligibility, or are they different things?

Hon. D. Streifel: Eligibility and application are different things, hon. member. I believe there's a

section of the act that covers the eligibility. But, you know, the determination is made through criteria established in the act.

V. Anderson: Just so that we can look ahead and be prepared for it, which

section of the act, then, will deal with eligibility?

Hon. D. Streifel: I believe it's

section 24, under the regulations.

M. Coell: Under subsection (

a) are "health benefits." I wonder if the minister could outline for us what those would include.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, health benefits refer to the provision of medical services and goods, and will parallel current GAIN health care services, hon. member. These will include MSP coverage, transportation to medical specialists and necessary medical equipment or supplies. Again, it's what is found currently under GAIN.

M. Coell: On subsection (c), "access to training," is there any difference between the training that can be expected under this and the training in GAIN now; and if there is, could he outline that for me?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, it's generally the same as it is under the current system.

V. Anderson: To follow up on that -- so in (c), just to clarify, there's no improvement in services or opportunities over what there is now, if I understood the minister right. If there's no improvement, is there anything that's been taken away from this that is now available?

Hon. D. Streifel: Maybe I was a little too quick with "the same." I know the hon. members opposite have asked me, in the past, to shorten some of the answers, and I'm endeavouring to do some clarification here. It's the same range of services, but there's a broader scope to the range, so to speak. For instance, Youth Works is an expansion or a broadening of that theme. Again, it's the same range but with a broader scope.

V. Anderson: Under "health benefits," do you include Pharmacare, eye care and hearing care? Are all of those things included in the health benefits, and are they included for the whole family, all ages?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, there are two items: (

d) and (e), "access to community living programs" and "access to residential programs." I wonder if you could outline for us what types of community living programs are envisioned in this. Are they, again, any different than can be expected under the previous bill?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's a range of facilities. We have transition homes, residential services, emergency hostels. The authority for contracts for transition homes we have delegated to the Ministry of Women's Equality. As well, I understand there are group homes and benefits that are provided for persons with multiple disabilities -- in that scope.

M. Coell: Is there anything more in items (

d) and (

e) than before, or is it the same as the other programs in the previous bill?

Hon. D. Streifel: Essentially, it's the same -- the range and the types of accommodations and services.

V. Anderson: Access to community living programs and access to residential programs -- does this include access to special drug and alcohol treatment programs, detox programs or rehabilitation programs in those areas?

[7:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: Generally, it's health services that are provided, not under this

section in this act.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it's the appropriate place to ask. In the past we have been hampered by the inability of ministries to cooperate, so we get passed from Health to Education to the Attorney General -- whatever. The government, in recent times, has talked to us about interministerial committees that deal with people as a whole person, and so Health is maybe dealing with the drug addiction, Social Services.... Are there interministerial programs dealing with the needs of a whole person included in here -- that the ministry shares a part of and Health or whatever other program shares the other part of it -- so people can really apply?

Hon. D. Streifel: We work very closely with other ministries: Health and AG. Depending on the program, in some instances we have quite a formal arrangement, and that's quite an acceptable initiative of the ministry in conjunction with other ministries.

V. Anderson: Could the minister supply us with a list of the formal arrangements that you have between your ministry and other ministries -- not tonight, but make it available to us? If you have it tonight, I'd be happy to have it on the record, but if you don't have it tonight, could you supply that to us so we could know the formal arrangements? We keep hearing about these mythical arrangements, but the people in the community at large, plus ourselves, are not aware.... They're the kinds of mysterious, hidden arrangements we hear about, but it would help if we knew about them.

Hon. D. Streifel: Certainly, for the members opposite we will supply that information. We will endeavour to do it in a

[ Page 962 ]

timely manner. It's been kind of a swirl the last few days. We'll get caught up on what we've committed to give you.

M. Coell: In subsection (

g) is the financial supplement for senior citizens. I wonder if the minister can outline what that supplement is, how often it's paid, and who would be eligible for it.

Hon. D. Streifel: The supplement is paid monthly, and the maximum rate for married seniors is $60.25; for singles, it's $49.30.

V. Anderson: Subsection (

f) talks about "money for expenses incidental to receiving a service or participating in" programs referred to in the paragraphs here. Does this include such items as clothing, implied for either your work or your educational requirements -- special clothing that's needed for that? Does it include a bus pass, transportation to get to those things? I'll ask those two, for the moment.

Hon. D. Streifel: It would be a financial benefit directly connected to a program, and it could include clothing in some instances. Or it could be a training allowance. It could be additional financial support for persons with multiple disabilities. Various areas are covered under this.

V. Anderson: If you were taking a mechanic's apprenticeship and you needed tools for that program, or, as was discussed by another minister, you were taking a program working with bicycles and you needed your own tools -- as many people do in those places -- does it include the tools and equipment you would need in order to take that educational program or that work experience?

Hon. D. Streifel: This clause is an enabling clause, and many, many things could be included in this, depending on the program and, frankly, depending on the needs. It's really an enabling clause that covers a broad range of things.

V. Anderson: If it's enabling, that's kind of open. It could have no meaning at all because of regulations, or it could have a very wide and comprehensive meaning. Is he saying that in regulations there are guidelines, there are parameters for this or there are set amounts? What does enabling mean here? It would be helpful to have some sense of what that means.

Hon. D. Streifel: For instance, if there was a training program that an individual was accepted into and we're covering it under this and one of the requirements was steel-toed boots, this clause would enable that individual to get steel-toed boots in order to participate in the training program and to become active in the workforce.

V. Anderson: If one of the requirements is to be out job-hunting, which I expect one of them is, the two big things that I find people are up against in job-hunting, whether it's rural or in the city, are the questions of transportation costs and telephone costs. You either have to have a phone at home so somebody can phone you about a job or you need pay phone money. And there are transportation costs to even go out job-hunting, because it just isn't possible to do it on foot.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like to remind the member that this is the

definitions section, and we're dealing with the subsection that refers to "money for expenses incidental to receiving a service or participating in a program referred to in any of paragraphs (

a) to (e)." That's the focus under which this would be.

V. Anderson: I thought I had the answer before, at least the direction of it, and now I'm not so sure. It seems very much to me that it's incidental to the program or getting to the program to be able to get transportation costs. I thought I understood the minister to say that that would be available, but in the last answer I'm not so sure that he did say transportation costs are included in those figures. It's the same thing if people are in residential homes or community living homes.

Unless they're limited, they have to get out to be part of community life; transportation costs are still important for a person to get around in the city and equally important for a person to get around in a rural area.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding that the Minister of Education, Skills and Training is responsible for transportation costs that are related to training programs. As I said earlier, this

section enables a decision to be made in respect to training programs and any other supplies or necessities -- for instance, we spoke about the boots, and there are various possibilities around clothes in that circumstance. But the answer that the member is after I think could be found under the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, as I understand they are responsible for transportation costs related to training programs.

V. Anderson: It's so easy to get bounced back and forth between ministries. It's like working in a community; they always send you someplace else. Businesses, the university -- they send you to the other department all the time.

We understood, in discussing Youth Works the other day, that for young people 19 to 25, in the first seven months they were totally the responsibility of Social Services. They went to Social Services, they applied to Social Services, and only after the seven months when they were looking at training opportunities did they go. And they were to be job-hunting during that period. You can't job-hunt in either rural or urban areas without some ability to cover transportation costs. Certainly on $500 a month you're not going to cover transportation costs.

If the aim is to get employment, and they are travelling to look for jobs, is transportation included within this, particularly for those who fit into that category?

Hon. D. Streifel: This ministry relates to Youth Works. It's the responsibility of this ministry for shelter and support only, hon. members, not the area the member is after.

M. Coell: The hardship assistance is a question that I think comes up quite a bit. It means financial or other assistance provided under

section 4. I wonder if the minister could enlighten the House as to what the dollar figures are on hardship assistance. What's the minimum amount that would be given out by the ministry, and what is the maximum amount that could be expected?

Hon. D. Streifel: The amount of the hardship assistance would be based on the need in the month in which the individual applies, and the maximum would be the maximum amount available for the individual under the act, based on need.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific. One of the questions that I'm asked quite often is: "If someone goes in for hardship assistance, what can they expect

[ Page 963 ]

to receive?" There are three sections here. I know one possibility is Youth Works and there are other parts of the program. But what I'm getting at is: what is available? Is there a minimum and a maximum for an individual? I suspect there may be groups of people, as well, that the minister may want to comment on. I'm just looking for single person's hardship assistance at this point, or for a family with one child.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's on an individual needs basis, and hardship assistance would only be available to an individual that's not eligible for regular assistance. Again, the assessment is made based on need, based on the immediate hardship. So to lay a pointed dollar figure, you would almost have to understand the specific circumstances of the application, and we could do that in the process outside of the examination in committee. Certainly, if the member has any individual cases within his own constituency that he's concerned about, we should take the opportunity to get together and have a look at those.

[8:00]

V. Anderson: So I can understand a little better, when we're talking about hardship and income assistance and seniors' benefits, are we assuming at this moment that the current rates under GAIN are the applicable rates until regulations change them? Are we assuming at the moment -- since we're replacing, in effect, the GAIN Act -- that it's the GAIN rates that apply, until such time as they're changed by regulation -- automatically it would be the present rates, until they're changed?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, hon. member, none of the payment schedules change. So to answer the question, if the question was whether the rates are the same as under GAIN: yes.

V. Anderson: I know rates are never stable, and they don't go up as fast as people would like them. They go down more often than they would like, so it works both ways. That's helpful.

When you say access to community living programs and residential programs, are these programs available to persons both with mental handicaps and mental illness?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general terms, hon. member, individuals with mental illness are covered under Health, but I suppose there could be a situation where you have an individual who is mentally handicapped or multiply handicapped and also mentally ill, and they would be covered. Again, it would pretty well depend on a specific case and a specific analysis.

V. Anderson: Could I inquire from the minister if this is one of those joint arrangements between Health and Social Services? It's my experience that most people with mental illness end up generally having some other handicaps that go with that, like people with handicaps also usually have some other handicaps that go along with that. Very seldom is it just one and not the other.

Is there a protocol so that a person who comes in isn't being shunted back and forth between two offices and doesn't know where to go -- "You belong to this office," and "No, you belong to the other office"? That is the report we are getting back, that because of lack of clarity there people are being left on the street.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. member, the Ministry of Health has its own residential programs for individuals with mental illness. I guess we did a dangerous thing a minute or two ago, trying to speculate on some possible scenarios. In fact, it would be an individual assessment on a case-by-case basis, but in general terms, individuals with mental illness come under the auspices of Ministry of Health.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, not just to be hard to live with -- although that happens sometimes -- we go back to the question of applicants. It would imply that persons who have mental illness would not normally be considered as applicants for this program.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the context of the member's question, an applicant is anybody who applies. Application does not determine eligibility or ineligibility, hon. member. It simply determines that an individual has applied.

V. Anderson: When you come to persons who live in either community living programs or residential programs, are they paid the same rate of pay as other people? Do they end up paying rent either to the residential or the community living program, or is there some other way that that's handled? Do they have a choice to rent an apartment or to come into a residential or community living program and decide where and how their money is spent?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, room and board is paid for these individuals, and they're given a small allowance on top of that to cover such things as cigarettes and other needs.

V. Anderson: Could you indicate the average amount of allowance they're given, and does it apply to both community living programs and residential programs in the same way?

Hon. D. Streifel: The comfort allowance is currently $82 per month.

V. Anderson: It's $82 a month? If I understand rightly, a single person is getting $500 a month at the moment. If I'm right, it used to be $546. So if you take $82 from that $500, they're being charged $418 a month for room and board. Would that be a fair deduction?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

V. Anderson: Could you explain that to me? I realize that there's probably a shelter allowance involved. If I take the shelter allowance, that would be $500 plus $350 in allowance, so that would be $850 minus $82 -- so they're paying about $700 a month for room and board compared to what they would be paying if they rented an apartment.

Hon. D. Streifel: In this case, the contract for services, for the shelter and the room and board, is based on the cost of running the facility, and it could be much, much higher than the member is trying to indicate here. In fact, many of these individuals have other special needs that have to be fulfilled through this contract as well.

V. Anderson: What I'm trying to get at is this. If a person with a handicap has the decision of whether they would go into residential or community living or attempt to live on their own and survive in an apartment, they would on one hand get $825, counting housing and allowance. So what would be their total if they lived in an apartment and provided their own accommodation and meals, as opposed to what they

[ Page 964 ]

would get if they went in there and they have $82? If they don't get an apartment or room of their own -- a room, say, rather than an apartment, as they wouldn't get an apartment -- but if they went on their own and did without the care, the comfort and the good food, what is the difference between those two?

Hon. D. Streifel: If the individual is independently living in the community, he or she can apply for the allowance. They would receive $771 a month.

V. Anderson: In other words, they would get $689. That is what that person, if they made that choice, would be paying for their room and board a month. If they went out on their own, they would get $771. If they went into community or residential living, they would get, if we take $82 from $771 and if my quick mathematics are right, $689 -- not quite, but it's pretty close. So if I'm right, that's the option they have. I think we need to know and people need to know what the option is, what choices they have, and that they have the freedom to make the choice.

We're charging $689 for room and board, on the average, for that person who has a choice between independent living and living within a home. Is that not the way it works out? The minister is shaking his head. He didn't say it isn't that way. Could he, then, please explain the way it is?

Hon. D. Streifel: I caution the member that his simple arithmetic does not take into account the cost of program delivery for some of these individuals that's included when they're in some of these residential facilities, the cost of the facility, the per diem that's paid on their behalf. I think it's far, far too simple to just say: "Well, if they go out into the community, they get this, and so if they're inside and you knock off the $82, this is what it's worth." In fact, hon. member, through your own experiences you know that's not true.

M. Coell: I think what we're trying to portray is seeing the system through the eyes of the client, not through the eyes of the ministry that is paying the bills and indeed may have a larger bill than that. But looking through the eyes of the client, that's exactly what they see. They see the $689 to live on their own as the difference between what they're able to achieve... as a small payment for, as the minister said, cigarettes or pop or clothes, whatever they choose.

I think that it's important once in while that we see through the eyes of the client who's receiving the service, not just of the ministry delivering the service. I think that's what we're trying to put across to the minister.

V. Anderson: Could the minister, just so we are clear on the understanding...? Of that $771, how much of that is shelter allowance?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll attempt a response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands on this. The scenario they're setting up is in fact what's prevalent in a number of other jurisdictions. The province or the system would supply a base amount, and an individual that would live in one of these facilities somehow or other, on their own, would be responsible for topping up the full value of that. We don't do that here in British Columbia, and it's somewhat peculiar that you'd be on the way to suggesting that if you break out your equation as you are, that's the equation and the scenario you're setting up. I wonder if that's actually what you want to do?

V. Anderson: I'm quite aware that in the minds of many people, if you go into a residential or community living situation, you not only get a place to live and probably better food than if you were on your own, but you also have community programs and a lot of other things that may go along with this, and certain care. I'm acknowledging that in the minds of many people that may be a better deal. But in the mind of a person who says, "I would do away with those and I would not do that, in order to have my independence and be able to live by myself," then the question is: what is their choice? How much do they have to live by themselves, and what would be the comparable cost?

That's what I'm trying to get at, because if they do one, they have $82 that is discretionary money; if they do the other, they have over $300 which is discretionary money. Now, out of that discretionary money they need to buy food and look after whatever else they pay for after they've paid their rent. On the one hand they have $82 discretionary money; on the other hand some have $364 discretionary money. So they have an option, and that's the kind of choice that people make. That's what I'm trying to get at -- what the nature of that choice is.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: The members opposite know full well what the choices are. Individuals, if they choose to live independently, if they have that capacity or capability, they will do that. If they qualify for the allowance based on a disability, it's $771. You know that, hon. members. You know these figures very well. I'm really quite surprised that you're trying to build an equation that exposes the full value of the per diems that are spent on housing, shelter, food, programs, security and supervision -- an envelope of safety for these folks.

I'm surprised that you want to open that up to expose the full value of that and weigh it off against the choice that an individual may make to live independently.

I believe, quite honestly and freely, that you are entering into a dangerous form of debate when you begin to say that we pay $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 a month for this person living in this facility. You open that up for scrutiny, you open that up for criticism, you open it up as other jurisdictions have, and say: "All right, the ones that live independently get $771, so the ones that are in the facility should only get $771, and they're responsible to top up the full value themselves."

I believe that's the road you're on, and if you would reflect on it, we could have a philosophical discussion around this. But I would really caution you not to open this up to that kind of scrutiny, because you know the hawks that are out in our communities think that any money spent on the welfare system or on the poor is bad money, wasted money. We know there's a good number of them out there. I'm not indicating the members opposite, not in any way, because I know them and understand a lot of them, and I count some of them as my friends.

But I believe that this form and pathway of argument sets that scenario for discussion, and I think it's unfair to those involved individuals; it's unfair to those individuals that live within the facilities, and it's unfair to those individuals that chose to attempt or to be successful at independent living.

M. Coell: That's an interesting train of thought. I think what we're trying to do here is to allow the ministry to see through some different eyes: the eyes of the clients. I think one of the big complaints about the Ministry of Social Services has been that it doesn't understand the needs of many of its clients. We're talking specifically about people who may be living in Riverview at this point, who maybe have different needs than the ministry has.

We've had representations from people living in the community, people that lived in residential programs, who are

[ Page 965 ]

seeing their lot in life a lot different than the minister is. I think what we want to do in this line of questioning is to open his eyes a bit, to see that these people see their place within the system a lot differently than the government is seeing how they direct their lives. It's a very simple thing we're trying to do here. I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't see the simplicity of what we're trying to get across. These people see the ministry with different eyes; they have different needs; and for many instances, these needs are not recognized as being needs worth responding to.

V. Anderson: I appreciate what the minister said; I'm not quite sure that I agree with his conclusion. I realize that people will question difficulties if they really know what's going on. But if we try to hide what's going on and not be upfront about it, then once they get suspicious about it they're going to question it even more. So I'm not going to follow the line of questioning at this point. I really want to emphasize that if we hide the fact that we can help people as long as nobody knows we're doing it, I don't think that's the way the system should work, and I don't think that's the way that people want to be helped.

Is hardship assistance repayable? Sometimes? Never? Always?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, sometimes it's probably legitimate. There are circumstances where an individual is waiting for other funds. It could be an insurance claim. Who knows? It could be UI; it could be a number of issues. We would supply some bridging funds and hardship funds in this manner, and in some instances some or all of those funds could be repayable.

V. Anderson: If I understood the minister right, he's saying that if it's a loan against money forthcoming, then it's repayable. If it's not a loan against money forthcoming, then it's not repayable. Am I right in that?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it's difficult to categorize hard-and-fast lines like that. There are circumstances.... The "may be" part of the member's first question is the correct answer, and the "may be"

part in this one is still the correct answer. There are bridging funds available, and under some circumstances some or all of that money may be repayable. Without a specific individual circumstance to actually describe or work within, it's very difficult to apply the broad application on specific questions. As well, it's unfair to give specific, narrow rules on a broad range of judgmental issues here.

In my former life I dealt with individuals that had been in very, very difficult circumstances -- waiting for workers' comp or something else. In fact, they were able to receive assistance from various agencies. Hardship income assistance would be one of them. In fact, I helped structure some offers to pay back and some repayment schedules in these circumstances, in conjunction with my constituent and the financial assistance workers that were there.

It happens not only in this system and circumstance but quite broadly across our community -- as a matter of fact, in many, many other areas, even right down to individuals who may apply for bridging money on a personal loan basis, in some circumstances, if they're waiting for funds to come in.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response.

Under (

h) it says: "...any other form of assistance specified by regulation." Could you give us some illustrations of what kinds of things that might refer to? There will probably be others that come up from time to time, but at the present time what kinds of things would that refer to?

Hon. D. Streifel: I apologize to the members opposite for the length of time to get caught up on what this means. I'm going to give this one a try, hon. members: "any other form of assistance specified by regulation" could be perhaps a training program that, by regulation, could be supplied to a specific client group -- and I said "could be." It could be many other forms. It's very, very broad-based, again, and it can be brought to be by regulation.

V. Anderson: Just while I think of it, in relation to regulations, we have been receiving updated regulations on GAIN, as they are changed. Will we continue to receive the regulations, as we have been, as they now apply to the benefit packages?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Coell: In

section 2, on the income assistance advisory council -- I believe there was a council such as that in the last act. Are there any changes to the council or to the makeup?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, this parallels the council that was established under the GAIN Act.

M. Coell: I'd be interested in knowing how many people are on the council at present and how they're appointed.

Hon. D. Streifel: The act allows 12 to 15 members, and currently we have 14.

M. Coell: I wonder if the ministry could supply the members on this side with a copy of those people who were appointed. I'd also be interested in knowing how they're appointed, whether there's an ad in the newspapers or how each individual is selected.

Hon. D. Streifel: Absolutely. We'll give you the list of who, what, where, when, and why, I suppose, if you want to do an investigative process.

V. Anderson: I'd be curious to know the kinds of recommendations these people have made. I don't know if you want to share the kinds of recommendations or whether you would, as well as commenting on it tonight, give some indication in broad terms as to whether those are available to us on a quarterly, semiannual or annual basis. What are the recommendations from the council and what action has been taken as a result?

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand there are two reports done annually. I'd be pleased to pass them on to the member.

As a matter of fact, I just asked a question myself. Do I table them, and if not, why not? We'll see what we can do with that, but certainly we'll supply them.

M. Coell: The members on this council, I would presume, would have qualifications and a background in social

[ Page 966 ]

services. I wonder if the minister could comment on the tenure of some of them. Are they one-year appointments, two-year, or can they serve at the minister's pleasure?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, these individuals are appointed for a two-year term. They come from a broad

section of the community -- community-based groups, advocacy groups, unions, business and others. It's quite a broad base. Again, I'll supply that information as I supply the list and how we get them.

M. Coell: In

section 2(5)(

b) it says that the members will be paid a per diem as set by the minister. I just wonder what the rate set by this minister is.

Hon. D. Streifel: The general government guidelines would determine their per diem and the per diem for the chair. That would be $175 a day for the members and $250 a day for the chair.

V. Anderson: In the 14 to 15 members, would a percentage of these -- a third, a half or whatever -- be persons who themselves are recipients of the services of the.... I'm thinking of groups like Federated Anti-Poverty and those kinds of groups, but particularly individuals who would be recipients whether they belong to those groups or not.

[8:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, yes, there are some recipients. The exact number I don't have. Again, I would expect that would be supplied when we give you the list -- and how we get them.

V. Anderson: Since the government, in overall perspective, is very conscious that people who are using the services have a strong input to the services, is there a principle where a third, a half or a fairly high representation...? To say there's one or two token people there would not be satisfactory. But is there a high representation of persons from across the province who would be able to tell you the urban and the rural and the other settings, who are recipients and can therefore reflect on how the service actually operates? It would seem to me important that, on principle and in guidelines, there should be a certain guaranteed, if you like, representation of those people.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I think we've done a fairly good job on the balance in this circumstance, with disabilities, with folks from the system and outside the system, and with geographic representation and stuff like that. When information from three or four questions ago comes forward.... If the member has any specific concerns based on ratio and balance and stuff like that, I encourage the member to bring it forward to me. We should have a look at it, because I always strive to do better in these circumstances. My compliments to this advisory council.

They've served the ministry well; they've served the folks they're there to serve very, very well. And if the member has suggestions for improvements, we'd be pleased to look at them.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that offer, because I am very much aware of the operation of the past council. I'm very much aware that at times there was good representation and there was response and good interaction, and then there have been times in the recent past, which would not be in the time of this minister, when there was not good representation and there were not good working relationships. I just want to make sure that we're looking ahead, that the good times would be repeated and the bad times wouldn't, and that we have the assurance to check into that.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

V. Anderson: We can't get going too fast here; we might not stop.

Again, we're caught as we would be in

section 3; we pretty well know what's involved there, in any event. But when we come to

section 4, we're into a whole new undertaking. And again, we're caught by regulations. Since we have some new regulations, which are, or will be, coming into force, can the minister explain the actual implications of this bill and give me the implication of

section 4? If a person is not eligible for any of these items, then hardship assistance is available to them. Is that what it's saying? And if they are eligible for any of these, then hardship assistance is not available to them.

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer for the member is yes.

V. Anderson: I'm thinking of a person who's on income assistance or one of these other programs, and they're living day to day or month to month. Suddenly something happens in their life that demands an extra bit of money. They need an extra bit of furniture or they need something else, and it just isn't there in their daily allowance. It may be $50; it may be $100. Is that hardship allowance available to them or not? If it is available -- say, $50 or $100 -- then is it taken out in agreed payment over the next few months?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think what the member is looking for is possible eligibility for a crisis grant as opposed to a hardship grant.

V. Anderson: Where is the crisis grant listed? Is it different from hardship or is it just another name for the same thing?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the crisis grant is contained in the regulation. The difference is you may -- I stress "may" -- have access to a crisis grant if you're within the system; you're not eligible for a hardship grant if you're within the system.

V. Anderson: Would the same wording be true of a hardship grant? If you're outside the system, you may or may not be eligible for a hardship grant. We're saying the same thing about a hardship grant. If you come in and you're not in the system, you may get a hardship grant or you may not. That would be the decision of the front-line worker whom you meet. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. D. Streifel: The only way you can be eligible for hardship, hon. member, is if you're not eligible for income assistance, so in fact you would be outside the system. And a crisis grant, keep in mind, is for folks in dire need within the system who may need some help and may qualify.

V. Anderson: If a person comes into the province from outside, would that person be eligible, perhaps, for a hardship grant within that three-month limit when they're not eligible for the system?

[ Page 967 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, yes. Under certain circumstances, some of these folks could be eligible for hardship.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

M. Coell: The financial assistance portion in

section 5 says: "The minister may provide financial assistance to a person or group of persons who undertake to provide a service or program that, in the minister's opinion, will promote the purposes of this Act." I wonder if the minister could give us a few examples of groups, not individuals, that would be in that area that he would provide a grant to -- and possibly the size of the grant, if he's got a couple of examples.

Hon. D. Streifel: I had the whole room waiting with bated breath, I'm sure, for this answer. In fact, some of the circumstances or examples that the member is seeking could be an emergency hostel or services for a group home for people with mental handicaps. Big Brothers could also be one of the qualifiers for this. I don't have an exact amount or an exact example of any one in particular. It would really be based on the need and adjudicated on an individual application basis.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain how someone would go about applying for one of those grants.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, through the regional office on an annual basis, there's an application process for some of these and for others on an as-needed basis. It could be a community grants application on an as-needed basis, but again, I understand that would be through the regional office.

V. Anderson: Following up with the same, you've listed a group of persons who might develop a hostel, and they'd be paid for the administration of running the hostel, if I understand that right. These are persons who are not on assistance. When you are talking about a person -- you mention Big Brothers -- are you talking about a person who is on assistance and might be a Big Brother to somebody else, or are you talking about a person who is not on assistance and might get some funds for being a Big Brother? I wasn't quite sure about the reference and the implication there.

Hon. D. Streifel: This wouldn't be for a grant to an individual; it would be for a group or an organization -- a society, for instance. That is how that would work.

V. Anderson: It says: "The minister may provide financial assistance to a person or group of persons.... " That's why I was asking that question.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a legal term. I know we heard a long dissertation -- actually, it was a very good speech, hon. member, and I compliment you on it -- on your concern about how we get wrapped up in legalities when we deal with this, but it's a legal term. When I said that, I notice the member just down the way from you shot his eyebrows up. I understand that he's an expert on that. He could probably educate me and explain to me why we would use the term "a person" in this context. I understand it's because it's a legal term.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

M. Coell: On

section 6, "Employment programs," I wonder if the minster could outline a typical program that would be approved by his ministry for someone who was having difficulty maintaining employment.

[8:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll just give the members a little clip here. The specific authority to provide grants for employment programs has been removed from

section 5 -- it used to be there -- so as to facilitate the delegation of this authority to the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. In fact, some of the programs that we are discussing here could be ABE, adult basic education, life skills training for folks with mental handicaps or a variety of programs of that nature.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response. Did that mean that these programs could be a year long or two or three years? Would they continue as long as the person has difficulty in getting into regular employment?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general terms, these would be short-term programs, but not a year or two or extended programs like that. Some of the ABE programs I'm aware of could be six months; some of them as short as six weeks. In fact, it's not designed to be long-term education. I guess the possibility exists that an individual may go through the program twice or, in fact, do one and then the other -- maybe some life skills and then some ABE after that. So there could be some lengthening of it, depending upon the access to the programs. But in general terms, each program is of relatively short duration.

V. Anderson: Can I ask the minister, then, about these programs? My experience is that the short-term programs are make-work programs for the people who are running them. Does the minister have any research that if a person is actually having difficulty finding or maintaining employment, then the majority of those persons are not going to be helped by an in-and-out, short, three-week, four-week or six-week program? It's going to take far more than that to restore their confidence, to find out their abilities and to get them oriented in a direction that would be helpful to them.

So I would like to know what research and evaluation is done of the effectiveness of these programs, because my experience is that the majority of them, on short-term basis, are ineffective and that they need to be six months or a year in order to be effective for that kind of person. If there is research and documentation, perhaps the minister could explain it and provide it to us.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it's unfair to characterize these as make-work projects for individuals delivering some of the programs. In fact, there's a combination of delivery methods used. There are some contract educators, but if the hon. members will go back over the last couple of years.... The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour of the day, now Education, Skills and Training, had opened up a number of community skill centres around the province, and in a lot of areas, the mandate of these centres is adult basic education upgrade. They take clients from a lot of other bodies and a lot of other ministries, some provincial and some federal.

Also, a number of these programs -- the ABE programs, for example -- are delivered through the community college structure on a contract basis. A number of them are delivered through the K-to-12 system. The same possibility exists for that. Often these programs are a combination of programs. When we refer to short-term, we refer to educational programs that are generally less than a year. I know that, for

[ Page 968 ]

instance, in Prince George there's a workplace training centre that served in some respects as the prototype for the community skills centres that were developed. I know that the capacity exists to bring individuals from what was known in my day as a junior high school education up to a Dogwood Certificate level in a few short weeks through some advanced training methods. All of that is possible, so there's a broad combination.

I would again caution that we do have some contract educators out there, but there are monitoring processes involved. I think we went through this in the estimates process, where we discussed what the aspects were. Do we just throw the chaff to the wind and let it blow or do we actually look for results? In fact, we're very cautious. We do look for results; we demand results on these issues. We're not going to throw money away, and more importantly, it would be unfair to disappoint the individuals in the programs. They're there to get help. They're there to move on in life.

They're there to better themselves, and they're aggressively attentive to doing so. That's what the purpose of these programs is.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

V. Anderson: I welcome our new Chair. It's nice to have a new and fresh voice giving us direction.

Section 7(1)(

a) is referring to persons who are eligible but not eligible for Youth Works. Could you explain the implications of

section 7, particularly 7(1)(a)(

i) and 7(1)(a)(ii)?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, there could be a circumstance where the youth is married to a non-youth, an older person. We still want that individual to have access to these programs. They're a family unit. In fact, that's where they would have access to these programs. Although I guess in general circumstances, being married to a non-youth, you'd think that they may not be.... But we've provided for that.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister rightly, he's saying that a person who in their own right would not be eligible for Youth Works could be eligible if they are dependent or related to a person who is eligible because of age.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, hon. member. In fact, it's the other way around: a youth who would be eligible in their own right would not be disqualified because their family unit does not fit the youth. They may be married; their spouse would be older. So it's the other way around. It's not that the older partner becomes eligible; we retain the eligibility for the youth. We don't disqualify the youth from marrying out of the individual's age range.

V. Anderson: We're talking about marriage out of the age range. Would that same eligibility or non-eligibility because of age difference -- whatever the case may be, depending on how you describe it -- apply to same-sex couples as it does to "married" couples?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, we don't discriminate. But as this

section would indicate, the eligibility is based on the individual.

V. Anderson:

Section 7(3) says: "A decision made under this

section is not open to review in a court or to appeal under

section 11(3)" -- which has to do, I think, with the B.C. Benefits appeal section. Could the minister explain why this particular item is not appealable, when others are?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll help the member with this. I find it somewhat complicated, and I'll try to get some coaching here. We have the youth with the education program; in fact, we write the program, and the determination of training needs is there. The individual can't say: "No, I don't like that. I know I need adult basic education, but I want to go off and take advanced computer science or something like that." We say no, and they can't appeal it. It's somewhat of a staged program. The needs are assessed with the individual, and the training and education program is built.

That's the part that they can't just cherry-pick. They can't say: "Any old education program works for me, right?" We can say: "No, any old education program doesn't work for you. This is what it is."

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment that there have to be some guidelines and some sense of direction here. Is there a process whereby the ministry or the representative of the ministry sits down with the person and helps them to work through what the options are, and then they have some choices within that? If there are choices, and they have options, and they choose one or other of the options, that's one thing. But if it says either this or nothing, then that's something else.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the plan is developed through this process. There are choices built in, and there's input along the way. I don't believe it's as rigid as "My way or the highway." In fact, there are options built into it.

The hon. member asked earlier, in part of a question, about make-work programs. What we have to guard against here is that we don't set up a scenario that says: "All right, youth, go get it." They just might end up in the hands of some form of education program that doesn't deliver what's needed to move these individuals into the workforce and keep them supported as they go along and supply the training and education needs. They may just run off and pick up Joe Blow's Quality Roadside Education Courses, and we wouldn't find that acceptable.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, but on the other hand I see the danger of having set up a training or employability program, and it has eight slots to be filled, and they've only got six. So to the next few persons who come along, they say, "Well, if you want a program, here's two slots, and that's what you have to take," whether they fit or not. I can see the problem on the other hand that the system starts to slot people in, whether it's suitable or not for that particular person. That's the other side of the coin.

If that happens, and I'm sure it will happen on occasion, does that person have an opportunity to go to a supervisor or to someone else and say: "Hey, just a minute. Just because you've got a program available, that doesn't mean it's the one that suits me"?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply put, yes. There's always that ability to come forward and say: "There's something wrong with this." As we move along, we have to be as accommodating as we possibly can in these issues.

One thing I would caution all of us on is that perfection is not in the game for us. We are humans, and we understand that there could be some potholes and stubbed toes along the way. As we get the programs up and running, and we recognize the very dire need for training, skills upgrading and basic

[ Page 969 ]

education, we will be moving down the road where we supply a larger amount of training. If you look in the papers on a day-by-day basis, there are thousands and thousands of jobs advertised across the province. I believe it's the obligation of us, in this day -- us as a community, us as government and us as a system -- to train individuals to prepare themselves for those jobs. That's what this is all about.

[9:00]

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

M. Coell: The whole of

section 8, "Information and verification," seems relatively new since the original GAIN Act. Is this a portion that was brought in to somehow try and identify fraud within the system? And if not, what's the difference between this and the present GAIN Act?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, yes. It strengthened some of the provisions that were in the GAIN Act.

V. Anderson: I'm disappointed, in a sense, in the minister's response, although it may be the true response. I thought that it was referring primarily to efficiency within the system and making the system operate effectively and efficiently. For a long time, I have maintained -- I think with justification -- that what was called fraud was not fraud on the part of the recipient so much as inadequacy, ineptness and inefficiency within the system, which then did harm to the recipients, and they got blamed for it.

What I took this to be when I first read it was that finally we got on to computers -- this is a modern age -- and we would have records that we could follow and transfer from office to office, and we could keep files properly on people. I understood this to be an efficiency program which might deal with fraud but which is not primarily a fraud program. I think those are two different things altogether.

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess when an individual attempts to shorten answers, you kind of get off track somewhat. The intent is accountability and fraud prevention. You attempt to tighten up some systems and deliver more accountability; it's not unlike an individual who applies for credit -- a credit card or something. You have to supply some basic information. We're tightening up some of that information flow.

There's also a requirement for recipients to report changes that would affect their eligibility, so that's accountability.... Hon. members, let's face it: if those changes are not reported within a period of time, and it's more than an "Oops!" then what is it? How is it characterized? Do we just ignore it, or do we actually take action to retrieve the funds or what not? That, then, would probably be characterized as fraud. So it's multifaceted.

I think it's not fair to suggest that it's only fraud, but there are some times when tightening up accountability or requirements of proof and eligibility slip over a line, and I would.... I'm sure that the members opposite would support us in the need that this not happen, that we don't relax our vigilance in this manner. In fact, we do require some proof and some accountability, and that's the form of identification that would keep individuals away from the fraud line. That's what it's really all about. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think that everybody out there is out to do something against the system.

But there are times when it happens by happenstance and circumstance, and if accountability and that line are tightened up, it keeps us away from that line.

M. Coell: Following on that, the entire

section deals with an increase in efficiency within the ministry. Is the ministry contemplating identity cards that would follow a client through this process, or is this going to be similar to the situation we have now?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't want to pretend that I'm going to slip out of this in any way, shape or form. But in fact I am, because it's future policy, and future policy is not subject to debate or examination in committee. If we get into that kind of debate, we all become out of order. So I'll just leave it at future policy.

V. Anderson: It's always an interesting thing -- the whole bill is future policy, because we're talking about how we're going to do the future. But I understand the limitations of what the minister is saying. When we're discussing policy, and they haven't made decisions or announced them, then it's undecided future policy at this point. I still want to come back to.... It seems to me that what I read here, first of all, is that this is accountability within the system and accountability of the system.

I say that because I'm very aware in my own experience of persons who have tried to be accountable to the system, who phone and their worker isn't available, and there's no way to report. They want to be accountable to the system, but they haven't been supplied with the information or the cards or a reporting process that is workable, so that they can be accountable to the system. Then, inevitably, they get blamed, rather than the system.

I thought what I was hearing here was that the system was acknowledging its inefficiency and its lack of proper accounting and auditing procedures. I have a daughter who is an accountant, and when she goes to audit a firm, she doesn't particularly audit the people who cheat the firm. She audits whether the firm is doing its business properly and is therefore losing money because of the way it operates. That's the kind of auditing I thought we were talking about, rather than auditing the people. Now, it might do some of that, but it's primarily in-system accountability auditing, and I hope that's what we are talking about here.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, hon. member, we are dealing with both of those, as I tried to explain earlier. We are clearly outlining our expectations for information, so that people can meet those expectations. If we fail to do that, I would suggest that we would be criticized for setting traps for folks -- if we don't tell them how tight it is and we don't help them avoid that tightness. If that's what we are doing and that's part of accountability within the system, then we have to make that information available, and we will. And it happens through these processes.

But if we don't do that and an individual steps over the line, for whatever reason.... The member is very right when he says.... I actually forgot what you said, but I remember it was good. It had to do with the systems and whatever.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

In fact, we have to be aware on both of those fronts. It's prevention; remember that we are very heavily involved in prevention. This is part of that; accountability certainly enhances prevention. If we want to get into the debate on fraud, we can handle that through some other processes. In

[ Page 970 ]

fact, it's all part of it, but let's help folks avoid that. That's also a part of what this is about: to build a system where it's more difficult to step over the line. It also builds accountability and trust, the public trust in the system, and I think that's very, very important.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

V. Anderson: "Consequences of not searching for or not accepting employment.... " We discussed this a little bit in other categories, and this is very subjective. We discussed this in the category of Youth Works and Skills and Training. It was pointed out that these are very subjective

definitions of suitable employment, failing to accept suitable employment, and leaving employment without just cause. These are judgmental, subjective kinds of decision-making, and the minister, according to the way it sounds here, has sole discretion -- or the minister's representative. Could the minister explain: when these subjective decisions are made, will the criteria be clearly spelled out? Will there be a written reason for the decision that is made, and will there be opportunity for the person for whom the decision is made to have that reviewed by a higher office within the ministry, for a second opinion?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, this is somewhat of an improvement over the old act. This individual, in particular, understands what happens in employment circumstances. We would not require an individual to work in an unsafe circumstance, and there are other statutes that would in fact protect that individual. There's the Workers Compensation Act and the Employment Standards Act. If the circumstance came forward to this minister that we were attempting to force an individual to put themselves in physical jeopardy by forcing them into employment, I'd be asking some very, very serious questions out there, because I fought all my life against those kinds of circumstances.

In fact, there are avenues. This

section provides more protection for clients than the GAIN Act did, hon. member. The new act protects clients who leave their work because the conditions of their work were intolerable. There are harassment situations, and I understand how insidious that can be in a workplace. I've handled cases myself of blatant, open harassment and subtle harassment, and the subtle one is the most difficult to deal with, since sometimes there are protective screens that go up around the harassers, and individuals find themselves out and alone.

I would expect and I would require that we take that into consideration, because it's part of our society, and it's a part of our society that we all work against. If an individual is trapped in that circumstance, we have made provisions for that here.

We also have protection in this

section for workers who are fired without just cause. We now have broadened the application of employment standards legislation, where individuals have a right to go forward and lodge a case against their employer. We have circumstances where we've broadened the coverage of employment standards legislation to include groups that were never there before and would have had no recourse -- for instance, nannies. They'd be discharged from employment, and where would they go? Under the old act, whose responsibility was it to prove just cause?

Now, as they're covered under the Employment Standards Act, there's an avenue of adjudication. Certainly we all know that an individual under a collective agreement has an advocate, a voice and a process. So that helps establish the criteria, as well.

I think this gives broader protection, because there are some avenues for reconsideration. There are avenues for reason, as a matter of fact -- what just cause is.

V. Anderson: Though I might argue with the minister about his expertise in other areas, I certainly wouldn't argue with him about his expertise in this area. I think it's really appropriate that he brings that expertise to this particular section, because it really has been lacking. The question I ask here is: will there be clear documentation of information available both to employer and employee, in this case -- as that's what they will be -- so they clearly understand what the guidelines, the regulations, the opportunities and the protections are?

[9:15]

One of the things that has been very prevalent in the Social Services ministry is a lack of understanding and clarity between the workers and the clients (1) because the clients may be of a different cultural background, and they're certainly of a different educational background; (2) because of the familiarity of the social worker with the situation, which is completely new to the client; and (3) because in many cases, the literacy of the client doesn't allow them to read even the simplest documents. So some way to really make clear the guidelines and the protection....

Because many of the errors that have been classified as fraud are errors, because of lack of understanding or lack of communication.... Will there be clear, simple-to-read words and diagrams that will get the information, which is so fundamental here across? Their references are at stake as well as the employment. If they have been found guilty, then they're in double jeopardy. Not only have they lost a job but they've lost their credibility. The system needs to prevent that from happening, unless it was really by desire.

Hon. D. Streifel: For the member opposite, yes, there will be very clear operations directives and policy guidelines. FAWs will be aware of this, and there will be that ongoing process. Under this section, the explanation that I have here is that some of the language allows the minister to impose sanctions cited under

section 9(2) on recipients, including adult dependents too. In fact, I would think that if I have the power to impose sanctions, I have the power to offer guidance as well on what the circumstances were. Of course, the individual always has the opportunity for an administrative review in these circumstances. One of the things that jumps out at me is -- bingo! -- someone fails to accept suitable employment. If we have an individual who is allergic to cedar, and we've sent him off to work in a cedar mill, I wouldn't accept that, hon. member.

M. Coell: Along the lines the minister was just speaking of, subsections 1(

a) and (b), I think, need some clarification: the words "reasonable efforts" and, in the next one, "suitable employment." The minister or the minister's representative is going to be the judge of that. Are there regulations, or is there something very clear for people so they're going to understand what a reasonable effort to search for employment is and what suitable employment means to the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Of course, the answer is very similar: policy directives and guidelines and individuals who work with the FAWs. When we discuss "reasonable," we'll be able to take into account an individual's circumstances, including residency. A number of individuals live in quite isolated communities, and their circumstances would be markedly

dif-

[ Page 971 ]

ferent from those of somebody who lives in the broad morass of the big city, where mobility opportunities are easier and one may not need any transportation other than shank's mare, hon. member. I think that will be considered and included in the policies within the operations directives.

G. Wilson: The reason I haven't entered into the discussion thus far is that these are precisely the same questions I asked under Youth Works. I think this is a companion piece of legislation or, in fact, a piece of legislation that is the cornerstone of the four-piece package.

I heard the minister say.... I guess one of the problems as I sit and listen to the answers is that it clearly isn't going to be the minister who is going to make these decisions. This minister may have a background in union negotiation and may have knowledge about what are and what aren't acceptable workplace ethics; this minister may have a long history of experience. But there's no way this minister is going to be making that decision on behalf of literally hundreds of British Columbians who are going to require that kind of effort. It's going to be made by staff, and it will be made by staff in the regions.

The difficulty with this bill, and the reason that I've opposed it to this date and voted against it, is that it's so highly subjective. There are no standards, no regulations, no posted set of guidelines that are consistent and that can be applied, adhered to, looked at and scrutinized in this debate. When we talk about suitable employment, that's something the minister directs. But it won't be the minister; it will be some staff person in a rural area. These are precisely the same comments and remarks that I made before. I don't know that I want to revisit them all, because it just gets my blood pressure up, and I don't need to do that right now.

The consequence of this bill is that somewhere along the line, if these conditions and considerations haven't been made, the minister, or the minister's delegate or surrogate, is going to say that that individual recipient is ineligible -- and their dependents. Not just the individual, but all the dependents are ineligible. Now, what does this minister think that person is going to do? I'd like to hear from the minister, when he declares ineligibility for an individual and dependents -- because we're talking about kids.... What is the minister going to do with these people?

When these people find that they can't pay the bills and they can't pay the rent, and the landlord is ready to evict them and fire them out onto the street, along with their kids, what is this minister going to do?

Hon. D. Streifel: There are many options. The option exists to reduce benefits, as opposed to cut off. Within the process, we also have crisis and hardship provisions. We've already discussed how those are applied. The member would like to paint the ultimate black picture, but in fact there are many options before we get there, and there are many individual circumstances. Of course, we wouldn't be cutting the children out of the system. I mean, there are many provisions built within the system for that. We have the option to reduce, we have the options of crisis and hardship that already exist, and individual circumstances will be weighed.

G. Wilson: What I'm hearing the minister say, then, is that they won't actually be cut off at all. He's saying "the ultimate black picture" and that if there are children involved, well, we have ways of dealing with that. I'm presuming that the minister is not saying that because the parents become destitute because they have no money, then the state is going to intervene and seize the children. I'm assuming that's not what's going to happen. Because the parent remains the legal guardian of the children, the parent is going to have to be the recipient of the money coming in.

So presumably that parent is going to continue to receive dollars, and if the dollars they receive are inadequate to cover the monthly costs of rent, how is this going to work? Ultimately, what the minister is saying is that he can declare the recipient and any dependents -- and that's a key point -- ineligible, for a period set by regulation, for income assistance or hardship assistance or benefits.

Now, this minister may be benevolent, and this minister may, in fact, have the greatest intention in the world, but this member may not always be the minister. Indeed, this government may not always be the administrator of this act. What happens at a time when this act is sitting here and we've got -- and goodness knows, we've heard from other members what they'll do -- a minister who says: "That's it. Go get a job. You're out. Forget it"? That's what this provides for.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith saying: "Well, they'll do that anyway." I think that's what she said. Goodness knows, at least allow them the benefit of bringing the legislation in to enable them to do it. Don't give it for them.

This minister has to answer the question. Are these people going to be ineligible, and are you prepared to put them on the street or not? If the answer is no, you're not prepared to put them on the street, and you believe there is an obligatory payment of social assistance to these people, then this whole act is a bit of a fraud.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, this is a very tough incentive. But the member has the capacity to characterize the broadest possible scenario down to the narrowest vision and demand a specific answer without consideration of an individual. I take exception to that, hon. member. I think you do your constituents a disservice in that matter. We have the capacity to answer your question; I answered it. The answer is: we have options. I outlined some of those options. What does the member suggest we do? Does the member suggest we not have tough incentives, that we just...?

Are you advocating the status quo in all circumstances? Day after day after day, that's what I hear come out of this member: status quo, and nothing else is good enough.

In fact, hon. member, we have changed the system. The whole package of B.C. Benefits finally changes the system. If we need tough incentives, then yes, we will have tough incentives. Do we have options? Yes, we have options. Can I pinpoint the exact dot option, based on that broad scope of rhetoric? No, I cannot.

G. Wilson: I certainly have never suggested that we should just simply sit with the status quo.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: That is not what I have advocated. What I have advocated is that there be adequate moneys put into the core funding of community-based organizations in order to provide enough caseworkers out there to deal with people in a humane and sensible way -- not to put a threat against them that if they don't do as this legislation requires, they're going to be cut off, and then as a punitive measure, to put information in this bill which provides power to the minister, first, to

[ Page 972 ]

treat welfare recipients as though they are all cheats, which is what this does -- it presupposes that, which I think is offensive -- and second, to assume, as this minister did, that this bill "makes work a better deal than welfare." I don't know who on earth the minister thinks is sitting on welfare who thinks it's a better deal than work. I mean, that's patronizing.

I want to ask specifically if the minister doesn't recognize the language of this particular

section of the bill. It says: "In the circumstances set out in subsection (1), the minister may do one or more of the following... " -- that is, if an individual does not comply. There may be individuals not able to comply for reasons well beyond their control, although they may have attempted to. But in the mind of a staff person in that community -- and believe me, I deal with them, as I think every member here must do.... They find themselves in a situation where they cannot meet these regulations.

The minister may "declare the recipient and any dependants" -- that's the children -- "ineligible, for a period set by regulation.... " Then it says it can make them ineligible "for income assistance, hardship assistance or benefits." That's the whole kit and caboodle. So the person can be out on the street.

The Premier got on his feet the other night and said: "Well, yes, that's a fact. But we hope we don't come to that." If you're going to save the dollars, because that's what this is all about -- attempting to save dollars instead of putting the dollars into the social safety net that's necessary to make sure we look after the interests of those people who, for reasons beyond their control, can't look after themselves.... If this is what we're going to do, then sooner or later this government is going to have to act on that.

Then the question is: what do you do with those people who now find themselves on the street in a destitute situation, especially if they happen to be between the ages of 19 and 25? What do you do with these people?

Hon. D. Streifel: I ask the hon. member to supply to me some explanation of what he determines as community-determined core funding, how it's arrived at and what it really means. Hon. member, it would be very important that we would determine the differences between some of your proposals, some of your ongoing comment and your broadest possible argument for the narrowest possible conclusion.

[9:30]

We have a long way to go before we get to a circumstance such as the member describes. We have many options ahead of us and available to us. We must remember that individuals must be accountable for their actions. Without this

section -- without the built-in, tough incentives as they are -- then it would become unworkable. We would just go back to what the member's advocating, and it's the status quo.

G. Wilson: It was my hope not to get bogged down in this, because I went through this before. But I'd be happy to provide for the minister -- in perhaps a different forum, so we don't take up much valuable debating time tonight -- all kinds of community-based organizations that, if they received core funding and had adequate resources to deal with front-line poverty and unemployment issues, would do an outstanding job. They're all over the province.

All over the province, they struggle from month to month to try to keep the doors open so they can help people, because there are no adequate core dollars for four-year-based financing. I'd be happy to sit down and go through a list of them that work on a day-to-day basis with people who are poor.

There's no shame in being poor, none at all. But there is real shame if you're going to put a threat to those individuals who find, for whatever reasons, it difficult to find employment -- especially under this employment climate when jobs are hard enough to find, as they are. This is the reason I shouldn't have got back into this debate, because it gets my blood pressure going. For this government, of all governments, not to recognize that, and to say we're going to put in an incentive which is essentially a threat -- "You do as we say; here are the conditions, and you either fulfil them or you're cut off" -- is a massive departure from the kind of direction we've taken in the past.

You don't need to maintain the status quo to change it. You can change it by providing that base of funding to the communities, to allow enough caseworkers to be on the ground, enough people out there to be dealing with those people who need help. They don't need threats from government.

V. Anderson: Following up on that discussion, I've a couple of comments. We've all said that

whereas the government in past times has often written their regulations, particularly in Social Services, perhaps in too positive and glowing terms.... They've changed their method of writing, or else they've got new writers -- I'm not sure which -- and have written their legislation in negative terms now, rather than positive terms. There's a whole different style of writing here. You can take the same intent, and you can present it in two different ways. It's being presented from the negative side: the cup is half empty rather than half full.

I think it's unfortunate that they haven't stopped at the balance in between those two, because what they're doing now is coming across as fraud fighters rather than people helpers, to overcome the image that they were people helpers and didn't care about fraud. So I think we've swung too far the other way, and that leads to some of this discussion.

I myself don't object to subjectivity, because any relationship is a subjective one. It has to be if it's going to be a relationship. Otherwise, it's a legal one, and that's what we're talking about. But having said that other comment, the question I would raise which has failed to show here is that one of the realities of the Gove report, for instance, was to display that our social workers were not given the training, the support and the resources to do the job they were asked to do. It wasn't their fault; they just weren't given them. Now we've moved to correct that and give them support and training.

I would like to suggest to the minister that if that's true of the social workers -- which it is and has been -- it's even, in spades, that much more true of the financial aid workers. The financial aid workers haven't had the training, the support and the experience. They're the ones that deal with people in their most critical financial and emotional moments, every day of their life. I give them due credit for surviving, let alone doing the job that needs to be done.

Since we are giving to these front-line workers this very important responsibility, can the minister indicate to us that as they are giving new training and resources -- 20 hours' training -- to social workers, they will undertake to do essentially the same thing for the financial aid workers, who are even more under the gun than the social workers? Because of the pressure that's on the financial aid