2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th 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, March 3, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Mungall

L. Reimer

L. Krog

Hon. P. Fassbender

S. Chandra Herbert

D. Barnett

S. Hammell

M. Hunt

D. Eby

S. Gibson

S. Robinson

C. James

J. Shin

B. Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

J. Rice

D. Donaldson

B. Routley

V. Huntington

[ Page 11025 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Point of Order

(Speaker’s Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Members, pursuant to a point of order raised before the lunch hour, I would draw all members’ attention to a memo from this Chair dated February 17, 2014, which says: “Unless otherwise permitted, electronic devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor.” I would draw all members’ attention to that item, and should copies be required, please see the Speaker’s office.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: In this House,

section B, I call second reading of Bill 18, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act; and in

section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

(MINOR CORRECTIONS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, now be read a second time.

Bill 18 makes minor corrections and housekeeping amendments to various statutes. They’re all straightforward, non-controversial corrections and all minor in nature. The contents of the bill, when read, reflect that.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

The office of legislative counsel gathers minor corrections as part of the routine statute revision process. The result of that work is what we have in this bill.

The office of legislative counsel takes great pride in the work they do and serves this House very well. The changes in the bill are presented before the Legislature so that this Legislature can approve all changes to statutes, no matter how small or minor they may appear. In other words, there’s a very important principle here that people cannot go in and change statutes. They have to have the approval of the Legislature before any changes may be made.

The changes need to be done with the authority of this House to ensure B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.

L. Krog: This is almost becoming a joyful ritual. It’s like a rite of spring almost, that we bring forth another Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act. I’m delighted to rise and say a few words.

[1335]

I don’t think any legislation should pass through this chamber without at least some comment, if nothing else to say thank you to the drafters who spent so much time preparing the legislation; and, I suppose, a small thank you to caucus and to cabinet — although more cabinet than caucus, of course; having been on the government side, I understand how the system works — for their work in approving this legislation; and the Legs and Regs committee, as we used to call it, who likewise would have carefully perused this to ensure that when it arrives on the floor of the chamber, it’s an accurate reflection of the wishes of the people through the elected government.

Of course, I suppose on one level, if you think of a school system, the bill in and of itself is an admission of a mistake or two or three or four — or indeed, in this case, mistakes running to 19 pages, actually, all told.

Now, I’ve admitted in this chamber once before, as I admitted to a guest at lunch today, that there was a time in my very important educational career when I used to get 19 and 20 wrong on of a phonics test with 20 points. That hardly represents a glowing academic record. Nevertheless, it does prove that even people of limited ability can arrive in this chamber and get elected, and I think it’s very important that people of limited ability are represented in this place, although not disproportionately so.

Having said that, I do want to reflect on some of the changes, because for those who are listening at home and haven’t taken the opportunity to peruse the legislative website, this is a pretty fascinating piece of legislation.

Firstly, we’re going to strike out “extra-provincial” in the Adoption Act, under

section 4 of this legislation, and put in “extraprovincial.” We’re dropping the hyphen from “extra-provincial” and making it “extraprovincial” without a hyphen.

Now, I think this is a wonderful opportunity for all of those members who are getting a little sloppy in their old age and can’t remember what it was like in grades 3, 4 and 5, when we were learning all this stuff, to reflect on the fact that in our system, “extraprovincial” indeed is one word without a hyphen. Unfortunately, that mistake was indeed repeated in the Business Corporations Act, not just the Adoption Act.

Now, there are others that are quite interesting, striking out various sections, substituting another section, obviously correcting “Local Government Act” and substituting the “Municipal Replotting Act.” There’s one I hadn’t looked up.

[ Page 11026 ]

I thought, if I had more time, I would have taken the opportunity to reflect and look up the Municipal Replotting Act. I’m not sure. Is that perhaps where a municipal government buries its mistakes, much like the doctors are reputed to do? Exactly how do we arrive at this Municipal Replotting Act? It has nothing to do with plants, I’m sure, even though it’s springtime and the earth is renewing itself, as it always does.

Again, I just think the listening audience of British Columbia will be fascinated to know that we have a Municipal Replotting Act in British Columbia now, as opposed to the Local Government Act.

Then, of course, there are the important changes in the Forest Act and the Foresters Act, where we’re going to substitute “fulfillment” with two l’s in “fillment,” as opposed to one “l.” Who would have known? All these years we’ve been suffering along in British Columbia with one “l” in “fulfilment” in the Forest Act and the Foresters Act, and now we’re moving to two l’s.

Well, I don’t know where this fits with the Red Tape Reduction Day Act, but this might indeed constitute an increase in red tape. We’ve stuck another letter of the alphabet in a statute. I’m just not sure we’re making the kind of progress that we indeed had anticipated when we passed that act after so much debate. The government, much as this bill in and of itself suggests, may be creating — or acknowledging, at least — failure. Failure, hon. Speaker.

We want to move to a school system where everyone is given positive reinforcement. So on another level, I feel almost compelled to say bravo to the government for finding these mistakes and then wishing to correct them. That’s what is called positive reinforcement, I believe they used to call it, way back when my wife taught briefly, for four years. This is positive reinforcement. So I want to say to the government: “Here’s to positive reinforcement. We are in fact recognizing our mistakes and correcting them.”

[1340]

By the way, if we’re adding an “l” to “fulfilment,” here’s a really shocking thing. Guess what. In the Foresters Act, “enrollment” is dropping an “l,” down to “enrolment” with one “l,” as opposed to two. Who would have known? Enrolment only has one “l.” And “fulfils”? Again, you taketh with one hand, giveth away with the other, much like the bus pass stuff. Over there in the Income Tax Act, “fulfils” will now no longer be spelled “fulfils” but will now be spelled “fulfills.” We’re actually giving, over on this side. We’re picking up an “l.”

Maybe at the end of this day, by the time we finish dealing with this bill, there’ll be a full and complete acknowledgement that we’re no further ahead or further behind. We’re just one “l” here and another “l” there and one less here and one less there. You do the hokey-pokey, you turn yourself about, and that’s what legislation is all about. Well, this goes on for several pages.

Now, I do note, in fairness, that

part 21 of the Municipal Replotting Act is repealed, though I’m not sure what that

section refers to, and I’m sorry to see the replotting act being shrunk. Perhaps that will be part of the Red Tape Reduction Day approach — and another notch on the gun belt of the gun-toting minister blasting away those regulations, making British Columbia a better place for everybody.

We are all also making a significant…. I suspect that this is a real boo-boo. This one is worthy of specific comment. In

section 27, we’re striking out “details of expenditure for it made” and substituting “details of expenditure made for it.” Now, even I, with my limited abilities and education, can see that that’s a real boo-boo. That isn’t just one “l” more or one “l” less. That’s a real boo-boo. When we come to “re-enrollment” in the Pharmaceutical Services Act, “re-enrollment” in fact will now drop its “l” and will just be a one-l “re-enrolment.”

As look through this legislation, I just want to just pay my respects to the government for doing this. The trick is, not having the time and research and budget available to me, I can’t determine whether these mistakes have been made during the course of the Liberal regime or whether in fact they date back to the decade of the ’90s or back to the time of Bill Vander Zalm or Bill Bennett or Dave Barrett or even Wacky Bennett.

Who knows how long some of these errors have been plaguing the statutes of British Columbia? But it is a delight to see the government acknowledging these errors, seeking positive reinforcement from the opposition, and stepping forward and correcting these mistakes.

Particularly, they are striking out, wherever it appears in a

schedule of statutes, under

section 47, “willful” with two l’s and reducing it to wilful with one “l.” I suppose this may be the government’s new assault on obesity in our society. It’s all about reduction, reduction, reduction — slimming down the statutes one letter at a time.

I do want to point out a couple of things, though. When it comes to vulnerabilities around this legislation — and in pursuit of ensuring we don’t have to spend too much time on next year’s rite of passage, the rite of spring when we bring forth this legislation — I want to point out that there’s a terrible, I think, error by adding a question mark to

section 23 of the MDA act where it says: “What if there is insufficient money in the fund?” with a question mark.

I just want to alert the government to that. They’re welcome to contact the opposition, but I think putting a question mark in the context of a bill in a statute may, in fact, be a grievous error that will require again legislative remedy and much debate. It’s just very odd to me that we would be so lax as to be creating an error that even I could pick up with my limited abilities.

It does raise doubts about the ability of government to eliminate — and forgive my American friends for saying this — Yankee spelling, notwithstanding the predominance of Donald Trump in the news media today and the Republican Party in general.

[ Page 11027 ]

Why didn’t it find all of the instances of “willful” or “willfully” in the fall in order to convert them to the proper Canadian equivalent of wilful and wilfully? Where were those diligent people combing through the statutes when you needed them last fall? Were they asleep at the switch? Here we are in the springtime having to engage in this process one more time.

[1345]

I can safely tell the minister — who I know is excited by this legislation, who can barely contain her glee at reforming British Columbia’s legal system through the correction of various statutes — that we, in fact, in the opposition will indeed be voting, I suspect, unanimously to support the government in this admission of its errors.

Hon. S. Anton: It’s tempting to add some really profound remarks, but I think I will not and simply say thank you to the member for Nanaimo.

I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, 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. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: I call a recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1:46 p.m. to 1:48 p.m.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the bill now be read for a second time.

The proposed amendment to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will simplify the application and adjudication process for designation as a person with disabilities under the act for many people. The bill supports individuals with disabilities and their families and makes their access to support a little bit easier.

Amendments to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will simplify and improve the application and adjudication process for designation as a person with disabilities under the act. Currently, in order to receive disability assistance, you must have the persons with disabilities designation from the ministry. That can, actually, often involve quite an extensive application process along with many medical assessments.

The process is very thorough, given the criteria that have to be met and the need for confirmation from the health care professionals to diagnose the disability. It can also be, very often, stressful for families who are already dealing with a number of challenges that come when a child with a disability transitions into adulthood or when a family member acquires a disability later in life and is receiving palliative care.

While everyone, I think, here in the House and around the province understands there’s a need for these requirements, people have also asked us to make it a little bit easier where we can. It has become very clear, quickly, that there are provincial and federal programs that have an assessment that is very similar to the one on disability assistance.

[1350]

With this amendment, people who have already been approved for services through the approved programs will now be able to receive their person with disabilities designation without having to complete that usual process.

Those programs and organizations include the Ministry for Children and Family Development’s At Home program, which helps parents with some of the costs that they have when caring for a child with a very severe disability. Also included is Community Living B.C., which provides supports and services for adults around our province with developmental disabilities; PharmaCare plan P, which is for people in palliative care; and, as well, the federal Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

Up to 1,000 people with disabilities will benefit from these changes each year. The majority of them will be young people who are transitioning into adult services. While that may not seem like a lot to many people, it means a lot to the families and the individuals who will not have to go through second, maybe third or even fourth assessments sometimes in order to receive the services. It means that there will be less stress and faster access to disability assistance for hundreds of people every year.

It’s a change that makes sense, and I look forward to hearing the comments from members on both sides of this House on this second reading.

[ Page 11028 ]

M. Mungall: I am joining the debate today on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. As the minister stated and I’ll just restate now, this act is making some significant changes for 1,000 people who currently and in the future will receive persons-with-disabilities social assistance in this province.

Namely, the press release reads: “When the legislation comes into force, people in the following provincial and federal programs will complete a much simpler PWD application process.” That’s for people who are in Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care program and the Canada Pension Plan for people with disabilities.

There’s no doubt at all that the current application process for people with disabilities is quite cumbersome. There are not only plenty of stories out there from the 100,000 people in British Columbia who have to go through that application process — what that application process is like for them — but also there have been many reports over the years about the application process and how difficult it is.

That said, of course, we on this side of the House are very pleased to see this legislation come forward and make things easier for about 1,000 people who are receiving PWD assistance. The minister said that she’s heard from people who are saying they would like to see things made a little bit easier for them by this government. When I talk to people around the province who rely on income supports like income assistance and disability, I wouldn’t say that “a little bit” is how I characterize what they’re looking for from this government. They’re looking for things to be a lot easier.

They experience an incredible amount of difficulty that is associated with the poverty they are forced to live in. We know that this is the case. We know that rates in British Columbia are well below any conservative measure of poverty.

[1355]

The Fraser Institute, which is a well-known right-wing conservative think tank not known for its small-l liberal policies or programs…. When they have a poverty measure that is based on the costs of living at a very, very basic level and our rates don’t even meet that level, it says a lot about what’s going on in British Columbia and the poverty that people with disabilities are living in.

So when I hear the minister say “a little bit easier,” I have to take issue with that on behalf of the many thousands of people that I hear from on a regular basis who rely on income assistance, who rely on PWD, who say they need things to be a lot easier when you consider the struggles they have to go through because of the rates.

I recognize that Bill 3 is not about income assistance rates, that Bill 3 is specifically about the application process. On that score, the words I hear from people are that they also want to see that a lot easier — not a little bit, but a lot.

Currently there is a 28-page application process that requires people to have a family health practitioner, whether it’s a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner. As you know, I would be remiss to not mention nurse practitioners and the great work that they do in this province because my husband’s a nurse practitioner, and he reminds me every day.

He also tells me, on a regular basis, the work that he has to do to help people fill out the current PWD forms. This is not something that he can well integrate into his day-to-day practice, but it’s something that he has to do on top of it because it’s so cumbersome, and it’s so demanding. As a nurse practitioner, he is paid in salary. He’s not on a fee-for-service basis, so he’s able to fit this in during his lunch hour, in the morning before his practice starts or in the late afternoon after his practice starts.

One of the problems that we’re experiencing in the Kootenays — and, in fact, I know is existing right across this province — is that many people who need a GP to fill out their form are struggling to find a GP who’ll be able to do it, because they’re on a fee-for-service model, and they’re not able to be compensated for filling out these extremely long and cumbersome forms and to help their patients with these forms. As a result, we have many people with disabilities who are struggling just to fill out the forms.

I’m very pleased to see that there will be 1,000 people less with this struggle, but I can’t help but remark on the 90,000 people who will still have to go through this burden, go through this struggle. I hope the government opposite recognizes the struggle, that difficulty that 90,000 people are going through, and are going to take that into consideration in moving forward.

Now, I’m by far not the first person to ask them to do that. In fact, that request has been going on for 14 years now.

[1400]

In 2002, at the early stages of the B.C. Liberal government, drastic changes were made to income assistance supports in this province. It created a lot of red tape in people’s lives. Not only did we see at that time a 30 percent cut in the income assistance rates…. That’s right. We saw a cut to the rates.

Today, right now, somebody receiving PWD gets $906 a month — just a little over $10,000 a year. Well, if we compare that to what people were receiving in 1994 — we’re using the same dollars, comparing apples to apples here — $12,755 was the annual income for a single person with a disability. So people, as costs have gone up…. Obviously, 22 years later, since 1994, costs have risen. We all know this. Rent goes up. Hydro goes up. This government has increased hydro by 28 percent already, another 4 percent this year.

If you’re a person with a disability that requires a car, your insurance has gone up. If you live in Victoria and

[ Page 11029 ]

you need to visit family in the Lower Mainland, ferry fares have gone up. The list goes on.

Bus fares have gone up, and they’re certainly going up under this government again for people with disabilities. If you want to take a little bit of time and enjoy Mother Nature and go camping, you’re paying more too.

Food costs. Well, that’s all gone up, and we all know it. We hear about it every day. The cost of milk and bread keeps going up. We’re not talking about cake. We’re talking about the basics, milk and bread, and that’s gone up.

In the meantime, for people with disabilities, their rates have gone down. Their ability to afford those costs of living has become less — hundreds of dollars less. That’s the reality they’re facing. That was one of the first measures that was taken back in 2002.

But alongside cutting the rates, there were drastic changes to eligibility regulations as well as the application process. In fact, it was so bad back then…. One of the things that the government of the day did was conduct a review of 20,000 people living with disabilities. They were forced to fill out a lengthy questionnaire just to justify their benefits. That’s what happened in 2002. So 20,000 people with disabilities were targeted, told that to be able to get their cheque they had to fill out an extremely long questionnaire, and if they filled it out correctly, they could keep their benefits.

Now, how much did this cost taxpayers? Five million dollars. Incredible hardship was created with this, for 20,000 people with disabilities, many of whom had developmental disabilities — 20,000 people having to fill out this form. It cost the taxpayers $5 million.

Here’s what they found: 0.6 percent of the ministry’s 62,000 disabled clients at the time — 0.6 percent — were ineligible for continued assistance under the new rules. What the Auditor General of the day, who studied this, who reviewed it…. This is what he had to say: “This means the major cost savings the ministry expected the review to gain were not achieved. At the same time, the review created increased anxiety for many of the ministry’s disabled clients.”

[1405]

So $5 million of taxpayers’ money to target people with disabilities, create undue hardship, undue anxiety, create further difficulties for them, to put their source of income into question, to create that instability in their lives — and $5 million was not saved to taxpayers as a result. It was a mean and cruel fishing expedition that was absolutely unnecessary, but that’s the kind of stuff that was going on in 2002.

Also going on in 2002, as I mentioned, was the change to the application process. That application process became quite lengthy in nature. It’s pretty much what we see today. To the best of my knowledge, not much has changed since 2002, if anything. That process also created new rules that resulted in many people who used to be able to get help now being ineligible for that help.

As a result…. We look at some news articles of the day. When you create a more difficult process for people to apply, a process that is at a grade reading level above what they’re able to access, that is lengthy…. They can’t get a GP, perhaps, and so on and so forth. Well, the news articles of the day were reporting that there was a direct correlation between the new rules that were implemented in 2002 and an increasing number of people who were homeless and living on the streets.

They weren’t able to get the supports they needed to get a roof over their head, so they found roofs in doorways, in alleys, in the streets of our communities. Many of them didn’t have a mental illness before, but they ended up developing a mental illness not long after living the harsh life that is life on the streets. They started to self-medicate. Addictions resulted.

This didn’t have to happen, but because of an ill-thought-out, ideologically driven application process for people with disabilities, we saw our communities suffer, we saw people in our communities suffer, and we saw families suffer. It was unnecessary. It was cruel. It was mean. It was not the right way to go. What do we have here now? Well, we have a very small attempt to start addressing that red tape, those decisions made in 2002.

Now, I’ve mentioned the decrease in supports. I’ve mentioned the application process. But there were a few other changes back in 2002 that contributed to the problems that the Liberals are now trying to fix, starting with this bill.

What we saw back in 2002 was the complete elimination of earnings exemptions for income assistance as well as PWD and persons-with-multiple-barriers recipients. We saw complete earnings exemptions eliminations for them. I’m glad to report that the government has since rectified that draconian measure. That has never, ever, in any jurisdiction, proven to be a best practice to support people to move out of poverty.

The government has seen the light on that and recognized that that was the wrong way to do it. I mean, they could have known that back in 2002. Most people did. There were protests. There were demonstrations. There were letters. There were petitions.

[1410]

In 2002, they also eliminated the exemption for child support. They started to claw back child support payments from single parents. Well, we’ve had some success since 2003. By 2015, we saw single parents being able to keep 100 percent of their child support.

That was, again, no small task. That was a major campaign, with single parents coming forward and sharing

[ Page 11030 ]

their stories. We brought those stories right to the floor of this Legislature, and we saw a change. That was also a step in the right direction, just like this bill is a step in the right direction finally — more than ten years later, after the red tape was created by this government.

Another thing that happened in 2002 that makes this application process difficult today is that the government implemented a three-week waiting period. You go to apply for income assistance, and before they’ll even look at your application, you have to wait three weeks. They call it the work search period. This work search period — the ideal is that you go find a job. Well, that doesn’t happen very often, but never mind. The government has recently decided to increase the work search period to five weeks. It’s five weeks now.

The last time I had a discussion with the minister about this in the budget estimates process, we confirmed it was five weeks. I asked many questions. Well, what happens? Rent is due at the beginning of the month. Months are normally four weeks. You make your application. You have to go search for a job. You don’t find a job.

What happens the next month when you don’t have sufficient funds for rent? Well, I talked about the newspaper articles from 2002. You can imagine that same story is happening now. People end up on the streets, and they end up in worse situations than they did beforehand.

Back in 2002, clients of the ministry were directed to apply through a 1-800 number. Now it’s on line. Hon. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell you the stress and difficulty this has caused for the last 14 years and continues to cause people. The 1-800 line is really a disaster. There is plenty of evidence. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can talk to anybody who is a client who receives PWD, who receives income assistance.

They can tell you about their nightmare stories of calling and waiting on hold, chewing up their talk time on their phone, or of having to get a callback, but they don’t have a phone and are actually at the employment office and have to sit at the employment office for an hour or however long to get a callback, so they can’t go out and do their job search and so on. The chaos this 1-800 number has caused in their lives.

You can imagine. If that’s just the point of contact people need once they get to be clients of the ministry, it was just as difficult just to become that client, to be able to get the supports that they need. Being able to get a face-to-face conversation with someone in the ministry is extremely difficult.

[1415]

It’s not very good right now. It can be better. There needs to be improvement. There’s a lot of room for improvement for the phone and on-line service. As the world moves to more Internet-based on-line services, a lot of people are going in that direction, and they find it handy. But people also want to see more face-to-face time. They want to be able to go into an MSD office and talk with a human being about what’s going on in their lives and the types of supports that they might need or for an application. While 1,000 more people are going to be able to do that in a more easy way, 90,000 people still aren’t.

We’ve got people who are simply not getting the face time they need to be able to apply or to be able to address the needs they have and to get the supports they need. That’s what’s happening right now in service delivery.

Some of the other changes that took place in 2002 impact today. There was a two-year time limit. This new rule applied to those in the expected-to-work category. So clients without children would see their benefits terminated for three years after requiring those supports for two years.

What’s interesting about this is that no other jurisdiction had done something like this prior to British Columbia, to the best of my recollection and reading through all the stacks of paper that we have on this issue of application and the current government’s records around supports for people with disabilities.

This two-year time limit. What it meant is that within a five-year period, after two years, you would be kicked off the supports you need and you’d be left to fend for yourself, often ending up on the streets. Now, perhaps that person just needed to get more supports for a little while longer to get a job. Perhaps no jobs were available.

Whatever it was, when you kick somebody off income assistance and they end up on the streets, as I mentioned earlier, what can happen in that harsh lifestyle is that somebody might develop a mental illness and use illegal drugs to self-medicate, and addiction ensues. Disability can ensue, particularly from the mental illness, and you’re back and applying for PWD now. You’re going through that difficult, cumbersome application process that wasn’t necessary in the first place.

For 1,000 people, again, Bill 3 has stopped that and is making it easier for them — as the minister said, just a little bit easier for them. But there are 90,000 others who also need better access to the supports that they require.

I mentioned earlier that I am by no means the first person to say we need better access for everybody, the full 100,000 people who receive PWD. I mentioned what was happening in 2002 and the changes that took place, the changes that created the red tape in the first place. I mentioned that the Auditor General had a good look at what was happening at that time and didn’t have many nice things to say.

[ Page 11031 ]

[1420]

Here are some of the main findings. That report found that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients.

I’m just going to stop for a second, hon. Speaker, because I saw the green light go on. It just reminded me that I will be the designated speaker for our side of the House. The white light’s back on, so I will continue on with my remarks. It’s always amazing how those 30 minutes fly by. You always feel like you’re not going to have enough to say for 30 minutes, and then the green light goes on and: “My goodness. This was a bigger problem than I thought.”

Interjection.

M. Mungall: I don’t think voicing the people’s concerns about what’s going on in the Ministry of Social Development is a waste of time at all, contrary to what I just heard.

As I was saying, this audit by the Auditor General in May 2014 found that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients. That’s all 100,000 clients, not just the 1,000 that the government has identified with this legislation but all of them.

It also found that the level of assistance provided is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients. I’ve discussed that already. In 1994, clients were receiving more than they are today.

It also found that the ministry has not defined clear objectives and measurable targets that define what it means to meet the basic needs of clients. So of course the ministry can’t provide decent rates. It doesn’t even know what the basic needs of clients are and how to meet those needs and how to measure those needs. It’s just not doing its due diligence when it comes to monitoring and evaluation. That’s what this report found.

I mentioned earlier the 1-800 number. It’s not working. It could work; it’s not working very well right now. The on-line system is not working well right now either. It could work; it’s not working very well right now.

We all understand that the application process should require people with disabilities to interact and have a relationship with a GP. Of course, when we have so many orphan patients in the province, not enough physicians…. I’m not going to say that’s entirely this government’s fault. It’s a North American issue right now. But there’s a lot more the government could be doing on that front.

It goes on to say: “The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate.” I hear this all the time. All the time I hear that feedback, people telling me that they don’t understand what the form is saying or what it’s asking of them. It reads at a higher grade level than they’re able to. Being able to just access the Internet can be very difficult for people when they’re living in poverty or if they don’t have the skills to do that.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, I hear from my husband all the time, as a nurse practitioner who is filling out many of these forms, that it’s extremely time-consuming for health practitioners. It’s extremely time-consuming. As a result, many of them are not able to fill these forms out in a timely manner for their patients. They don’t want to be put in that situation, but that’s the situation that they’re in.

[1425]

That’s the reality, and that’s exactly why we see the Auditor General saying that the disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate.

We look at the on-line and telephone services. You hear regular complaints. In fact, a consortium of non-profit organizations last summer — who work day in and day out with people with disabilities — went to the Ombudsperson to have the Ombudsperson look into the poor service level of that 1-800 number. They are continuing to pursue that because they feel it’s desperately important and desperately needed that this government stop denying the problems with that 1-800 number and start fixing that 1-800 number.

I only hope that since 2004 the government has taken great, great steps in rectifying this particular issue that

[ Page 11032 ]

the Auditor General found in 2014. It’s not just a matter of sitting down for an hour with stakeholders. It’s actually taking the results of those meetings, taking action on what came out of those meetings and identifying the full extent of what clients need to make the system more accessible to them.

Here, with Bill 3, we do see a step in that right direction, where we’re going to be better supporting 1,000 people in this province to access the supports that they need. But when we look at the overall total of 100,000, we need to think about the other 99 percent. We need to take that into consideration, and we need to be taking concrete, real steps to ensure that their needs are also being met.

All in all, when I look at Bill 3, it’s not a bad bill. It’s a good bill. But we also have to think. We have the responsibility to discharge our duties in looking at what might not be in the bill that could have been and what more work needs to be done. For 90,000 other people out there, more work needs to be done. There’s just no denying that.

No one is saying: “Get rid of an application process.” No one is saying that. I wanted to be clear on that. I know sometimes members on the other side like to take things off into a realm that isn’t quite reflective of what’s actually been said on this side. So I wanted to just be clear about that.

What we’re saying is that the current application process is difficult. It is cumbersome. Government has recognized that to be the case, but they’ve only found a solution for 1,000 people. We need a solution for 100,000 people. When that solution comes forward, they can be assured — if it comes before 2017 — that this side of the House will do our due diligence, will take on our responsibility and provide critical analysis to it. That’s our job. That is the job of the official opposition.

[1430]

I know that members opposite don’t like that there’s an official opposition who has that responsibility. But it’s part of our democracy. It’s what keeps it strong. It’s what keeps it stable.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

We will most certainly provide that critical analysis. If it’s good legislation, you bet we’ll support it. If it’s not, we’ll have something to say about it as well.

On that note, I’m glad that I got the opportunity to take the time I needed — and the time I know my constituents want to see, as this is something that has definitely impacted their lives quite a lot — to address the history and the long-standing issues that have brought us to today and to Bill 3.

V. Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: In the gallery during question period were 26 French immersion students from South Park elementary in my riding of Delta South. I didn’t have an opportunity at that moment to introduce these grade 6 students, who were accompanied by six chaperones and by their teacher Ms. Monica Burnett.

I’d like to welcome the South Park students to the Legislature and hope they enjoyed not only the experience of sitting in question period but also the tour of the legislative buildings. We’re certainly proud to know that they care enough about the democratic process to pay us a visit and to learn a little more about how government works.

Will the members please give them a warm welcome to this House.

Debate Continued

M. Mungall: I’m always happy to take a water break as well as offer an opportunity for my colleagues to welcome their guests to the House.

I want to just particularly note something that the member for Delta South said now about her guests coming to see democracy in action. That’s kind of where I was leaving off. The debates that occur in this House and the critical analysis that an official opposition provides in our Westminster parliamentary system are integral to our democracy, integral to its stability. I committed that we will always provide, us as an opposition…. Until 2017, we’ll always provide that critical opposition. I’m sure that makes several members of the opposite side quite happy, some maybe not so much.

In closing my remarks, I’ll just say that we appreciate the work that’s being done for the 1,000 people that will be impacted by Bill 3. We want to encourage — along with the Auditor General, along with clients, along with advocacy organizations and non-profits — the government to take the serious steps needed to address the needs of the other 90,000 people who are going through that PWD application.

I think we can do better in this province. I know we can do better in this province, and I look forward to us doing better.

L. Reimer: I am pleased to rise today and provide my comments on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to reduce barriers for people living with disabilities. Bill 3 is the product of extensive consultation between government, people with disabilities, advocates and social support organizations. It is, in part, a follow-up to our ten-year plan to make B.C. the most inclusive society in the country. It commenced with a public consultation process on

[ Page 11033 ]

December 3, 2013, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

[1435]

The government of British Columbia made this commitment because we support Canada’s ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. As such, our government has a responsibility to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities. It also represents a commitment to promote respect for the inherent dignity of persons with disabilities.

For those collecting disability assistance, this government has increased the earnings exemption from $500 to $800 per month. This is important because a person collecting disability assistance can earn a significant amount of income without losing their benefits. As a matter of fact, British Columbia became the first province in Canada to annualize earnings exemptions up to $9,600 a year. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out, earnings exemptions are a valuable path back into the paid workforce.

Virtually everyone wants to make a better life for their children. That’s why we brought in the single-parent initiative. This program is specially designed to help people make it back into the workforce, with help along the way. It includes an array of benefits, including the opportunity to get 12 months of training for an in-demand occupation, transportation coverage to a training institution and full coverage of daycare expenses throughout the 12-month training period. In addition, anyone collecting income assistance who moves on to a paid job will continue to receive supplemental health coverage for up to one year.

We’ve also made significant changes so that people collecting disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash gifts without losing benefits. Now a single person collecting disability benefits can hold $100,000 in assets, while continuing to receive disability assistance. That means a person will not lose income support just because they’ve received an inheritance or a cash gift. That’s an increase up from $5,000.

Guide and service dogs are crucial companions for many British Columbians who live with a disability. For example, they may help individuals who are visually impaired to navigate city streets. They provide assistance with things such as hearing loss, epilepsy, diabetes or post-traumatic stress disorder.

In addition, retired dogs are included in the changes to tenancy rules. Once a dog is no longer certified as a working animal due to age, injury or disease, it will now be able to be certified as retired and remain in a home with its handler.

[1440]

That was evidenced this morning by the MLA for Delta North’s two-minute speech on a retired dog who happens to live in my riding of Port Moody–Coquitlam. This is a very important innovation.

Furthermore, handlers seeking certification for guide and service dogs that were not trained by an accredited school will now be able to have them tested by a neutral third party, the Justice Institute of British Columbia. These are just a few examples of the concrete steps that we are taking to live up to our goal of making British Columbia one of the most inclusive societies in Canada and, indeed, the world.

Overall, Bill 3 will reduce barriers for people living with disabilities. The proposed legislation will allow government to prescribe groups of people as persons with disabilities without making them complete a 28-page application form or chase additional assessments by medical practitioners. These proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with disabilities and their

[ Page 11034 ]

families. It will also cut paperwork for doctors and other health care professionals who need to fill out forms on behalf of their clients.

For all of these reasons, I’m proud to support Bill 3 on behalf of my constituents of Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra and Coquitlam.

L. Krog: It’s always interesting how things work in this place. Earlier today, I spoke to a bill relating to corrections to a statute, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, which ran on for 19 pages. After I’d finished, I received a note from one wag in the chamber who suggested, after I’d commented about the l’s, that it didn’t make one “l” of a difference, which I thought was actually extremely amusing.

The effect of that legislation is minimal. It satisfies legal requirements. It needed to be done. I don’t question that. Yet the bill we have in front of us consists of three short sections, including the standard commencement

section that says: “This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

This legislation, this literally half-page of legislation, has a profound impact on thousands and thousands of British Columbians. It’s not complex. It’s not difficult to understand. It amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons as persons with a disability without them having to fill out a rather onerous 28-page application form that requires their input, the input of a physician and the input of the ministry.

I suspect — I think I can almost swear to a moral certainty — that there’s not a member in this chamber who doesn’t have people in their office on a regular basis who are in need of social assistance, people who are already receiving social assistance and people who are desperate and in need in the broadest sense of that term. Many of them suffer from some degree of mental illness. Many of them suffer some degree of addiction. Many of them are from backgrounds that could only be described as abusive. You know, to remember the Hobbes line, their lives are “nasty, brutish and short.”

What we’re finally doing with this is just taking a little dose of reality and acknowledging the stress, the pain and the frustration that has been felt by thousands of British Columbians when, for whatever reason, they have had to make that decision or have been forced to apply for social assistance. Contrary to the beliefs and views of some around the deserving and the undeserving poor, when you apply for social assistance…. The vast majority of folks — for them it is the final straw. You can use any cliché in the book you want.

[1445]

They’ve, in large measure, most often, sold off what assets they have. They have begged and borrowed from their friends, and in some cases, they’ve stolen. There’s no great desire or interest or ambition to get onto social assistance. There might be for a few folks, just as there’s a desire for many of us to win the lottery and not have to worry about the stressors of work anymore. But it’s not the same thing. The vast majority of British Columbians don’t want to end up on social assistance, but the reality of their lives and their circumstances is such that they do.

Imagine the surprise when they apply for social assistance — and they’re clearly people who are in desperate need and who would qualify and do qualify for persons-with-disabilities status —and they’re told that first they have to apply for regular social assistance, and then they have to go through this other process to satisfy the government that they’re entitled to that munificent sum of about $300 more per month than a person receiving “regular social assistance.”

Why would we make the lives of those who are applying for disability status so much more difficult? In fairness…. The government doesn’t get a lot of compliments from me. I don’t think that’s my job. They sing their own praises so readily in this chamber and off the song sheet and talk about what a good job they’ve done. There’s no need for me to compliment them or say thank you, particularly. But today I do want to pay them a compliment: small as this bill may be, it is absolutely the right thing to do.

Now, I appreciate that the government may wish to take credit for this reduction in red tape, arguably. But it really reflects a recognition, I would hope, on the part of government, that after these 15 years in power, maybe they finally should turn around and look at their list of priorities. Examine it carefully and decide what, I would suggest, the majority of British Columbians, including many people who vote Liberal, have concluded, and concluded some time ago, and that is that what we provide for the poor in British Columbia is not only inadequate; it’s grossly inadequate.

By making it a little easier for people who have already, by circumstance or the decision forced on them by circumstance, because of a lack of ability to support themselves, whatever the case may be…. For those people who have finally come to apply for social assistance, in order for them to get persons-with-disabilities status, the government has actually done a really good thing by making it that much easier. It is to be commended.

But at the same time, it’s like sweet-and-sour candies.

Hon. T. Lake: Don’t ruin it.

L. Krog: The Minister of Health says: “Don’t ruin it.” Well, if the Minister of Health had been listening…. I told him my job wasn’t to compliment the government too much, and he should accept the generosity of spirit I’m extending here today and just be pleased with a tiny amount. Better half a loaf than none.

[ Page 11035 ]

J. Darcy: No, that’s their line.

L. Krog: Oh, is that their line? Interesting. The member for New Westminster says that’s their line: better half a loaf than none. Well, that’s a very interesting supposition, because as we all know: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.”

But that aside, I would hope that now we’re moving down the road a little, maybe the government could actually reflect for a moment on what it attempted to do — if it was entirely pure-hearted, congratulations — with the bus pass issue and the $77 increase.

I understand the logic behind trying to equalize treatment across the province. I get it. You know, if you live in an area where a bus pass is of no use to you because there’s no bus service, I get that. So you get the $77. That’s an improvement. Minuscule as it is, you get the improvement. But for those folks who have access to a bus pass, you’ve given the $77, and suddenly you claw back some of it.

[1450]

No matter how you regard it, no matter how many arguments you make…. The Minister for Advanced Education understands this, because I know he prides himself on mentioning from time to time who the lawyers are in the chamber.

The man — forgive me for using that expression, but that’s the expression we learned in law school: the man on the Clapham omnibus, the reasonable man, the ordinary man — who would look at this would say: “This isn’t fair and reasonable. This doesn’t pass the common-man test.” It doesn’t pass the common-woman test, I can assure you. It doesn’t pass any reasonable test. It looks, and is, nasty. It’s unkind. It is not in accord with our values to give $77 to the most vulnerable and then to claw it back, all in the hopes of arguing for some kind of equality across the board.

Let’s be frank. If I am living in the city of Vancouver, where there may be more subsidized housing available, that’s a grand thing. But the reality is that the cost of housing in the Lower Mainland is much more substantial than it is in Fort St. John, Fort St. James, Nanaimo, Port Hardy, Zeballos, Courtenay, Comox — you name the communities. So when we give a level rate of assistance across the province, that doesn’t take into account the realities of living in poverty.

I remember many, many years ago, when my sister-in-law was starting her career in teaching, there were northern school districts, before provincewide bargaining, that would give, essentially, a bonus or a benefit. There was a recognition that in order to attract people to rural communities — where travelling out of them was much more expensive than hopping on a plane in Vancouver if you live in Richmond or Langley, for instance, or getting access to specialized services in the big city — you had to pay a little more.

There were other expenses as well. Groceries would be more expensive. Fresh produce, I can assure the members, in Stewart, where my sister-in-law first taught, are far more expensive and were far more expensive than they are if you go to any ordinary shopping centre and food store in the Lower Mainland.

So one could argue that paying an equal amount of social assistance across the board every place in the province is not particularly fair, based on the reality of expenses. In the same way this bill recognizes that people on social assistance shouldn’t be forced to work through onerous applications, when this government brought in its policy to increase by $77 and then claw away, it again, I would argue, isn’t recognizing the disparities that already exist.

Let’s take it one step further. In the province of Alberta, and I confirmed this with a former social worker from that province just a couple of weeks ago, a person with disability would receive approximately $1,500 a month. Now, that change and some of those changes were brought in by no less a right-wing, gun-toting, “shoot, shovelling, shut-up” cowboy Premier than Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein recognized that the citizens of his province who were disabled, who had disability status, should in fact receive something more akin to their real costs of living.

After nine years since the last increase, surely this government should be able to recognize that it’s time for a real and substantial increase. When you’re bragging about your third projected surplus budget and you have citizens who are living on $610 a month and you’ve got a surplus and indeed enough of a surplus to fill in a fund that you couldn’t fill in with your liquid natural gas revenue because — poof! — that doesn’t exist…. When you’ve got enough money to set up that fund, surely you could find some more money to give to those whose lives are circumscribed by illness mental or physical, by addiction, by lack of skills, ability, by all the things in life that can hold you back.

[1455]

For people who live in prisons — some may argue of their own making; I don’t think so, but some do — created by the circumstances in which they live and the difficulties that they face every day, would it be so hard to provide an increase?

I think it’s fair to say, and there’s probably general agreement, that the best investments government can make around return on that investment for tax dollars is to engage in capital construction. I think brighter minds than I have determined the return is, like, 7 to 1. You do that, and it comes back in the form of taxation, increased economic activity, etc. It’s an enormous benefit.

Surely, no one would argue against the proposition that when you’re giving an increase to anyone on social assistance, that money, or the vast majority of it, is going to be spent within a few miles, probably, of where those people reside. They’re going to buy some food. They

[ Page 11036 ]

might get some fresh fruit. They might even be able to afford a better class of secondhand pair of shoes. But that money will go back into the economy.

It’s not going into a savings account. It’s not going to be spent on winter holidays that many of us in this chamber can afford to happily take. It’s not going to be spent on a new car. It’s not going to be spent on gifts for your family, probably. It’s going to be spent on the most basic necessities of life. Surely, it is the collective responsibility of us, through government, to ensure that the most vulnerable have some access to some reasonable quality of life.

Today with this bill the government takes a tiny step, for which I am sincerely grateful, in that it makes it a tiny bit easier for people who are eligible to apply for and obtain disability status and, therefore, the increase that comes with that. But sometimes you have to step back and acknowledge that this doesn’t require tinkering.

This isn’t about tinkering. This is about a fulsome recognition that what exists is unfair, that the purchasing power of people on social assistance is not what it was ten and 20 and 30 years ago, that indeed people on assistance are worse off today. People like Jane Dyson, the executive director of Disability Alliance B.C. — folks like her. People who have worked in the field for a long time, economists, can tell you. People with real expertise — statisticians, Stats Canada — can all tell you the reality of what it is to be poor in British Columbia.

It isn’t getting better, and it’s not going to get better, because the members across the way brag about the numbers of jobs created or whether the government is in surplus or whether we’re the best-performing economy in a country that is performing poorly economically. That’s not going to make any difference ultimately, unless, when government revenues are in surplus, you’re actually going to take some of that money and give it back to the people who need it most.

That’s all I’m asking. All I’m asking is that the government open themselves up to the possibility that no one, not even their own supporters, will criticize them if they exercise some genuine compassion in the way that they’ve exercised some compassion and understanding of the issues in this legislation.

I’m certainly going to support this bill. That’s without question, and I would think I wouldn’t even have to state that. That’s pretty obvious. But at the same time, I have to ask, as I say thank you: why not more?

[1500]

If you’re going to brag that you have the fiscal capacity to create a prosperity fund with surplus money, if you’re going to brag about your forecast allowance and your forecast surplus and how you’re going to give a benefit to public servants because the economy performed well enough that they’ll see a small benefit themselves…. When you can brag about all those things and, at the very same time, the best you can do is give $77 a month to people on disability status…. Surely we can do better.

I’m simply asking the government, as we consider this bill, as we take this tiny step forward, to actually, reasonably, look at this and say: “You know what? We can. We should. It’s the right thing to do.” No one is going to criticize you. Indeed, I undertake to be one of the first members on this side of the House to thank the government if they do.

If the Minister of Health wants a little more sweet, then I’m just going to suggest that perhaps the members on the government side work a little harder, take a little sharper pencil to the budget and find the money. It is the right thing to do. Everyone knows it’s the right thing to do. You’d be popular for doing it. You’d receive gratitude for doing it. Your heads might hit the pillow at night feeling a little cleared in your conscience, better than they were when you woke up. So why not? There’s, ultimately, no excuse.

The lives of people who receive persons-with-disabilities status are not going to improve unless the government is prepared to improve their lives by increasing the allowance appropriately. I could talk all day about those who receive ordinary social assistance, an amount so appallingly low, I can’t imagine how government can continue to hold the line on that one. Just talking today and reflecting on the substance of this bill…. Please, it’s not that hard.

I’m not going to do a C.D. Howe moment, as much as I am tempted to. He is reputed to have said: “What’s a million?” In fact, I’m not even sure he said that, and it doesn’t really matter. In the context of the budget that we have in British Columbia, is it that hard? Is it that hard to throw what amounts to, literally, pennies out of that budget total? Throw a few pennies in the way of the poor — not an unreasonable thing to request.

I’d like to think the government members are actually listening. I believe, in my heart, that they’re good people. They care. They want to see life better for people. For people receiving disability payments, short of a miracle, it’s not going to get better unless the folks on that side of the chamber decide to do so. Or, alternatively, they let the folks on this side of the chamber do their jobs.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m delighted to get up and speak to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. I always enjoy following the hon. member for Nanaimo, and I always live in anticipation that he actually is going to stop when he says thank you, without transitioning into a then much longer speech about how we’re not doing our job and so on. I appreciate his eloquence. I appreciate a somewhat warped sense of humour that I hear, from time to time, but I do appreciate the fact that he has his perspective.

I will say to the hon. member for Nanaimo…. He said it relates to pennies. Well, in this budget that was just recently tabled in this House, there was an increase of $170 million into the ministry’s budget to do the very

[ Page 11037 ]

thing that the member talked about — that is, to provide more support and assistance for the very people that he is concerned about. To me, that’s not pennies. That is a significant investment as a result of fiscal policies that have allowed us to put that money and invest it in the future of British Columbians who need that support.

[1505]

I know that the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation and the team in her ministry have worked extremely hard to find some innovative and progressive programs that will meet the needs of the people on disabilities and people with disabilities. I know that these steps…. The minister has said it publicly and in this House on a number of occasions. We all wish we could do more. When you see that this ministry has received an increase of $170 million, it is a clear indication that the work that has gone on to find the areas where support is needed is being done.

I know that the minister, her team in the ministry and every member on the government side is committed to helping people with disabilities by making it easier for them to have access to the programs and services they need. That is at the heart of the proposed legislative changes. It will allow us to help those groups, such as people with disabilities, without having them be forced to go through an arduous and long application process. We understand that, and that’s what these proposed changes do.

It will not only reduce red tape; it will also cut the paperwork for the professionals. I might add that as part of what has happened in the ministry and some of the progressive steps they’ve taken, they’ve added other professionals who can help with that application process.

That is going to provide more access for people with disabilities to get that appropriate application and sign-off done. They will help them to fill out those forms, and that is going to be a significant move in the right direction. This bill will help to cut the paperwork, and that respects the work of the professionals that work with these individuals in our province.

When this legislation comes into force, the people in the following provincial and federal programs will complete a much simpler PWD application process. That includes organizations like Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care program and the Canada Pension Plan disability program. That has been done to ensure, again, that we help individuals get the support they need when they need it and in a timely fashion.

This bill, this legislation, is just one of the many ways that the government has been working to streamline the disability assistance application process. The ministry has also reduced the amount of time it takes to process an application for persons with disabilities designation and created the simplified form for youth transitioning to the CLBC services.

Our government remains committed to working with people with disabilities in order to make their lives easier. Again, the hon. member for Nanaimo and, prior to him, the member for Nelson-Creston talked about the policies of this government that have made it more difficult.

I think history lessons often come up in this House, and there is one. The pure fact is that the only time the rates were cut for people in this category was under the NDP government, not by this government. We’ve continued to increase it, and we will continue to work with them and provide them with the supports that they need.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Fassbender: The only cuts that were made…. I hear the members opposite. They’re talking about cuts. The cuts that were made were for single employables, not PWD individuals, and we created programs that would help them to get work.

[1510]

Here’s a bit of news for the members opposite: the program has been extremely successful. People who needed jobs and who wanted jobs now have those jobs and are self-sustaining and have the dignity that we, on this side of the House, want to ensure we help them receive. We will continue to do that.

That ten-year action plan identifies what society can do to reduce barriers for people with disabilities and create more accessible, inclusive communities where people are respected no matter what their circumstance may be.

That is seen across this country as being innovative and progressive, recognizing that we need to respect the people who, because of issues perhaps not even of their own making, because of circumstances beyond their control, have been perhaps not honoured the way they should be in communities. We are committed to ensuring that we work to do that change that needs to happen.

The proposed legislation does reflect the feedback we’ve received from people with disabilities and the organizations, and we know that it is the right step in the right direction and will make their lives that much easier.

Our comprehensive social safety net in this province is in place to provide temporary support to help people find meaningful work. Many times on this side of the House we’ve talked about the fact that our goal is to provide an economy that has access to meaningful jobs and for people to be lifted out of poverty, not by subsidies and handouts but by being given the opportunity to work, and to have the respect that they deserve for who they are and what they bring to our communities.

We continue to refine our income assistance policies in ways that help people increase their household income

[ Page 11038 ]

and create better independence. Just a couple of examples. The child support payments are now fully exempt, providing an additional $32 million over the next three years for 3,200 families. Earning exemptions doubled from $200 to $400 per month for all families with children and increased from $300 to $500 per month for families who have a child with a disability.

We’ve also, for people on disability assistance, increased earning exemptions from $500 to $800 a month. In January of 2015, B.C. became the first province to annualize those earning exemptions up to $9,600 a year.

Again, I remind the Member for Nanaimo that those are not pennies. Those are real dollars that are making a real difference in those families’ lives, and they are appreciative of that work.

They can now keep their basic health supplement coverage for a full year when they leave income assistance for employment, so we help them as they transition into the meaningful jobs that I spoke about. We’ve also made significant changes so that people on disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash gifts, making our policies the most generous in all of Canada.

In the last while, we’ve talked about the bus pass. We’ve heard the opposition trying to suggest that this government has cut, and that is not true. They’ve used words like “clawback.” That is also not correct. What we’ve actually done, as the minister has said every day in this House, is made it fairer, provided more equitability across the province.

[1515]

They now, today, have more than they had before that was brought in — not less, but more. The people in the community, in the disability community, are beginning to see that when they see the facts, not the misrepresentation of the facts that we hear from the members opposite.

Again, our government is working to provide jobs, a stable economy and opportunities for everyone, no matter where they live, no matter who they are, no matter what their circumstance in life is. We’re doing that because we respect them. We want to see everyone in this province flourish and have great opportunities. I applaud the work of the minister and her department in providing the path to success and to a bright future.

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d say I have great delight in speaking about this bill, but after some of the remarks I’ve heard, I’ve got to say we need to put our heads on, stop patting ourselves on the back and start thinking about the people that we’re actually talking about here — people living with disabilities; people trying to survive in communities across B.C. with ever-increasing housing costs, food costs, hydro costs and so forth; people trying to get by, often on a little over $900 a month, and on and on it goes.

Well, this bill is looking to make it so that — I’ve heard approximately 1,000 — people don’t have to fill out as many application forms, one of which is 28 pages long, so that they can get the assistance they need to live.

Well, where did that 28-page application come from? What is the history of this bill, of this need? What is the history of how we treat people with disabilities in this province? I’ve got to say it’s not that good.

Now, I know the hon. minister, the minister across the way, said: “We’re the most generous in Canada.” I think these were his words. Generosity, the idea of: “Well, I’ll be kind. I’ll give you something extra. I’ll be generous.” Generous helpings generally means bigger helpings.

Generosity quite often seems to denote charity, the idea of: “Well, I’ve got more than you, so I’ll give it to you because I’m nice.” Not because it’s your right, not because of social justice, not because of care, the feeling that we are all humans and have a duty to look out for each other, but a “I have more than you, and maybe I’ll give you a little bit” — not a “We are equals”. It generally seems to denote, sometimes, a one above the other.

For me, I was brought up to believe that we are all equal. We should all be treated equally. Equity. But in that, I’ve also been brought up to understand that some people start off on third base and think they’ve hit a triple. Some people start out at home plate and think they hit a home run. Some people can’t even get to the batting cage. Some people can’t even swing the bat.

We don’t treat all of them equally and assume that, well, everybody can do exactly the same thing and everybody has the same abilities. Yet many people in this House do. Many people don’t recognize their privileges. When people talk about B.C. — “the greatest place on earth” used to be the catchphrase of the government of the day — what they don’t reflect on is that, for many people, it’s a pretty hard place to live.

I think it’s our duty as legislators, when we represent people, to do our best to try and represent them all. Now, I understand there’s no way that I can speak for everybody, in the sense that I can never understand everything they’ve gone through, to be able to understand the challenges that they’re living every day, but I try my best. I don’t try to pretend that I know what’s best for them. People generally know what’s best for themselves or for their families.

I also don’t try and talk down to them and tell them, “Well, we’re being generous, so you should be happy,” when they can’t afford to eat. But that’s what we hear from this government. There’s no humility in this. This is the people’s money, not their money. This is British Columbia’s money we’re talking about.

[1520]

I know governments are never humble. I know governments want credit for everything under the sun that’s good and none of the credit for things that go bad. We get it. That’s politics. That’s often humanity’s way of being. We’re all fragile in one point or another. We all have egos. We all believe we’re trying to do the best we can. But hu-

[ Page 11039 ]

mility, I think, requires us to understand that we’re not doing the best we can for people living with disabilities.

Bringing in a law that is going to make it easier for a small number is a good thing. To be fair, it’s a good thing, and I will give the government credit for doing that good thing. But there are over 90,000 other people who still have to deal with 28-page forms.

There could be any number of us who become disabled, although to be fair, because of the provisions we’ve given ourselves with benefits and salaries, etc., many of us probably wouldn’t have to go through this process at all. But it could be. It could be a family member, a constituent. Indeed, many constituents have to face this.

We’re not doing anything for those people who we know, as rents increase and costs increase, are still struggling at food banks, if they’re able to get there. They’re still struggling to even fill out a 28-page web-based application form, if they even know how to fill out on a computer or if they can find an advocate who can do it for them — if they’re even able to communicate that.

Let’s go back to how this began. In January 2002, the B.C. Liberals decided to launch one of the most regressive attacks — I would argue a mean-spirited attack — on people with disabilities. They brought in massive application forms. I remember those days.

I wasn’t a member of the House at the time, but I remember talking to people in my community who found that their friends, their loved ones, people who were neighbours that they didn’t know that well, ended up evicted, in some cases ended up homeless, because they were unable to fill out the reams and reams of information this government demanded from them without providing any supports and with really — you could call it poor-bashing; you could call it what you want — a focus on driving people off the list so they could reduce their own budget deficit and, of course, throw these people into personal deficit, personal pain, anguish and struggle.

It was unbelievable to me that a government would act that way, but they did, and that led to a spike in homelessness, a spike in health care costs and legal costs, a spike in personal pain and community conflict as people living with disability, often struggling, were forced onto the streets by this government through their attack, their lack of care, their lack of willingness.

This one piece of legislation is going to allow approximately 1,000 people — maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less — not to have to fill out this 28-page application form. But it’s still required for about 90,000, give or take.

That 28-page application came out of that process, so it’s kind of an echo from those days. Now, 2002 is a long time ago — not so long in the geological scale of time, but a long time for people living in struggle, living in pain. For 14 years, this government has decided to force people through this process, and only now are they saying: “Well, for a small minority of you, we’re going to take that away.”

But they continue to let people struggle, unable to pay their bills, sometimes forced into crime, forced into horrible situations. I’ve met disabled people who’ve been forced, they argue, into sex work and other things to try and pay the bills and be able to feed themselves.

This legislation is not the most generous. This B.C. government is not the most generous. This B.C. government, as the minister said before me: “We all wish we could do more.” That’s what the minister said. Well, they can. They just don’t. Wish — as if somehow the government was unable to decide what went into a budget. “We all wish we could do more,” says the minister, as if somebody else made up the budget and they had no ability to change it.

[1525]

In fact, they did have an ability to change it, and they do. If we think back in terms of this legislation and its impact on disabilities but also, really, the impact of the lack of care for people living with disabilities….

We didn’t see that same lack of care, that same inability to make changes, when the richest 2 percent of our society — those that can afford yachts, those that can afford trips around the world, those that can afford multiple homes…. We didn’t see that same inability to wish to help those people but be unable to do so. No, this government gave them a $236 million tax cut, each and every year. So in this term of government, it will be over, approximately, $1 billion, give or take.

No, they were not unable to help the richest 2 percent, but they were unable to make a real difference in the lives of people struggling to eat, living on disability; struggling to pay their rent, living on disability. That’s not the most generous. That’s gross. That’s uncaring. That’s making a choice to benefit the wealthiest while making things no better for people who are struggling on disability.

That’s not what I was brought up to accept. My family values, which I was brought up to accept and to be expected to follow, are that if I had a little bit more than the next guy, I tried to make it even. I tried to make sure that that person coming along, who was living a life without anything…. Friends of mine, as I was raised, who lived in a single room, multiple kids sometimes, people who had little resources, maybe a single family — it was our job to try to make things better for them, too, not to say: “Well, sorry, you can’t eat, and I can’t give you anything. You can’t come over to my house for dinner, because I’m going around the world on the Concorde.”

No, that’s not how I was brought up, but that seems to be what we’re seeing here from this government, that kind of approach to dealing with the most vulnerable, and that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable.

The minister is bringing forward a bill which will help some people, and I give her credit for that. I thank her for looking out for that small number of people who don’t have to fill out now, once this bill is passed, more and more paperwork — and have the social workers have to deal with paperwork and the doctors and so on, in that small subset of the population.

[ Page 11040 ]

But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that we are doing the most we can, that this government is doing the most they can for people living with disabilities. They clearly are not. They clearly decided to prioritize the wealthy, the richest of the rich, over those who, through no fault of their own, are struggling on disability, struggling to live the life that most of us in this chamber — all of us in this chamber — get to enjoy, that many British Columbians get to enjoy.

British Columbians, I think, believe in fairness. I think British Columbians do want better for those who are struggling with disabilities in poverty. They do want better. I hear it all the time in my community. But I also hear it from people who are very wealthy, those that may have got that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars tax cut. They say to me that they didn’t need the money. In fact, they felt that it was better for the economy and better for our communities if the vulnerable got the support.

They too understand that it’s not just humanly, morally wrong to reward the rich while not doing very much at all for the poor, for those living with disabilities. They understood that, in fact, for the economy and for their own businesses, it made more sense to invest in these people, because they’re not going take the money and plunk it down in a trust fund somewhere else to try and avoid taxes. No, they’re not going to take that money and invest in a yacht in the Caribbean or a vacation property in France. No.

[1530]

They’re going to invest it right into their own communities, buying food, buying clothes, paying their bills, donating to charities, just like we all would want to be able to do. Going to a show, perhaps. Trying to live a good life. That’s, I think, what British Columbians would want us to do, to recognize that we’re all in it together, or we should be.

I believe we are all in it together, but our society and our government don’t act that way. When we don’t act that way, when we don’t recognize that we are all in it together, whether we like it or not — pain, turmoil, stress, disease, illness — the costs to the person who is struggling in poverty and, indeed, the costs to all of us increase, much more so than if we prepared and supported a good life for people living on disability.

I know the Finance Minister earlier said he’s just making it a little bit less hard, as if somebody living in poverty on a disability payment needed to be stuck in a life of hardness. That doesn’t sound the most generous to me. That sounds like: “Yeah. Life’s really hard for you. We’re going to keep it that way. We’re going to use some sandpaper to try and soften the hard edges that you’re having to deal with that are beating you down. Maybe it’ll be slightly less sharp. Maybe instead of having….” Anyway, hon. Speaker, you get my point. You understand.

I will support this bill. But I will support it because I think it’s one small step, not because it changes everything. Clearly, it doesn’t. I will support it, and I will encourage the minister and this government to do better, us all to do better. We’re all here. We all have an ability to do it. We all have an ability to make the change that we desire, but you actually have to want that change. It’s not wishing for change and doing nothing. It’s making that change.

D. Barnett: Our government is committed to helping people with disabilities by making it easier for them to access the services they need. British Columbia has a wide-ranging system of disability assistance supports for individuals who can’t work or have difficulty working full-time. That support system includes total disability rates and other supports such as earnings exemptions, discounted bus passes, medical supplies, fuel tax rebates and ICBC discounts.

We have introduced significant changes that allow people on disability assistance to live more independent lives while building a more secure financial future and giving their families more peace of mind. For example, a single person with a person-with-disabilities designation can now hold $100,000 in assets while continuing to receive disability assistance, up from $5,000. For a family where two people have persons-with-disabilities designations, the asset limit is $200,000, up from $10,000.

[1535]

Persons with disabilities can now receive recurring gifts of cash without losing their eligibility for assistance, and people receiving disability assistance will be able to receive more financial help from friends, families or other supporters.

We are simplifying the application process to make it easier for some people applying for disability assistance. Under proposed legislation, people who are already approved for eligible provincial and federal programs will no longer have to complete an application for the persons-with-disabilities designation in order to access assistance.

We have also made important changes to our policies to ensure we’re providing the supports people need to get back into the workforce, while helping to improve the financial picture for B.C.’s most vulnerable people. For example, we have increased earnings exemptions, for individuals receiving disability assistance, to $800 a

[ Page 11041 ]

month so those who are able to work are supported and encouraged to find employment without compromising their benefits.

B.C. is the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce a way that these earnings exemptions can be calculated annually, rather than monthly, to provide flexibility for people on disability assistance who can work occasionally during the year.

For those who are able to work, the employment program of B.C. has helped nearly 18,000 people with disabilities reach their employment goals since 2012.

The proposed legislation will allow government to prescribe groups of people as persons with disabilities without them completing a 28-page application or additional assessments by medical practitioners. These proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with disabilities and their families; they will also cut paperwork for doctors and other health care professionals who need to fill out forms on behalf of clients.

This bill does two important things. It is making life easier for individuals and their families, and it reduces red tape. We remain committed to working with people with disabilities in order to make their lives easier.

S. Hammell: It pleases me to be able to join the discussion in the House on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. This bill amends the Employment and Assistance Act in two basic sections and allows the government to make it a little bit easier for those people with disabilities. At least for some of the people with disabilities, there’s a little less red tape.

Of course, we have a no-red-tape or fewer-red-tapes day or some kind of day that celebrates less red tape, which everyone is keen to hear about. But it is particularly comforting to know that the government is looking at people with disabilities and trying, in their way, to make life a little bit easier.

The two changes that are coming along are that some people with disabilities — not all but some — will not be required to fill out the 28 pages that the current form requires. Think about it — 28 pages. I think most people would be absolutely delighted to see the back end of 28 pages of anything in terms of a form. I don’t think you fill out 28 pages to get your passport. I don’t think you fill out 28 pages to do many things in life. But of course, if you’re disabled — and particularly some types of disability — to fill out 28 pages would, I think, be nigh on impossible. Though some people….

I find it really interesting to try to contemplate the people that are now being told that they do not have to fill out this form. They are people living in Community Living B.C. I would assume that, to be engaged or allowed into that program, there is plenty of assessment that people have gone through.

[1540]

Now to not force them to do 28 pages to prove they’re disabled, after they’ve already been accepted into Community Living B.C., just makes common sense. Another program that the government runs…. Community Living B.C. is funded by the provincial government. To connect Community Living B.C. with not having to fill out a 28-page form is certainly good news.

Another program is the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program. Here we have another ministry program that, again, does not have to fill out a 28-page form dictated by another part of the ministry or another ministry. That is good news, and I think it is absolutely fabulous that this government is bringing forth this legislation.

Another two programs deserve mentioning. I was a little bit surprised at this one. If you are now in the B.C. palliative care plan, if you’re in palliative care, you don’t now have to fill out the 28-page form. I certainly know that some of us, more recently than not, are experiencing people that are moving into palliative care. To think that they had to fill out a 28-page form when they’re dying and can’t work is short of ludicrous. Again, that is excellent news that that form is being set aside in terms of people who are in palliative care.

Then, of course, the last one is the Canada Pension Plan disability. I would assume that there has been some rigour by the federal government in terms of entering the Canada disability program. There is some sense of duplication — that if you’ve been accepted into the Canada disability plan, maybe you don’t need to fill out another 28 pages of forms.

Of course, getting rid of this kind of onerous requirement for people on disabilities…. All the time, we have to remember that we are talking about people with disabilities. That is a wide, wide range of people in our community, ranging from obvious physical disabilities to mental disabilities to, in essence, the inability to cope with some of the challenges of life.

This bill also, in those four categories, says that people will not be required to have additional medical examinations by doctors or nurse practitioners. Again, you have four programs that have some rigour behind them in terms of identifying — and well they should — those people who have disabilities.

What the government is saying through this legislation — and, of course, it should be supported — is that now we not only don’t have to force people to fill in a 28-page form, which, I submit, some of us here in this House might have difficulty doing, but then, to boot, having already been accepted in some other program, we’re not going to require them to have additional medical examinations and pass some kind of additional medical process.

We will get a simpler person-with-disability process for some of the people who are disabled in our community, and we will all celebrate that as good news. There’s lots of

[ Page 11042 ]

good cheer going from us to the other side. This is great news for those people who qualify and are participating in these programs.

[1545]

The amazing fact to ponder is that the Liberal government created the current form. We’re untangling a mess that has been created by the current government — if not the current government, the predecessor in terms of time.

The 28-page-form, I know, is onerous. It’s not only onerous for the people who fill out that 28-page form…. Regardless of whether they’re exempt now, there’s still a number of people who have to fill out that form, and I know it is onerous for doctors and nurse practitioners to assist in filling that form out. This is a complicated process, and we are expecting people to do something that is very, very complicated, and some of the disabilities make that difficult. And when you know that a doctor or a nurse practitioner with either eight or maybe ten years of university has difficulty filling out these forms, you do wonder at the sanity of having something that complicated in the first place.

I remember watching and then speaking with an advocate at one of the non-profits in Vancouver. I watched as they worked through people who were applying for disability. I watched how incredibly difficult the process was, not only for the person who was applying but the person who was assisting — and then a description of how difficult it was to get all of the ancillary forms that were attached to this 28-page form filled out accurately by the doctors that were needed to verify.

So it is good news. I mean, I think that all we have to do is quote from Jane Dyson, the executive director of the Disability Alliance. She says:

“This is great news. Today’s announcement will simplify the process of accessing disability services for hundreds of people with disabilities and their families every year.”

That’s great.

When you raise a nation, you raise everyone. When you pick people up and you help them move on in life, it’s just plain good news. So I’m glad the government has seen that there is a different way of doing this.

In 2001 — I know that goes back a bit, but we’re all conscious of history — Minister Murray Coell subjected people with disabilities to a wasteful and intimidating review. Almost 20,000 people with disabilities were forced to fill in lengthy questionnaires to justify their benefits. The review cost the taxpayers $3 million, caused enormous hardship and anxiety for thousands of British Columbians and found that the vast majority of people indeed did have disabilities.

The genesis of that 28-page application form comes from a process back in 2001. The government on the other side has said that there have been no cuts to services and programs, but there is a long list of services and programs that will no longer be available to people with disabilities, seniors and people who live on lower incomes — cut on March 4, 2010. In 2010.

[1550]

We have 2001 and a major review that was the genesis of this 28-page application process that is now being taken away or eliminated for some of the people who are on disability.

Then we have a 2010 review that included cuts of medical equipment and supplies, such as glucometers for diabetics, electrotherapy devices for people suffering joint and muscle pain, orthotics, medication delivery devices and contraceptives. It also made it so that the only way people who could qualify for healthy supplements are those that can demonstrate that in fact they are facing a direct and imminent, life-threatening health need.

They will also eliminate the minimum shelter allowance of $75 for people living with disabilities, make sponsors responsible for funeral costs for new immigrants who cannot afford to pay themselves, and cut people off from medical supplements as they transition from IA to employment or to federal assistance.

There is a history of looking at the disability community and seeing if they are really disabled and how much help they actually need and then putting them through some onerous system of 28 pages to ensure that they are bona fide applicants. It is excellent news to hear of that 28-page application process being eliminated for some, even if it’s only four categories of people, in the disability community. Those four categories have some previous or some concurring system that allows them to assure the government that these are bona fide people with disabilities.

I don’t know where this generosity came from, but I think that it might have been promoted by the Auditor General’s look at the disability system in the recent past. I think it was 2014 when the Auditor General took a look at the ministry’s disability assistance service to see if they were accessible, to determine if the ministry can demonstrate that its eligibility decisions and payments for disability assistance were accurate and timely, and to determine if the ministry can demonstrate whether it contributes to improved outcomes for its disability assistance clients.

That was certainly not our report. It was the Auditor General’s report in May of 2014 — about a year and a half or more ago. The finding was that the disability assistance program is not easy to access. Now, it may have something to do with that 28-page form with all of its complications. “The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate.” We have people with disabilities, and what we’re doing is creating a system that’s complex and difficult to navigate. “Both the on-line and telephone services are not consistently accessible for cli-

[ Page 11043 ]

I have been around the system and had discussions with people in the community on how incredibly difficult the on-line and telephone system services are. We are asking people in our community, some who are fragile and some who need more assistance than normal, to do stuff that is incredibly difficult. What is wrong with our heads?

[1555]

It is good — it is absolutely great — to ensure that people who apply for disability are genuinely disabled. But to make the system difficult for those people who are disabled to access it is not okay.

“The audit found that there is a risk that some individuals may be in receipt of PWD benefits that do not qualify,” which is not good. “In addition, there is a risk that clients whose condition has worsened are not receiving the services” that they need. “The ministry cannot demonstrate that eligibility decisions are timely.”

The whole world of disabilities, and how government interfaces with people that it is committed to and has a responsibility to serve, has a history. We come to this day and to this act.

I think, with all the goodwill that the government is showing and with our will on this side of the House, all of us are pleased to support this bill. We think it’s a small step in the right direction, and we do encourage the minister to continue on this path, with making sure that the people who justly deserve assistance from government, who are disabled in our community, receive the assistance they so deserve.

M. Hunt: I rise to speak in support, also, of Bill 3, which is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act.

I find it a particular privilege to be able to follow the member for Surrey–Green Timbers in her speaking to this bill because, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, she certainly has more experience in this House than I have. She’s had the awesome privilege of being able to be on both sides of the House and has a lot more of the history of how things have gone on and how they have come to where they are today. Certainly, I don’t have that.

As a first-term member of this House, I’m coming in with the conditions as they are. I’m pleased to support this bill because it’s heading, as far as I’m concerned, in the right direction. It’s going in the direction we want to go, of reducing red tape, of making things better for those people with disabilities.

It’s when I’m listening to the two sides go back and forth on this, in the previous discussions that we’ve heard, it’s like an argument over whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. Everybody wants more to be in the glass. I can’t debate how it got to be at the level that it’s at.

I’m pleased that because of the previous balanced budgets that we’ve been able to deliver, we’ve been able to help those who have disabilities. We’ve been able to raise the income exemption, from $500 a month to $800 a month, for those people who are collecting disability benefits but can earn, as well, on their own. If they can, that’s great, and that’s good for everybody. Everybody should benefit from that. For families that are receiving income assistance, the income exemption has been raised from $300 to $500 for those who have children with a disability — again, so that there’s more in the cup, so everybody benefits.

British Columbia has become the first province in Canada to actually annualize the earning exemptions up to $9,600 a year, which provides flexibility for those who earn extra income on their own, especially those for whom that income is a seasonal income. It comes all at once, and then there’s nothing for the rest of the year. Instead of clawing that back, we have it as an annualized return. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out: “Earnings exemptions are a valuable path back into the paid workforce.” I think they’re correct. I think that this is the direction that this government is going, and I’m proud to be a part of it.

[1600]

Then, of course, persons with disabilities can also benefit from the single-parent initiative. It provides up to 12 months of training for in-demand jobs, covering transportation costs to attend that training and also covering daycare costs during that training. I know that I’ve seen the benefit that kind of support has done for single moms that have been friends of mine. They have so benefited from it, and their whole family has benefited. I’m just proud to be part of it.

In addition to the single-parent initiative, the government has now allowed people to continue to receive supplementary health coverage up to a year after they’ve moved from being on assistance into employment. Again, this is helping them with every bit of protection, help that we can give them to help them along the way.

It also brings protections for British Columbians who are unable to work, so a single person collecting disability assistance will no longer lose the benefits if they receive an inheritance, such as a cash gift of up to $100,000 now, where that used to be $5,000. For a family of two people that are collecting disability benefits, that asset limit is raised to $200,000. I think that’s tremendous — that these people, again, can have the security and the basis to build a better life for themselves in the midst of their situation.

In 2014, I also had the privilege of being a part of the workshops that led to the ten-year plan that we have,

[ Page 11044 ]

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Of course, Budget 2016 supports that plan in that Budget 2016 provides an additional $170 million over three years to increase assistance rates for 100,000 people on disability assistance. Beginning in September of this year, people who choose not to receive a bus pass will in fact see an increase of $77 per month, but those people who choose to keep the B.C. bus pass will receive a $25 monthly increase in addition to having that subsidized bus pass.

Frankly, I’m disappointed in the way that the debate over this has gone on for the last week, because, in fact, everybody will be getting more. There will be increases for everyone. But the way it gets spun out by some members of the opposition…. I just really find it regrettable.

Overall, Bill 3 will reduce the barriers for people living with disabilities. The proposed legislation will allow government to prescribe groups of persons as “persons with disabilities” and without having to fill this 28-page application form or chase additional resources and assessments from our medical practitioners, who are already busy working on other cases and people in need of immediate medical attention. So these proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with disabilities and their families but will also cut the paperwork for the doctors, for the health care professionals.

Again, everybody benefits. The whole system benefits, and I continue to support the direction that this government is going.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I certainly am glad to see the government taking a step — a small step — to make life a little bit easier for a small group of people eligible to receive disability assistance in the province. I think it’s very important, though, that we recognize that this takes place in a larger context, which is that there is this 28-page form, and it didn’t just come out of nowhere. This red tape that the government says they are eliminating here came from the same government.

It was January 2002 when the Campbell government announced their radical restructuring of income assistance. This was a surprise to everybody because, of course, it wasn’t mentioned during the election. Can you imagine that, hon. Speaker? Something happening after an election that the government hadn’t talked about happening. That did happen in 2002.

It was Minister Murray Coell who led this review — incredibly wasteful and intimidating for people with disabilities. He said: “You need to prove to the province that you have a disability.”

[1605]

Sure, we need to make sure that people who have disabilities and are claiming disability actually have disabilities. Sure. But a 28-page form, a review that cost $3 million and put everybody who was on disability through the wringer — for political purposes? That’s where this form came from. That is the context of this form that the government is celebrating eliminating for a group of about 1,000 people.

Let’s think about this too. This reform that brought in this form — I use the term “reform” generously; it was just a big cut, an attempt to transfer money from the very weakest and poorest members of our province up to wealthy people in the province, and a successful attempt at that — involved a number of other reforms at the same time.

Under the headline of a press release that said, “Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients,” there was a list of cuts for people in the province: the elimination of medical equipment and supplies, such as glucometers for diabetics; electrotherapy devices for people suffering joint and muscle pain; orthotics; medication delivery devices; contraceptives. It was made so that the only way people could qualify for health supplements was if they could demonstrate they were facing “a direct and imminent life-threatening health need. “ Does that sound like proactive health care? Does that sound like a forward-looking attempt to keep people out of the emergency room?

These cuts and these new forms and these attacks on the poorest and weakest people in the province came from this same government. When they hold themselves up as “oh, we’re the champions of people on disability, and we’re the champions of people who are impoverished, of people who are homeless” or that “we have the best homeless plan in North America,” let’s keep in mind the realities, of the fact that a lot of the people….

I would say that probably all of the people who are in the shelter in Maple Ridge right now have profound addiction and mental health issues, are not getting the health care they need, have profound disabilities. They’re living in an old mattress store that is closing at the end of the month. That is this government’s record on people with disabilities. That is the best housing program in North America.

I think another important point to make is that this government is well aware that it is incredibly difficult to access disability assistance. The reason I know that is because they have received a report from the Auditor General for British Columbia. That report laid out, in some considerable detail, the challenges and difficulties that people with disabilities have applying for disability assistance. Keep in mind these are people with disabil-

[ Page 11045 ]

ities. Instead of making it easier, the government makes it harder.

Well, that’s quite a report. I have to tell you…. In my old job, a number of years ago now, when I was working in the Downtown Eastside, the perspective of people who had disabilities, who should have been on disability and weren’t, was that these barriers were intentional. That was the perspective of these folks, that the barriers were intentional to minimize the number of people who could access disability because that would save the government money. If the government wanted people on disabilities to access these benefits, they would make it easy for them to do that, but in fact they had a 28-page form.

It was incredibly difficult to get on. It required the assistance of an advocate for many, many people.

They had to go to an office. They had to make an appointment with someone to sit down to fill out all the forms. Often, as often as not, the forms would come back. They’d be rejected. There’d be something missing. They’d have to go back and do something else. People would fall off.

[1610]

When they fell off, that meant they didn’t get the disability assistance that they were entitled to. There’s no question these people were disabled. That is how you end up in an old mattress store in Maple Ridge. This system that this government is celebrating got easier for 1,000 people. Well, that’s good news. But boy, we’ve got a long way to go.

When I talk about the advocates who help people fill out these forms…. This government, their cuts, also eliminated the advocates, the funding for the advocates to help people fill out this 28-page form. So here you have a 28-page form that someone with a disability needs help filling out. If you go to the advocates’ office now, if you go in the Lower Mainland, which is incredibly dense with service organizations — at least, it used to be — there are very few advocates. You have to wait for a hugely extended period of time. That doesn’t even speak about the realities of living in rural B.C. with a disability, trying to get on to these services when the advocates aren’t available.

No, it’s left to groups like the Law Foundation of British Columbia, the Vancouver Foundation and Vancity to pick up some of the pieces after this government’s cuts, which have made it so difficult for people on disability to access the benefits that they were totally entitled to under the law but that they couldn’t access because the system this government set up was too difficult and because they cut the very advocates that help people negotiate those barriers.

We’re talking a lot about the bus pass and the clawback of the bus pass. There are definitely a lot of issues around this, and I’m glad the government is opening up the conversation, if inadvertently. I’m glad we’re being visited by people with disabilities — to come to this place to tell us about the realities of their lives and the challenges they face. I’m glad this issue is getting the attention from the media that it’s getting.

The Vancouver Province set out very clearly that the government has a lot of work to do on treating people with disabilities with the respect they deserve:

“Let’s be clear about the deceptive shell game the government is playing here. They’re giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

“The budget included a $77-a-month increase in disability benefits, the first in nine years. But the government now is refusing to pay for a disability assistance bus pass, wiping out most of the increase for people who need the pass and used to receive it for free.

“For many disabled British Columbians, it sets up the choice of buying a bus pass or spending the entire $77 on food, rent or other basic needs.”

Faith Bodnar, Inclusion B.C.: “Government, all you did was equalize the poverty for people with disabilities in B.C.”

As for consultation, Jane Dyson, executive director of Disability Alliance B.C.: “We had no consultation at all. This was a big surprise to us. We had no idea this was coming.”

When there’s a rally, out front, of people on disability, it makes it difficult to sit here and hear the government congratulate itself for all its success in treating people with disabilities with respect.

The Times Colonist : “In real terms, taking into account inflation over that period, the rate increase doesn’t compensate adequately for cost-of-living increases over the period. It falls short of what is required to make life more secure, independent and dignified.”

I could go on. I will say that if you vote for this, for 1,000 people, it’s going to make life a little bit easier. But for the government, the challenge remains — for all the people not captured by this bill who are entitled to disability benefits but can’t access them because they can’t find the advocates to support them, or their disability affects their brain, which makes it impossible for them to do it.

These are the people in Maple Ridge. These are the people at the side of the road in Abbotsford. This is the people up by the courthouse. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

[1615]

S. Gibson: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission, I rise today to speak on Bill 3, the Employment

[ Page 11046 ]

and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. I’m pleased to say that government is committed to helping people with disabilities, to make it easier for them to access the services they need. If we’re able to create the kinds of support for these folks, it will be a great accomplishment.

We want to be able to provide support so people with disabilities can live happy, healthy and independent lives, at least as independent as possible. I might add that I am the parent of a special needs child, now an adult. Alisa is a special person to me, on many levels. I would say that I am my daughter’s best friend, and I have grown to know myself in ways that I would never have experienced if it weren’t for the fact that I had a special needs child.

Although it’s been a challenge, and I might say that the record shows that most parents that have special needs children often split up…. My wife, Joy, and I have had challenges with Alisa, but I’ve grown to love her in a special way, as much, of course, as my older daughter, who has given us three grandchildren. So this is an important issue for me personally, and I’m glad to speak to it today.

This legislation makes things a little bit easier through simple things such as allowing government to prescribe groups of people as persons with disabilities without having to complete that big form. We heard a bit about that from my colleagues today, other speakers — taking away that small burden.

We work closely with provincial and federal programs — Community Living B.C., PharmaCare, Canada Pension Plan disability — trying to streamline the system as much as we can, reduce the time it takes to process an application for the persons-with-disabilities designation. A simplified form, reducing red tape for people with disabilities.

More than 96,000 British Columbians are designated as persons with disabilities, and they receive disability assistance. On average, 8,000 people apply for and receive disability assistance each year. Initially, about 1,000 people each year will benefit from the change, most of which are coming through the transition.

Historically, the disability assistance caseload is increasing at a rate of 4 percent to 5 percent a year, greater than the population growth. This is due to increased life expectancy, an aging population and a growing awareness of mental illness.

We offer many supports to people with disabilities, and these recent changes I want to highlight: increasing asset levels to $100,000 for a family with one person and $200,000 for families of two people with a designation. People on disability assistance can now be eligible to receive cash gifts with no effect on their eligibility for assistance. There’s no longer an annual cap on payments that people on disability assistance can receive from trusts.

Earnings exemptions for families with a child with a disability who receive income assistance increased from $300 to $500 a month, and child support payments become fully exempt for families receiving income and disability assistance. This includes no charge for MSP and PharmaCare, plus basic dental and optical coverage for children in low-income families through the healthy kids program. Total funding is more than $5 billion a year.

There’s so much more I could mention. We’re very excited as a government to be providing strong support for our disabled people in our province. We take it seriously. We value them. We’re all citizens of this great province.

[1620]

S. Robinson: It is my pleasure to rise in this House and speak to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. I wanted to make sure that I would take my place in this debate.

I think it’s really important that when government presents a bill like this, we understand the historical context of this bill. It’s not enough to just say: “What is this bill about?” “Well, it’s about reducing some of the onerous forms that people who are on disability have to fill out.” It’s more than that. I think we need to really make sure that we understand the context in which this bill is coming into this House.

I think it’s really important that we put this in a context that goes back to 2001, when the B.C. Liberals became government. At the time, they decided that it was important. You know, all governments make choices. It was a choice of this government to say: “We think it’s important that everybody who is on assistance of some kind really demonstrate that they actually need the assistance.”

From my perspective, when people say that, it suggests to me they don’t believe that people who are on assistance really are there because they need it. There’s some sort of suspicion that there are people taking advantage of this program. That’s how I have understood the history of government’s decision to radically change and restructure income assistance back in 2002.

That’s when they announced a budget cut of 30 percent over three years for the many who relied on income assistance. As part of that thinking, the minister of the day, Minister Murray Coell, felt and decided that people with disabilities needed to undertake a review. To me, that suggests that the thinking of the day….

Why would you do that? Why would you spend $3 million doing this review? Well, there must have been some

[ Page 11047 ]

sense that people on disabilities were somehow taking advantage, that they couldn’t be trusted. The fact that they were making a claim, going to some office and saying, “I need help because I have this disability….” Somehow there was a lack of truthfulness in their claim. So they instituted, back in the day, this 28-page form.

At the time, I was working in social service. I was working, I remember specifically, for SHARE Family and Community Services at the time. I was a family therapist on contract, and I rem