2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Burnaby Lake women's rugby team

J. Nuraney

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Economic development in Okanagan-Vernon area

T. Christensen

Psychiatric centre in Kamloops

K. Krueger

Jewish Educational and Cultural Centre in Victoria

S. Orr

Oral Questions

Health care wait-lists and waiting times

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Emergency care case at Prince George Regional Hospital

P. Nettleton

Hon. C. Hansen

Energy plan and resource development

W. Cobb

Hon. R. Neufeld

B.C. Arts Council funding

L. Mayencourt

Hon. G. Abbott

Health care services in remote and rural communities

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Marijuana grow operations and electricity theft

D. Hayer

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources (continued)

L. Mayencourt

Hon. M. Coell

J. MacPhail

J. Bray

G. Trumper

I. Chong

Second Reading of Bills

Coalbed Gas Act (Bill 16)

Hon. R. Neufeld

J. MacPhail

W. Cobb

J. Bray

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Management Services (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Management Services

Hon. S. Santori

R. Harris

J. Bray

[ Page 6039 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Tributes

BURNABY LAKE WOMEN'S RUGBY TEAM

Nuraney: I have the great pleasure in announcing to the House that yesterday

afternoon, the Burnaby Lake women's rugby team won the coveted West Coast

Women's Rugby Association championship with an impressive score of 22-0.

I had the

great pleasure of attending that game. It was very well played and demonstrated

the true spirit of teamwork and sportsmanship. As we excel in sports and

athleticism, I would like the House to join me in congratulating the Burnaby

Lake women's rugby team for this very well-deserved win.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

K. Krueger:

This is perhaps not so much an introduction as a warning that members or guests

walking into the Finance minister's office should avoid glancing to the left for

fear of eye damage, because there is this dazzling light off a diamond ring in

that office. Melanie Hughes, one of the assistants of the Minister of Finance,

has graciously consented to give her hand in marriage to my legislative

assistant, Steven Puhallo, a little cowboy from Kamloops who I never dreamt

would do this well in Victoria. Would the House give them all their

congratulations.

H. Bloy:

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today. I have a few friends,

like the hon. Minister of Labour. I have two lifelong friends up in the audience

here, whom I've known since elementary school, and they're so kind as to allow

me to stay there when the House is in session. Also, they're celebrating their

thirtieth anniversary today, so they've come to the House to celebrate. If you

could please join me in making them welcome. I would like to announce their

names: David and Sue Brooks.

MacPhail: I'm pleased to welcome to the legislative chamber today Mr.

Theodore Hawryluk. He is a person with a disability. He will be joining us

during estimates, and I'll have much more to say about Mr. Hawryluk and his

disability in estimates. Would the House please make him welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

IN OKANAGAN-VERNON AREA

Christensen: Each spring the Vernon Morning Star 's reporters do a

great deal of work to put together the newspaper's annual business review and

forecast. On March 26 the Morning Star 's regular Wednesday edition

included a four-section, 116-page pullout business review titled "There's

no Place like Home." The lead

article is headlined: "Optimism Springs

to Life in Valley." To avoid being accused of misrepresenting the media,

I'm going to quote directly from the article:

"Often

the media is accused of sensationalizing the negative happenings in the world

and ignoring the positive stories that would help counterbalance the doom and

gloom. Or perhaps it's human nature to take for granted all the magnificence

of living on a daily basis in the north Okanagan. People are often well aware

of issues like the softwood lumber debate and the fiscal challenges facing

Victoria but are not so informed of some of the real success stories right

here in their own back yard."

The

article goes on to highlight the expansion of some of my constituency's most

prominent employers, telling the reader of the millions of dollars being

reinvested by Tolko and Riverside to keep those companies competitive, the

continued expansion of Okanagan Spring Brewery that experienced double-digit

growth last year, and that Owens-Illinois is investing $5 million in its

Lavington glass plant to ensure its long-term success.

Turning the

pages, you read of the ongoing success of the Coldstream Ranch, notwithstanding

the challenges a dry year presented. We learn that optimism is growing in the

fruit industry. The newspaper reports on the outstanding success of the Vernon

and District Performing Arts Centre in its first 16 months of operation and of

the continued penchant we have in the north Okanagan for celebration, whether

for the Funtastic Summer Festival or the Vernon winter carnival.

It's most

unfortunate that I'm limited to two minutes, for there's a great deal of good

news in Okanagan-Vernon, as reported by the Morning Star . I thank the

Vernon Morning Star editors and reporters for examining what is happening

in their back yard and my back yard. Their work clearly demonstrates that the

north Okanagan is home to a vibrant economic, social and cultural community and

that there is no better place to be.

PSYCHIATRIC CENTRE IN KAMLOOPS

Krueger: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and mine, and for all of our

constituents in Kamloops and Kamloops–North Thompson, I want to take this

opportunity to congratulate all of the people involved in the construction and

opening of the psychiatric residential…. [Applause.] That doesn't come off my

time. The psychiatric residential rehabilitation centre in Kamloops.

[1410]

I was

delighted to join the Premier and the Minister of State for Mental Health in

opening the South Hills Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centre on Friday. This marks

the completion of the first phase of our government's promise to build a centre

of excellence in Kamloops. This was a promise that was made by four previous

Premiers of British Columbia and, until now, a promise

[ Page 6040 ]

that had been unfulfilled. It's a $4.2 million facility which will provide

homes for 40 patients from Riverview and will greatly improve the health care

successes in mental health rehabilitation.

Kamloops

will enthusiastically embrace and welcome the patients when they begin arriving

later this month. South Hills offers a modern, home-like setting which is

significantly different from the outdated institutional setting at Riverview

Hospital. I'd like to share the impression that was made by reading a quote from

the Kamloops Daily News : "With hardwood floors, maple trim,

skylights and glass block accents, the buildings appear more a luxury hotel than

psychiatric hospital." This is how our government is caring for mental

health patients. I'm absolutely delighted to know that many more facilities such

as these are going to be built by our government.

Phase two

of the Kamloops centre will begin construction a little later this year, and I

look forward to attending that opening as well. This will complete a $20 million

promise by our government, a tangible and remarkable demonstration of good faith

on the part of the Premier and the Minister of State for Mental Health.

JEWISH EDUCATIONAL AND

CULTURAL CENTRE IN VICTORIA

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside.

Interjections.

S. Orr:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do I get three minutes?

In 1863,

140 years ago — imagine, before electricity, motor cars, telephones, video

games and all that good stuff we've become accustomed to — a small group of

Jewish families came to Victoria to supply those passing through en route to the

gold rush. These families built the first-ever synagogue. This is the oldest

continuously used Jewish house of worship in Canada, and yesterday Congregation

Emanu-El hosted the official opening of the new $1.3 million Jewish Educational

and Cultural Centre adjacent to the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue.

Rabbi Harry

Brechner and many special Jewish people invited first nations, political,

religious and community leaders to take

part in the simcha of the century, aptly

themed "L'dor va L'dor" — from generation to generation. The simcha

gadalah is the big celebration, and it was a wonderful success. The new Jewish

Educational and Cultural Centre will have classrooms for Hebrew studies, adult

cultural and religious studies, a library, preschool and — the first ever for

Vancouver Island — a mikvah, translated as a ritual bath.

Thank you,

Congregation Emanu-El, for adding such a wonderful addition to our community.

Shalom.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Hon. M.

Coell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M.

Coell: I'd like to introduce to the House Bryson Stone and 40 members of the

Kinsmen Clubs of British Columbia. They've been here for lunch, and they're here

to watch question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE WAIT-LISTS

AND WAITING TIMES

MacPhail: Last fall I asked the Minister of Health Services about the

growing number of British Columbians on wait-lists. He assured this House that

he had put in place reforms that would bring those numbers down in the months to

come — after he blamed the doctors' job action for the lists rising. Can the

minister explain why, then, according to the government's latest numbers — the

government's latest numbers — there's been a 21 percent increase in the number

of British Columbians languishing on wait-lists than when they took power?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think one of the things I made quite clear last April, when we

rolled out the redesign of the health service delivery in the province, was that

there were no quick fixes. I think the member knows this very well from her time

as Minister of Health. I guess the unfortunate

part is that the change to a new

and more modern health care system didn't even happen while she was the Minister

of Health. We are getting on with that job. I made it quite clear, and it's in

our service plan, that there would be some short-term disruption of wait-lists,

but clearly we're putting the kind of systems in place that are going to give

British Columbians more timely delivery of the health services they need and

deserve.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary.

[1415]

MacPhail: Interesting, Mr. Speaker. Other than blaming the doctors last

time, that's exactly what the minister said a year ago.

Now, in

every category save one that the government measures, wait-lists have grown

since this government took power. There are 4,000 more British Columbians

waiting for cataract surgery. There are 4,600 more people waiting for orthopedic

surgery. There are 2,000 more waiting for general surgery, 500 more waiting for

gynecological surgery, 200 more waiting for hip replacements and 500 more

waiting for knee surgery. There are 5,000 more waiting for eye surgery other

than cataract surgery.

Can the

minister point out to us where in the New Era document it says that under

a Liberal government, the number of British Columbians on wait-lists would grow?

[ Page 6041 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: What we are doing in the health care system throughout British

Columbia is actually building networks of care and not the fractionalized,

disjointed system that was in place while she was Minister of Health. That

change, we know, is disruptive. We know that it is also necessary if we're going

to start to deal with some of these really profound problems that have built up

over the last decade of neglect in terms of health care management in British

Columbia and the lack of leadership that we saw from that government when she

was Minister of Health and when she was in cabinet.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm sure that will give great comfort to the thousands more that

are waiting on the lists now than when this government took over. But it's not

just the wait-lists that are going up. The amount of time that people are

spending on those wait-lists is up as well.

Here's

according to the government's own numbers. It takes 2½ more weeks to get

cardiac surgery than it did when the Liberals took power. It takes six weeks

longer to get knee surgery. It takes almost two weeks longer to get dental

surgery. It takes 1½ weeks longer to get orthopedic surgery.

It's been

691 days since the election, 691 days of decline in our health care system. Will

the minister just admit what his own numbers tell him? In the new era, there are

more British Columbians spending longer on surgical wait-lists.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think, as I indicated in the answer to the first question, we are

finally making the kind of changes that are necessary to deal with this. We're

trying to bring physicians together, specialists together and surgeons together

into groups of care so we can actually start to ensure that patients get timely

access.

That is not

a quick fix, and we made that quite clear to everybody last April when we first

rolled out this design. We are seeing some very positive results out of that. We

are seeing specialists that have been recruited into communities around British

Columbia for the first time ever. We are seeing new diagnostic equipment that is

up and running in communities throughout British Columbia.

As a direct

result of those changes, we're actually, for the first time in over 12 years,

going to be able to start to deal with some of these fundamental underlying

problems with the system.

EMERGENCY CARE CASE AT

PRINCE GEORGE REGIONAL HOSPITAL

Nettleton: I, too, have a question for the Minister of Health Services

regarding health care delivery in northern British Columbia. About a week ago

Gladys Lillian Brown was receiving dialysis at Prince George Regional Hospital,

and she fell. The shunt came out of her arm. She was clearly in need of

treatment, but she was released. At her residence she was bleeding under the

skin, she was without a pulse, and she had to catch an ambulance back to the

hospital. Then she had to wait six hours to be admitted, during which time she

suffered a heart attack. The Prince George Citizen today reports that

early Saturday morning, Gladys Lillian Brown, age 75, died at PGRH from choking

on her own vomit.

Mr.

Minister, is this the kind of health care northern residents should expect from

your government?

[1420]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, I am aware of this particular case, and I have read the

article that was in the Prince George Citizen . My sympathies and

condolences go out to the family. The northern health authority is investigating

the circumstances around this untimely death.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Prince George–Omineca has a supplementary

question?

Nettleton: Yes. I'm glad the minister mentioned the northern health

authority, because a woman has died, but the only information I can get, that I

ever get from any query to the communications officer of the northern health

authority, is: "That's confidential."

Last

November a small surplus for the northern health authority was forecast, so my

office called today for an update. Again the answer was: "That's

confidential." Can the minister update northern residents on the concluded

fiscal year for the northern health authority? If it was a deficit, then more

funding may have kept Gladys Lillian Brown alive. If it was a surplus, then why

aren't these funds being used to save lives?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I think the member knows the requirements that everyone in the

health care system must observe when it comes to patient confidentiality.

Indeed, if the health authority had released confidential information about a

patient's circumstances, that would have been highly inappropriate.

I think the

member probably knows, if he would check the date, it's now April 7. The fiscal

year for the health authority ended less than one week ago. Certainly, all of

the information about the health authorities will be presented this year in

terms of their final year-end numbers in a much more timely way than they have

ever been presented since regionalization was first introduced in British

Columbia. I know that as soon as the information is available, it will be made

available to this member.

ENERGY PLAN AND

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Within the last couple of

weeks some of your staff held public information meetings around

[ Page 6042 ]

Williams Lake. We had a good turnout, and I thank your staff for the

excellent job they did.

We in

Cariboo South have great potential for mineral and coalbed methane exploration.

We need the development of these industries to provide jobs and revenue for

support for health care and education. Unfortunately, one of the biggest

development hurdles, of course, is access to sufficient power sources. Can the

ministry tell us how the new energy plan supports future development of these

industries and access to hydro in my riding as well as the rest of the province?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Yes, the member is quite correct when he says that there are huge

resources in his constituency. Around the whole province there are huge

resources that we need to develop in a timely fashion and in an environmentally

sensitive way, so we can continue to have the health care and education that we

require in the province.

We're

encouraging development of coalbed methane mineral resources. We also have put

into place an energy plan that brings forward, again, energy from a corporation

that is publicly owned, which the people of British Columbia own — B.C. Hydro

— and that has oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission to make sure that

our rates remain the lowest we possibly can. It's a cornerstone of our energy

plan.

It's

another cornerstone to incorporate independent power producers across the whole

province, so they can provide or help provide to industry low-cost power so that

we can develop those resources. I think we have a good plan that the member's

constituency is going to be happy with well into the future.

B.C. ARTS COUNCIL FUNDING

Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services. Active involvement in the arts is a very important part of our

community in Vancouver-Burrard, but it's true in the rest of British Columbia as

well. To support the goal of a healthier and more creative community, we made a

commitment in the New Era document to support the B.C. Arts Council

through increased grants. I wonder if the minister can tell me, given the fiscal

constraints we're under here in government, whether we're going to be able to

keep that promise.

[1425]

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is right. There are enormous benefits to active arts and

culture communities, whether it's my hometown of Sicamous or the member's

hometown of Vancouver. Arts and culture are critical to having vital communities

in British Columbia.

I'm also

pleased to note that prudent management has its rewards. I know prudent

management wasn't something we were accustomed to in that period, say, from

roughly 1991 through 2001. Certainly, since that 2001 period we have seen

prudent management. One of the benefits of that is that we've been able to

protect, at $11.1 million, our funding from this government to the British

Columbia Arts Council.

Krueger: Didn't they build some fast ferries?

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm not going to mention the fast ferries in this answer, member. I

think that's way over the top to do that. I can't imagine using the fast ferries

in this particular answer.

I will,

however, make a note of this. We have, in addition to protecting the $11.1

million, also brought into play a $5 million Olympic arts fund that's going to

be of enormous benefit to the arts communities in British Columbia through 2010,

when we host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. We have also brought into place a

book publishers tax credit, which is going to be of enormous value in enriching

the cultural community in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We look forward, as our economy improves in the province of British

Columbia…

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. G.

Abbott: …to seeing even more support to the arts and culture community.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN

REMOTE AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

MacPhail: Continuing on health care, we now know that more people are

waiting longer for surgery. We know people aren't getting the care they need in

the north and that there are deaths arising from it. I want to talk about Cortes

Island.

The

government said that they were going to promise small communities health care

where they need it and when they need it. Cortes Island has just learned that

its doctor on call is no longer to be, that this government has cut the services

and the payments to the doctor on call so that Cortes Island has no physician

services for many hours during the week and the weekend. How is that in any way

the new-era promise, where this government promised people that they would get

health care when they need it, where they need it? Did that exclude Cortes

Island?

Hon. C.

Hansen: In terms of physician compensation in this province, we increased

the budget for that in this last year by 20.6 percent. British Columbia actually

has the highest per-capita payments for doctors of any province in Canada. In

fact, we're about 19 percent higher on a per-capita basis than Ontario. We're

about 42 percent higher on a per-capita basis compared to Alberta.

Just

recently I rolled out the new rural and remote physician compensation

arrangements in British Columbia to make sure that remote communities can be

covered throughout this province. Physicians through-

[ Page 6043 ]

out both the remote and the urban parts of this province saw a significant

increase in their remuneration.

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

AND ELECTRICITY THEFT

Hayer: My question is to the Solicitor General. Marijuana grow ops are a

serious problem in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and in neighbourhoods

throughout British Columbia. It seems to me that one way to identify grow ops in

residential areas is for police to check residents' hydro bill records for a

pattern of unusual power consumption. Can the Solicitor General tell my

constituents whether the police and B.C. Hydro share information to identify

potential grow ops in residential neighbourhoods?

Hon. R.

Coleman: If they'd stay on the meter, it would probably be easier to track

them, but they actually bypass the meter directly, which creates a huge fire

hazard. We estimate about $50 million a year is actually stolen from B.C. Hydro

and B.C. taxpayers. Police and Hydro do work together on information-sharing.

They do work together on certain strategies they put into place. We don't

actually publicize those strategies, so the guys we're trying to catch can't

figure out what we're up to. We're not going to do that today. I can tell the

member that the patterns lead us to investigations that do help us take down

grow ops, and we'll continue to enhance those investigative techniques for both

Hydro and for the police.

[End

of question period.]

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be beginning the estimates for the Ministry of Management

Services. In Committee B, the large House, I call Committee of Supply. For the

information of members, we'll be debating the estimates for the Ministry of

Human Resources.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:32 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 30:

ministry operations, $1,417,493,000 (continued.)

The

Chair: We're going to have a short recess through the call of the Chair.

The

committee recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:37 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Mayencourt: I have a lot of people in my community who are living in the

category of persons with disability and, most particularly, those individuals

living with HIV/AIDS. Prior to the introduction of the Employment and Assistance

for Persons with Disabilities Act, there was a

schedule C category for people,

and there was a lot of concern in my community and throughout the province about

schedule C. At the time that we were debating that bill, you made a commitment

that of those individuals that had gone through the

schedule C tribunal process,

which was quite lengthy and quite involved and caused a great deal of stress for

people who went through that, their benefits would be protected.

I wonder if

the minister could tell me: have you been able to maintain those

schedule C

benefits that were hard-won by those individuals? Have they been maintained in

this current year and into the future?

Hon. M.

Coell: I can give the member…. There were a number of people

grandparented, as you know. The numbers for

schedule C. There were 652

grandparented; for the food portion, there were 2,492 grandparented; for bottled

water, 1,709; and for vitamins and minerals, there were 2,509. Those persons

were all grandparented into the program.

Mayencourt: That's an important point, because for my community, those

people went through a rigamarole and a process that was very, very involved.

They had to really prove that they were in need of these benefits, and so I'm

grateful for that.

[1440]

Under the

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, we replaced the

schedule C with the monthly nutritional supplement, and I wonder if the minister

could tell me how many individuals have applied for and are currently receiving

the monthly nutritional supplement.

Hon. M.

Coell: Just a clarification — and I may have given the member that

information. There were 652 grandparented. The food number, the bottled water

and the vitamins and minerals — those are new, under the new program.

Mayencourt: I take it by the minister's answer that, in effect, more

individuals have been able to access that particular program.

Hon. M.

Coell: All of those are new.

Mayencourt: One of the complaints that I heard constantly from individuals

in my community with respect to the old process, where they went through a

schedule C application process, was that they were almost invariably declined.

They went through an appeal process which was ultimately always appealed by

[ Page 6044 ]

the Ministry of Human Resources, and then it was sent on to the B.C. appeals

branch, I guess, for resolution.

In all of

the cases, it seems that the B.C. Appeals Board always found in favour of the

client that was applying for those benefits. That was kind of a real cumbersome

process that was developed over the course of the previous four or five years.

I'm told by

people who had gone through the process that the process took between eight and

16 months. I am wondering if the minister can tell me: if I were a person living

with a disability today and applied for and qualified for the monthly

nutritional supplement, how long would that process take from the time of

applying and being evaluated to the point that I actually started to receive

those benefits?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's been between one and two months.

Mayencourt: That is a very significant improvement in the overall time that

people wait for these kinds of benefits because, quite frankly, people are in

great need. If they have need of this monthly nutritional supplement, they are

in fact in great need, and of course their lives are…. The majority of these

individuals are living with a life-threatening illness — either HIV/AIDS or

perhaps Crohn's disease or other illnesses that decrease their ability to intake

food and maintain body mass — so I think that's a great improvement.

The next

area that I wanted to ask about was…. I understand that we now have an ability

for persons living with disability to actually retain more of the money that

they earn, and I wonder if the minister could just say a little bit about the

earnings exemption. I understand that that has increased, and I wonder if the

minister could just say how we've been able to manage that.

Hon. M.

Coell: When we took office, the earning exemption was at $200. That would be

that a person with a disability would be able to earn $200 on top of their

income assistance and keep that $200. What we wanted to do was encourage people,

if they can, to work — to work even part-time — so we increased that to $300

and then this year have increased it to $400. Someone now, with the status of a

person with a disability, can earn up to $400 a month and keep that over and

above the income assistance and other benefits that they may get.

Mayencourt: Another question that I have has to do with employment

opportunities and, specifically, around training opportunities. I had the

pleasure of working with Destinations, which is an agency in my community that

provides job training for individuals that need to develop some skills and

improve their appropriateness for the workforce.

I'm

wondering if the minister can tell me a little bit about the number of programs

that he supports financially through the ministry in terms of getting people

job-ready.

[1445]

Hon. M.

Coell: In this year's budget we have $110 million for employment and

training programs. Of that, $24 million is specifically earmarked for people

with disabilities, and there is a range of programs in there dealing with

everything from volunteer work to part-time work or for services — job

placement into permanent employment — as well. There's a spectrum of programs

that are being developed and are all going out for RFP in the next while. Some

have been done. As I say, there is $24 million in there for persons with

disabilities, and that's an 80 percent increase in that budget since we took

office.

Mayencourt: Thank you for that piece of information. A lot of this gets

centred around the lower mainland, and I wonder if the minister can speak to the

issue of where those job-training programs are being offered. Are they being

offered, for example, in the Prince George area? Are they offered around the

province?

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry has just recently moved to have five regions. It was

previously nine regions. It now has five regions that match up with the health

regions and also the regions contemplated by the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. The programs will be distributed. The $24 million will be

distributed throughout the province. What we will be doing in the RFPs is trying

to distribute that money as to the number of people on our caseload for persons

with a disability.

Mayencourt: There are individuals who do not have a disability that are

living on income assistance, and I'm sure the job-training programs for them are

great. I know that some people with the persons-with-a-disability category are

taking advantage of some of those training programs. There's a little bit of a

grey area in between those who have persons-with-a-disability designation and

those who have not, and that's for the persons with persistent and multiple

barriers to employment.

I can

recall that there's some really excellent work being done in the downtown east

side by organizations like Tradeworks and many others out there — the Coast

Foundation and so on. I know when those groups applied for the job-training

dollars, they didn't make it, simply because it seems that the measure of their

success didn't measure up to some of the goals or targets that had been set. Yet

the successes that those agencies can provide us with — while they are

smaller, perhaps, than other agencies — are significant, and so I am concerned

about whether those types of agencies, particularly those in the downtown east

side and the downtown south, are going to have access to the training-for-jobs

dollars.

Hon. M.

Coell: I may have mentioned it before. What we're looking at is a continuum

of programs, and we're working with the Vancouver agreement with the downtown

east side on some pilot projects looking specifically at the types of people

you've mentioned.

[ Page 6045 ]

Mr. Chair,

if I could introduce my staff; I failed to do that: Robin Ciceri, deputy

minister; Randy McDonald, who is the executive director of corporate services;

and Andrew Wharton, the assistant deputy minister.

MacPhail: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

What is the

caseload for social assistance for the province of B.C. right now?

[1450]

Hon.

M. Coell: The caseload as of February, which would have been the last month

that we published it, is 122,513.

MacPhail: And how many people are on welfare?

Hon. M.

Coell: As of February there were 183,312.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could break those down into the categories of

social assistance, please — the larger categories.

Hon. M.

Coell: I can break the caseload down for the member: single men, 50,096;

single women, 33,125; couples, 5,223; two parents, 4,859; single parents,

24,969; child in the home of a relative, 4,241.

MacPhail: And the children would be listed in the categories of two parents

and single parents? How many children are there under the age of 18?

Hon. M.

Coell: The total would be 54,958.

MacPhail: So children are about 30 percent of the number of people who are

on welfare. Is that right — 55,000 of 183,000?

Hon. M.

Coell: Correct.

MacPhail: How many people under the age of 18 are being diverted from foster

care to social assistance? I know the minister was in the room when I was

discussing this with the Minister of Children and Family Development. It arose

out of an

article in the Vancouver Courier dated March 9, I think, so I'm

sure the minister will have had time to see it. It was reported by Family

Services of Greater Vancouver that 15- and 16-year-olds were being diverted to

welfare. I know there are independent living arrangements now, but this was a

much different report. Has the minister had a chance to look into that?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, I have, and children in need of foster care are not being

diverted to the Ministry of Human Resources. There has not been a significant

increase in 15-to-16-year-olds receiving income assistance over the last six

months. There are 22 16-year-olds and one 15-year-old receiving income

assistance as of February 2003.

MacPhail: And that's income assistance, the minister said. So did the

minister have a chance to follow up with Family Services of Greater Vancouver on

that issue?

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry does, on a regular basis, have discussions with the

Ministry of Children and Family Development, but we haven't discussed that

newspaper

article with the agency.

[1455]

MacPhail: When were the changes introduced into social assistance in terms

of qualifying changes and rate changes? Was that April 1 of 2002, or was it

earlier than that?

My next

question to the minister is going to be a comparison of the categories prior to

the rate changes, or the rule changes, and now. I just wanted to know when they

were introduced.

Hon. M.

Coell: April of last year.

MacPhail: I guess what I would be interested in looking at, then, is the

same statistical breakdown of the caseload for February '02 — you know, the

category of single men, single women, couples.

Hon. M.

Coell: I don't have the information from the previous year's estimates with

me, but I can take that as a request and get back to the member with that.

MacPhail: I have quite a bit of area to explore on this, because the

ministry is claiming great credit for getting people off welfare to work. Surely

there's tracking that goes on, and I wanted to see how it worked per category

— where people were, etc. It's a substantial area of exploration.

Hon. M.

Coell: The only thing that I have is January '02. And I have the total B.C.

employment and assistance cases, and that's at 155,556.

MacPhail: And the number of people?

Hon. M.

Coell: As of January '02 there were 245,018.

MacPhail: I'm sure the minister will appreciate how important this is, with

major changes going through in April and the government claiming success in the

area of moving people from welfare to work. I'd like very much to see the

changes in the categories. The number of children will be an interesting….

Anyway, it's the only way that you can discuss trends. I'll carry on, and

perhaps the ministry can, in the course of the next hour or so, get those

statistics so that we can have that discussion.

To begin

with, though, I'll just ask my questions that in a way flow from this. The rule

about only being able to claim two years of social assistance in five kicked in,

I understand, on April 1, 2002, as well, so we've completed year one of the

policy. Can the minis-

[ Page 6046 ]

ter tell me how many people have been on social assistance for that full

year?

[1500]

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll take that on advisement and, hopefully, get that within the

session today.

MacPhail: The ministry plans to reduce its budget by 30 percent by '04-05.

Where is the ministry at in terms of that target?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member knows, last year's budget was $1,671,801,000. This year

our estimates are $1,417,493,000, and so we're on target to meet our estimates

this year and our three-year plan.

MacPhail: For the record, what will the budget be for next year, '04-05?

Hon. M.

Coell: The three-year plan that we announced in February of last year calls

for a budget of $1,220,593,000.

MacPhail: What are the plans for getting to that next step? It's interesting

to note that job creation in this province hasn't picked up the difference. In

fact, looking closely at the statistics of the job creation even of the last

month, it was more about people leaving the province. There were jobs created,

but they were jobs in the science and technology area. Well, maybe people are

moving from welfare to work in that area, but looking at it, I didn't suspect

they were. So there are many people leaving this province.

But what

are the plans in terms of getting to the next $200 million budget cut? What are

the plans for changes in regulations to income assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: We don't foresee any further changes to regulations or to

legislation. As the member will remember, the major changes were made last year,

and we're in the process of implementing them. I don't think there's anything

new on the horizon.

I would

just comment on the job creation — that there were 78,000 jobs created last

year, some part-time, some full-time. This year I believe there were 12,000 last

month and 18,000 this month, so the trend is in the right direction. One of the

things I've emphasized is the job opportunities that range between 400,000 and

500,000 jobs a year opening up in the province. We want to make sure we have the

training programs and employment programs in place so our clients will be able

to take advantage of those opportunities and, as the economy improves, to take

advantage of the opportunity of the new jobs as well. So there are

"available jobs" and "new jobs," and we want to concentrate

on our clients being ready, able and eligible for those opportunities.

[1505]

MacPhail: Well, that's why I actually wanted the statistics, so we can talk

about that in detail and not just spin. I want to see the trend of who is moving

off welfare and whether they're people who actually have jobs or not, by

category, etc. It's actually key to the nature of my questioning, and also the

two-years-in-five is key in terms of preparing just what needs to be done this

year, because I would assume…. I'm a little taken aback seeing there's nothing

planned for this year, because we could have — I don't know — a thousand,

2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 people hitting a wall this time next year of being

ineligible for welfare by the government's own rules. So I want to know what the

plans are for that. Perhaps we can discuss it in those terms.

Hon. M.

Coell: The program that was put in place last year and the three-year plan

involve a number of people who don't have time limits. I can get that list of

people for the member. For those people who are employable, the time limits are

part of their eligibility, and what every one of those people will have is a job

plan. They'll be enrolled with job placement or training for jobs, so there's a

whole number of things. We want to work with people who are employable and, over

that two-year period, make sure they have the skills and the capability of

finding employment.

Two years

is a long time, and it may not take a lot of people that long. I realize that,

but just for the member's information, the time limits do not apply for persons

with disabilities and their dependents, for persons who are 65 years or older

— and we do have some on our caseload, not that many — for children in the

home of a relative, for persons in receipt of hardship assistance, for persons

who have persistent multiple barriers to employment and for persons who have

been admitted to a hospital or special care facility for extended care. So there

are a broad range of people for whom income assistance time limits aren't a

variable.

For the

people for whom it is a part of the income assistance eligibility, as I said,

there are the job placement, the job training and especially the employment

plans. From, I think, a good perspective it gives our staff a way of helping

people who are employable right from the day they come into the office and need

assistance. The employment is part of the plan, and the plan is worked on with

the client and our staff member.

MacPhail: So are the 55,000 children exempt from the two-years-in-five?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that's correct.

MacPhail: So all of the parents and all of the couples are exempt from the

two-years-in-five rule?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the question is — and I may have misunderstood you: the

children of the parents are exempt…?

MacPhail: Children in the home of a relative are exempt from the

two-years-in-five. That's 4,241 children. However, there are another 55,000

children whose parents collect welfare; they're either as a couple

[ Page 6047 ]

or as single parents. That group, in my understanding, can only collect

welfare for two years in five. Is that right?

Hon. M.

Coell: I thank the member for that clarification.

If the

children are under three, the parents are exempt. If the children are over

three, the two-in-five is part of the eligibility, but they would only receive a

reduction in rate of $100 a month. They would still be eligible for income

assistance.

MacPhail: Okay. But when one is collecting welfare…. I am fortunate enough

to never have had to do that, but $100 a month per…. I think on a family basis

it's more than $100 per month, but it's a huge cut. So what are the plans for

these children?

[1510]

Hon.

M. Coell: The member asked what plans there are. I think I would go back to

that the plans are that you have a two-year window to work with individuals. We

have $110 million in this budget — $110 million for job training and placement

programs.

These are

people who are employable and for some reason need income assistance, whether

it's bankruptcy or divorce or whatever leads a person to need income assistance.

These are employable people. We want to make sure we help them into employment,

because their families will actually do a lot better if they work. I think all

the studies we've seen across Canada and the surveys we've done show that people

who leave income assistance make two to three times more money than they were

making on income assistance.

MacPhail: How many people have applied for welfare and not qualified in the

last fiscal year?

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry has never tracked that, and we didn't last year as well.

MacPhail: I'm hearing all sorts of anecdotal stories, which I promised I

would bring up here, about people who are ineligible for welfare because they

own a car or they own a house. Most of them are in the forest sector, this

sector that the government takes such pride in saying they're going to do such

wonderful things. They also don't hold out any hope of getting a job real soon

in their community.

What

happens to those people then? Let me just be very clear. What happens? Are they

supposed to move? In towns like Terrace, one-third of the houses are on the

market, so you can't sell your house. I believe the rule change now is that

people are being told to sell their house, and they have to sell their vehicle.

So there

are no statistics, even informal statistics, being kept in towns like Terrace or

that of the number of people who are coming for help and are ineligible?

Hon. M.

Coell: Most of the clients, I think, that you're describing would be on

employment insurance. We do have, as the member knows, the labour market

agreement with HRDC of $290 million. As I said, the ministry has never tracked

those who apply and do not meet the eligibility test. It's something that we

didn't increase doing this year. We just followed previous practice.

MacPhail: Well, much has changed, and sorry, these people have run out of

employment insurance. There are cases of families that are tragic. These are

people my age that have worked all their lives, but their employment insurance

has run out because there's no work in this northwest corner, and they're

ineligible for social assistance because of the tightening up of the rules.

It is

interesting that the minister can claim such credit for people moving from

welfare to work, but he relies on the old standard of "that's the way it's

always been done" to find out how many people, because of unemployment, are

now ineligible for coverage under social assistance. I expect there's a reason

for that. It's because that bad news would outweigh whatever good news there is

in the other area.

With whom

is the minister working to reach his budget reduction for this year in terms of

getting people off welfare?

[1515]

Hon. M.

Coell: I just want to be very clear. We're not telling people that they need

to sell their house to get income assistance.

One of the

things that we're working towards is employment. I think that is very evident in

the structure of the changes we made to income assistance — that employment is

a major part. I realize that the previous government — the member being the

previous minister — started down that road. We have, I think, improved on the

process, but it will still need improvement as the years go by. When you look at

the types of capabilities people have on income assistance, that may change.

You're right: there are downturns in the economy that affect different people,

and you'll have to look at that over the years to come.

But the

ministry wants to make sure people succeed, and we want to make sure people find

employment in British Columbia. As I said, it's sort of a two-pronged thing. You

have to make sure that the economy is actually growing and that there are jobs

there, but you also have to make sure that people on income assistance have the

confidence and the skills they need to move off. From everything I've seen in my

years in government, once someone leaves income assistance for work, they're

going to be making two or three times more than they were on income assistance.

You can't stress that benefit for individuals and families enough, so we'll

continue to do that.

MacPhail: Well, perhaps through you, Mr. Chair, the minister could tell me

what he is telling people about selling their house, because they're being asked

to have a lien put on it. Isn't there a lien being put….? Perhaps the minister

could clarify that.

[ Page 6048 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: That was something that was in the legislation last year and will not

come into effect until later this year. What it is, is that a lien on a house

where someone has equity in that house will not be put on until the seventh

month of being on income assistance. We want to ensure that people requiring

short-term temporary assistance will not be affected by the lien. Someone on

long term who has a lot of equity in a house, we would want them to pay back the

income assistance once that house is sold.

MacPhail: And when does that take effect this year?

Hon. M.

Coell: October of this year.

MacPhail: And what other province does this?

Hon. M.

Coell: Manitoba and Ontario have similar requirements for property owners,

and, actually, Manitoba has been using liens for over 35 years.

MacPhail: And in Ontario, it's extremely controversial. In fact, I heard

that it had been delayed. But if the minister is saying it's actually been

implemented, that's news.

So come

this October, there could be…. Because it's anecdotal evidence, I was trying

to confirm it with some actual statistics. But the anecdotal evidence comes in

every day in huge numbers about people, particularly in the northwest, who have

been in the forest sector and some coastal communities as well, whose EI has run

out and who are ineligible for social assistance, and they have been…. So now,

if indeed they want to…. Well, maybe it's that they're ineligible around their

car. What's the rule change around the car, which this government has brought

in?

Hon. M.

Coell: The asset limit for singles actually went up from $500 to $1,500, and

the asset level for a car is $5,000. In the past you could actually own a

Porsche or a Rolls-Royce and still qualify. We wanted to make sure a car was

valued at $5,000.

[1520]

MacPhail: So, okay, these forest workers actually have cars worth more than

$5,000. That's absolutely right. Just the same way that all the MLAs from the

north say: "Oh God, you southerners don't know about it. That's why we need

to remove the luxury tax and make people buy bigger cars…." So they have

it.

They're

told that they have to sell their cars and then, in the future, that there will

be a lien on their house. I think this is something that the minister should try

and track. Is there any opportunity for him to work with these people in the

transition funds that were set up under the Forestry Revitalization Act?

Hon. M.

Coell: The member is correct. There is a forest transition fund. It has a

cross-community membership. It has IWA, our staff, workforce adjustment

activity, and we're also working with EI and HRDC.

MacPhail: What's the input from this ministry?

Hon. M.

Coell: We have a staff rep sitting on the federal community committee.

MacPhail: What I meant was: what contribution in terms of changing the rules

of qualification will this ministry be contributing?

Hon. M.

Coell: We're just in the process of developing how the workplace adjustment

program will work. At this point that's the main focus.

MacPhail: The people who are having to fill out the review form to qualify

for benefits under disability benefits level 2 — if they don't return their

reassessment forms, many believe that their benefits will be cut in June by $300

a month. Many believe that they will also lose their enhanced medical and bus

pass and will no longer qualify for their housing and, therefore, will be forced

to move.

Can the

minister update us on how many forms have yet to be returned?

Hon. M.

Coell: There are 800 forms to be returned. We have contacted 700 of those

people and know at what stage the form is in, and we'll still be contacting the

further 100.

MacPhail: When was the reassessment deadline moved to — March 15, was it?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that is correct: March 15.

MacPhail: So 800 forms are still to be returned. What is the status of

benefits, come June 15, for those 800?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said, there are about a hundred people that we haven't contacted

or haven't been able to contact yet, but we'll endeavour to do that. We want to

make sure everyone gets their forms in so they can be adjudicated by June 15. As

I said, with the 700 we know exactly where they are, whether they're with a

doctor or a social worker or actually in the mail in some cases.

MacPhail: Yes, I know, but what if they don't have their forms in by June

15?

[1525]

Hon. M.

Coell: The only ones I could comment on would be the 100. If they don't

submit, their rate would go down. The other 700 — we know they're submitting,

so they will have an opportunity to be adjudicated.

MacPhail: Is there some reason why the minister won't say those 700 rates

will not be reduced prior to adjudication? Can the minister guarantee that for

those

[ Page 6049 ]

700 people — and I'm hoping it's 800 people — their rates will not be

changed until adjudication?

Hon. M.

Coell: That is correct.

MacPhail: How much did the ministry and government in total spend on this

reassessment review of people with disabilities?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member knows, the review process is underway, and it won't be

completed until after June. At that point we would have an assessment of what it

cost and what the numbers are for any changes.

MacPhail: The ministry spent a bunch of money in '02-03. How much did the

ministry spend in '02-03 on the review process, and how much have they got

budgeted for '03-04?

Hon. M.

Coell: In this year's budget, for this financial year, it's $3.8 million. As

the member knows, we just finished the year-end of '02-03. Reconciliation is

underway, but we will have an accounting for any additional costs for

adjudicators and related staff expenses.

MacPhail: Yes. Then there's also money the ministry has given to support

agencies to assist as well, so that will be included. Doctors' fees. Does the

$3.8 million include doctors' fees?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, that would be all-inclusive.

MacPhail: I assume the $3.8 million is in addition, then. That's this year's

money, and there will be several hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions for

'02-03.

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes. There will be costs in '02-03. Those will be in the

reconciliation report.

MacPhail: In this category of people that I asked about for February '03, is

there a separate category for people with disabilities getting DB-2 benefits?

How many cases and how many people are there?

[1530]

Hon. M.

Coell: Last year there were 45,366. This year, as of February 2003, there

were 46,392.

MacPhail: And those are individuals?

Hon. M.

Coell: Those are cases.

MacPhail: I assume they're not part of the 122,513 cases that we talked

about earlier. Or are they?

Hon. M.

Coell: They're included in that number.

MacPhail: Can the minister tell me how many people are in those cases then,

please?

Hon. M.

Coell: As of February 2003 there are 56,519.

MacPhail: Okay, this is very interesting. So the figures for '02-03 across

the board will be…. I really do need them. Already there are 56,000 people

under DB-2 and 55,000 children, which is almost two-thirds of the number of

people — maybe not quite, but almost 60 percent of the number of people — so

I'm very anxious to know where the ministry is going to cut another $200 million

out of its budget. How many people were there last year — we can get that

figure, February '02 — on DB-2?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last sentence.

MacPhail: Well, the minister gave me a figure for the year '02-03 of 45,366

cases. I'm wondering how many people were DB-2 last year.

Hon. M.

Coell: I don't have that number, but I will get it for the member.

MacPhail: What's the budget this year for DB-2?

Hon. M.

Coell: There are two areas in the budget, and I'll take a bit of time to

explain this. There's the temporary assistance, where people are expected to

work and/or are temporarily excused. The continuous assistance is for persons

with persistent multiple barriers and persons with disabilities not expected to

seek work.

[1535]

The budget

for continuous assistance for this year is $444.35 million. There will be some

people with disabilities who are being paid out of the temporary assistance

account. These will be people who are actively looking for work or involved in

the $24 million worth of training programs for people with disabilities, so

there is a budget of $16.25 million to be added to that $444.35 million. That

would give you your total.

MacPhail: Does the minister have the figure for what the budget was for the

— I guess it was eventually — 14,000 people whose cases needed to be

reviewed under disability? Was it 14,000 that it eventually was? How much

assistance were they getting for '02-03?

Hon. M.

Coell: You could calculate that. We never did in putting this budget

together. There is a budget for persons with disabilities. There would be 47,486

in the estimates. That's the budget of how many people would be on disabilities

this year.

MacPhail: I heard the minister saying he'd received 6,000 new applications

for DB-2 or something, and it's gone up a thousand. What's the discrepancy

there? I asked — and my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked —

week after week, and he kept

[ Page 6050 ]

on saying there were 6,000 new applications. It looks like there's a thousand

that qualified.

Hon. M.

Coell: We've actually received 8,000 as of today. Every year we have about

— I'm thinking back four or five years — 10,000 go off the former DB-2

category, so we figure that will be consistent. You generally have or have had

about 6,000 come on per year, but you have between — as I say, depending on

the year — 5,000 and 10,000 go off DB-2. We suspect that will be the same with

persons with disabilities.

MacPhail: Why was the minister relating this to a question about the review?

I remember him giving this answer in the Legislature to a question I was asking

about these particular reviews. It's really irrelevant. It's got nothing to do

with the question about the review or not — the minister's answer about how

many applications come in or not. I guess it did obfuscate those that were

listening for a while.

I make it

so that 111,000 of 183,000 people are either children or people with

disabilities on the…. We really are looking at where this government's going

to have to cut $200 million out of — I assume, unless they're going to start

attacking people with disabilities and children — about 70,000 people on

welfare. Am I missing something?

Hon. M.

Coell: Through the Chair, I'm not sure I caught a question there. There was

a comment, and the member can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the

rate of growth. If you look at the disability caseload over the last six or so

years, it was ranging at an increase of about 10 to 14 percent a year. We're

projecting an increase of about 2 percent.

MacPhail: Why is that?

[1540]

Hon. M.

Coell: There are a couple of reasons for that. I think that almost doubling

the amount of money we're spending on employment programs for disabilities will

enable more people who have disabilities to leave income assistance.

As I said

earlier, in the average year you have 5,000 to 10,000 people leaving income

assistance. Most of that is for employment. What we want to do is add employment

opportunities, and more people will find employment. That's one side of it. The

other is that the change in the legislation and the change in the definition

will have an effect on the level of increase. The previous increases of 10 to 14

percent were not in keeping with national averages, which were actually about 2

to 3 percent.

MacPhail: You're right. British Columbia was a much kinder place to people

with disabilities in the 1990s — much kinder. There are many provinces where

people with mental illness are not included in any coverage. So you're right. It

was a much kinder, gentler place in the 1990s for people with disabilities, and

the tightening up…. Frankly, I don't understand the minister somehow

suggesting that it's employment that will move people with disabilities off the

rolls and into the job market. He just said that people who could work were

working and did work throughout the 1990s. People with disabilities don't want

to do anything but work, but the employment opportunities aren't there. What

success, then, has the minister had specifically with people on DB-2 moving from

DB-2 to work?

Hon. M.

Coell: The emphasis for this year's budget is on employment programs for

people with disabilities. As I said, since we took office, there's an 80 percent

increase in employment programs strictly and specifically for people with

disabilities. That is going to be a major employment opportunity for people with

disabilities. I quite agree. I know many people with disabilities who want to

work and have a difficult time getting employment, and we want to level that

playing field. As I've mentioned and I think the member probably knows, the

unemployment rate for people with disabilities is 50 percent higher than for

people without a disability, so we want to make sure we emphasize programs in

this year's budget. Previously, there wasn't the emphasis that I think needed to

be there. So as I say, we've increased by 80 percent the budget for programs for

people with disabilities, and that should help.

It's one of

a number of things. You still have to have the jobs being created in the

economy. The other area that I want to spend some time on, and I know the

ministry does, is to assist businesses in understanding the specific needs of

people with disabilities. To that extent, I have put together a minister's

council — all the information is on our website on that — which will help

develop programs to enhance a business's ability and desire to employ people

with disabilities. There are businesses in our province…. I was meeting with

people from the Royal Bank who have a tremendous program for hiring people with

disabilities, and my own ministry does. But there are lots of opportunities that

are untapped in the community, and we want to make sure that those programs are

there and the assistance is there for people with disabilities.

MacPhail: Yes. I'm asking for specifics. This is the completion of the

second year of this government. I'm asking for specifics that validate his point

that people are moving into jobs because of this government's employment

programs for people with disabilities.

Hon. M.

Coell: In the past, the ministry didn't track people leaving disability for

employment. I suspect they would have because they started with tracking some

specifically for income assistance. The RFP is just going up on the Web for

these programs this year, so it will be next year before we see any of the

benefits and any of the tracking for people who are enrolled in the programs and

who find employment.

MacPhail: So these programs, when are they going to kick in?

[ Page 6051 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: In November we had $6.7 million of RFPs, and July 1 of this year

there will be $14 million.

[1545]

MacPhail: So is that a budget, then, this year of $14 million, not the $6.7

million? Or is it a budget of $20 million?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll try and give a little bit of a detail here. In this year's

budget, '03-04, there's $2.34 million worth of direct persons-with-disability

programming. Then, as well, there's $14.1 million. Then in the public sector

training, there's $320,000. Then in the pre-employment services we have $6.75

million. Then in an innovations fund, there's half a million dollars — a total

of $24 million in this year's budget.

MacPhail: So how many people will that help? I just divided 20 million by

14,000. The reason I did that was because I thought the overall employment

budget would be $20 million, and there were 14,000 people who had to hand in a

review. I assumed there was some reason why — although the auditor general is

going to look into all of this — those 14,000 were targeted, and I thought the

reason was that people would think maybe they can work. If you divide 20 million

by 14,000, that gives you $1,428 per person for training. What are some of these

training programs that are going to move people with disabilities into the

workforce, and how much are they costing, and how much is given per person?

Hon. M.

Coell: The 14,000 that the member mentioned is part of the review. It's not

part of the job training programs. As I say, $24 million are being developed for

programs to assist people with disabilities, and it would be our hope that….

The previous government had some programs — I think it was about $13 million

for people-with-disabilities programs — and that got a certain amount of

people back to work.

As I say,

they didn't give us any background as to how well they were working. I suspect

they were working to some extent. But we want to make sure that our RFPs are

accountable and that at the end of the day we can say we spent this money, and

these people actually got employment and here's how they got employment, and

that there's a continuum of programs in there to meet the various needs and the

varying needs of people with disabilities.

MacPhail: I'm just trying to find out a reason why you're doing this review.

I assumed you picked these 14,000…. Is it 14,000 people? Let me just get the

right number. Is it 14,000 people who eventually had to hand in the review?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll be detailed, because I want the member to get the details she's

asked for. As she knows, the new legislation, the Employment and Assistance for

Persons with Disabilities Act, introduced a new definition and a designation for

persons with disabilities. The B.C. Employment and Assistance for Persons with

Disabilities Act focuses on impairments that restrict a person's ability to

perform daily living activities. This definition is more consistent with human

rights case law than the former definition under the BC Benefits Act, which used

unusual and continuous monthly expenditures.

[1550]

There is a

legal requirement for the minister to review the former disability 2 caseload to

determine the eligibility under the new legislation criteria. The definition in

the previous Disability Benefits Program Act had many undefined terms, and the

application form and the medical assessment was, we believe, too simplistic.

There was no specific list of assessors in the regulations, and policy allowed

for a broad range of assessors including teachers and school counsellors.

As the

member may know, the new legislation specifies that assessors be health

professionals authorized under and enacted to practise a profession such as

medical practitioner, registered psychologist, occupational therapist or

physical therapist. People with mental disorders were not specifically included

in the definition.

The review.

We went through all of the cases, as the legislation required, and found that

there were 14,000 people at the end of the day. We just did not have enough

information on their files to make the new designation, so the review process

required those 14,000 to give us more information on themselves for the

definition to be given to them.

MacPhail: Well, I'm sure that will be work in terms of rewriting history,

but that is a complete rewrite of history — a complete rewrite of history —

starting with the June 2002 briefing note that the minister himself and his

staff had about cutting people off DB-2.

In terms of

the review, then. It was interesting to note that the minister isn't doing it to

help people and that there will be special resources to provide them for moving

from welfare to work. It's basically, I guess, to see whether these people are

disabled enough or whether they've been actually laggards in terms of fooling

people about whether they're disabled or not. I recall very clearly at the time

that, even though I worked closely with the community to expand the definition

and worked very closely with the community, they were still upset. Many people

were upset about how qualifying took place or how people didn't qualify. It will

be interesting to see what the results of the review are.

The $24

million, then, isn't to deal with the 14,000, and none of the programs are in

place yet. Well, some of them are in place. When is this migration from DB-2 to

work expected to take place? I'm trying to figure out whether any of the $200

million cut in this ministry's budget will come out of DB-2.

Hon. M.

Coell: Actually, it won't. If you look at the estimates and the budget,

there's actually an increase.

[ Page 6052 ]

MacPhail: Which gets me back to my point that I made before. The minister

actually went off on another tangent, which was fine, thinking that I was asking

about what part of the 60 percent of the caseload…. He thought I was just

talking about disability 2.

I was

talking about the entire caseload. The entire caseload as of February '03 is

183,312 people, of whom 55,000 are children and 56,500 are people with

disabilities on DB-2. That's 111,107 people of 183,000, so fully 60 percent of

those to whom the government pays welfare are either people with disabilities or

children.

That means

that the 40 percent are going to bear the brunt of a $200 million reduction, I

would assume. What plans are for that? The minister says it's just going to

carry on. How does that work, where you take $200 million out of 71,000 people's

pockets?

[1555]

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm glad to clarify for the member. The reduction, when you look at

the estimates for this year, is in the temporary assistance, the

expected-to-work and people who are employable. The caseload would go down in

that category, and the reduction in the funds in that category as well.

MacPhail: Yes, so he's confirming what I'm saying — that the $200

million-plus budget cut in his ministry will come out of 40 percent of the

caseload. It excludes children, and it excludes disability 2. I mean, that's a

huge, huge reduction. So what are the plans — just carry on the way we are

now?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think I understand what the member is saying. If she remembers, we

actually were under budget in this ministry by a significant amount. And if I

look at caseloads, we need to get, this year, to a total caseload of 118,500

people. The year we started off we were already at 122,500 people.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, what was the budget for this year, then? The minister

told me it was $1.4 billion — the actual expenditure. So what is the actual

expenditure versus…?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said, the caseload we're looking at for this year is 118,500. We

were, last year…. We haven't gone through the reconciliation yet, and the

final numbers haven't been published, but an estimate would be that we were

under budget by $164 million. So a lot of that comes out of last year's savings.

MacPhail: Yes, I'm sorry. Could the minister just give me a figure for the

budget for '02-03? The expenditure — sorry.

Hon. M.

Coell: I was just doing some math. I should have borrowed that member's

calculator as well. As I said, we haven't done the reconciliation, and the final

budget hasn't been published, but it will be approximately $1.5 billion. This

year's budget is $1.417 billion.

MacPhail: Okay. Yes, but '04-05 is $1.2 billion — right? Let me just start

again.

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

For '02-03

the budget will be around $1.5 billion. For '03-04 it is around $1.4

billion-plus, and for '04-05 it is $1.22 billion. So starting off this year, you

have a budget of $1.4 billion. But my point is that you have to have that budget

down to $1.22 billion just 12 months from now.

So what are

the plans? No matter which way you cut it, there's going to be a couple of

hundred million dollars cut from the welfare budget in 12 months.

[1600]

Hon. M.

Coell: Actually, the member is not quite correct. The budget…. In 12

months we have to be at $1.4 billion; in 24 months we have to be at $1.22

billion. Both of those reductions are coming out of the temporary caseload.

Again, you can see where the assistance in continuous stays pretty level during

that time, with an uptake in '04-05. But the reduction in our ministry will come

from putting people back to work, out of the caseload of temporary assistance.

MacPhail: The minister is quite correct to correct me. Over the course of

the next 24 months his ministry gets cut by $300 million — $100 million this

year and then another $200 million the following year. So over the course of the

next 24 months, $300 million will be cut from the welfare budget. As I

understand it, that's like, over the course of the next two years…. What is

that? That's a 22 or 23 percent cut over two years coming out of 70,000 people,

the temporary assistance caseload. I asked the minister what plans he has for

that, and it's sort of: carry on the way it is. So if we're not just booting

people off welfare, what's the increase in employment training programs over

just the next two years?

Hon.

M. Coell: I appreciate that question, and I'll try and answer it in a little

bit of detail. When we became government, we looked at and did core reviews of

all ministries. One of the things this ministry decided to do was to make its

changes upfront. As you remember, major pieces of legislation were introduced

last year that changed the direction for income assistance. The projected

caseload is…. In total we would like to see it down around 100,000. The

employment programs that are stated…. We looked at a three-year window of $330

million over that time and guaranteed those programs. We refined and retooled

many of them and put an emphasis on people with disabilities this year to try

and beef up the employment and training opportunities for people with

disabilities.

Those

programs and the legislation were all introduced last year. As I said earlier,

we don't foresee any new changes to legislation, any new changes to regulations.

Those changes were made, and with the projection of carrying through and putting

an emphasis on employment for people who are employable. I think that, in many

instances, managing the system that was

[ Page 6053 ]

changed last year over the three years will give those budgetary figures.

MacPhail: So that's the long answer for: "There's no new money — none

— for employment." I guess this $300 million cut over the next two years

will be people being cut off welfare with no help from the government in moving

to a job.

Maybe

they'll get a job themselves, but let me just explore that a bit, then. The

minister wants the caseload down to 100,000 by next year. How many people is

that?

Hon. M.

Coell: We would anticipate about 160,000 people. It is an estimate, because

you don't know the size of families coming in and out of income assistance.

[1605]

MacPhail: So 160,000 people. I need just a second to do my calculation for

my next question. Mr. Chair, I calculate that as 4 percent of the population on

social assistance. This is the government's goal. What's the rate of welfare use

in other provinces — every single one, please?

Hon. M.

Coell: While my staff is getting those numbers for me, I'll maybe just give

the member details. When you look at the 24-month period, the caseload as of

February was 122,000. Our caseload target for this year is 118,000, so that's a

reduction of 4,000. Well, our employment programs alone this year were well over

10,000 people finding employment. That's an easy number of people to find work

for. The following year, you'd see a reduction of 18,000 people, and last month

we created 18,000 jobs in this province.

There are

opportunities for people on temporary assistance who are employable. They just

need the right training and the right employment opportunities, and they will

quickly move off income assistance and start to earn two to three times more

than they were on income assistance.

MacPhail: I love fun with math too. I love statistics, but the minister's

made a couple of leaps there that are leaps of faith, quite frankly.

The reason

I want to know what the participation rate in the welfare system is by province

is because I want to know how this government, with the highest unemployment

rate west of Quebec, manages also to have the lowest participation rate. It

might be called an out-migration strategy.

Hon. M.

Coell: Unfortunately, I don't have anything newer than March of '02 for

British Columbia. I can give that to the member — the percentage of people on

caseloads. In Newfoundland it's 9.8 percent, in Prince Edward Island it's 5.4,

in Nova Scotia it's 6.5, in New Brunswick it's 6.7, in Quebec it's 7.5, in

Ontario it's 5.7, in Manitoba it's 5.2, in Saskatchewan it is 5.5, in Alberta

it's 1.8, in British Columbia it's 5.9, and in the Yukon it's 3.4. So there's a

variety from 1.8 percent to 9.8 percent within Canada.

MacPhail: I think if the minister will check, these rates of participation

in the welfare system are fairly constant. The provinces made their big cuts in

welfare, except in British Columbia, throughout the 1990s, so they're relatively

constant.

Here we

have British Columbia who next year wants to have a participation rate of 4

percent. The only province that would be lower…. Believe you me, that stat on

the Yukon is changing. The only province that would be lower is Alberta, 1.8

percent. Everybody else is around 5.5 to 6.5 percent. What magic is this

government doing that will have a participation rate on welfare of 4 percent and

the highest unemployment level west of Quebec? How does that work?

Hon. M.

Coell: A number of comments. Last year, as we said earlier, we saw 78,000

jobs created. Two months ago we saw 12,000 jobs created. The month previous,

18,000 jobs created. What we're trying to do is make sure that the B.C. economy

prospers by the changes government makes to how B.C. is governed.

[1610]

One thing I

want to talk about is the bank of jobs that my ministry has right now. This

month, this day, we have 7,000 available jobs only available for income

assistance recipients. Now, we have contractors who…. Part of their contract

with job training and job placement is actually to go out and find jobs. One of

the abilities for our clients, now that they have an employment plan…. Then,

they didn't have to do that. They could just come and get a cheque, and we

didn't help them find work. Now part of the income assistance program is an

employment plan that's worked on and that they have to work on with our staff.

They have to work with many of our contractors.

We have

some very, very fine contractors throughout the province who diligently look for

work, for opportunities, for our clients and place them into it. Their jobs are

good paying. As I say, there are 7,000 of them available today. When I look at

this year's caseload reduction of 4,000 with the contracts that we have, with

the emphasis on helping people with disabilities with employment and with the

change in direction of the economy of creating jobs rather than losing jobs,

those make me very optimistic that we'll reach the targets and that people will

find employment in B.C.

MacPhail: Let's be clear. The job growth rate throughout the 1990s far

exceeded what this government's doing in the first two years. Maybe over the

course of the decade they'll match the job growth rate of the 1990s, but they're

nowhere near it now.

There is a

correlation between unemployment and welfare when you have a safety net that

actually meets the needs of people who are subject to the vagaries of the

economy. It made sense that the participation rate in welfare in British

Columbia was the — one, two, three, four, five — sixth highest in '02,

because its un-

[ Page 6054 ]

employment rate was also the sixth highest. That's the correlation. There's

no work, or there's not enough work for a body of people.

What this

government wants to do, with absolutely no plan whatsoever for reducing its

unemployment — none…. This government doesn't participate in job creation.

It likes to take credit for it. This government doesn't do anything to create

jobs. With the unemployment rate still being the sixth highest in the country,

they want to move to the lowest welfare participation rate — except for

Alberta, the lowest. And there are no plans on how to do that — none.

This job

creation that this minister is talking about…. It's very hard to pin down

specifics. I'd like to know what possible credit this government takes for

creating 18,000 jobs or 12,000 jobs or having the highest unemployment rate west

of Quebec. What this government is doing is that they're going to ask people to

leave the province. They're going to force people out of the province. That's

what they're going to do. There's the evidence right there. They're still going

to have the sixth-highest unemployment rate, and yet they want to have the

second-lowest participation in welfare.

That is

saying to people who may have been affected by, who knows, the actions of this

government — in the forest sector, for instance, where everybody admits

there's going to be medium-term pain…. They're going to say to the people of

British Columbia: "Move somewhere else. Get a social safety net somewhere

else, because we're not interested in providing that social safety net to

you."

How many

people are going to be affected by the regulation change October 1, when this

government is going to put a lien on people's homes to recover welfare payments?

[1615]

Hon. M.

Coell: This is just an estimate, but we are debating estimates: about 1,600

people.

MacPhail: And where are they regionally?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm sorry. We don't have that information.

MacPhail: I'd appreciate that information about how this breaks down

regionally. I expect we'll find that in the interior and the coast — those

great areas that this government claims to have so much concern for — those

people live there because the unemployment rate has been so high for so long,

yet they did buy a house in their earlier lives when they had jobs.

Under the

new changes to the disability form, applicants are given 20 days to appeal. Are

there any resources being provided for people to appeal, given that there have

been huge cuts to legal services and advocacy services?

Hon. M.

Coell: We have made no cuts to advocacy payments from this ministry. The

person has 20 business days to ask for reconsideration, and we have ten days to

get back to them. After that point, you would have seven business days to

initiate an appeal, and then we have 15 business days to hold that appeal. So

the time line is much more condensed for the appeal process.

MacPhail: Is the ministry doing any tracking of those who had a review and

were declared ineligible — about what happens to them after that?

Hon. M.

Coell: I wonder if the member could expand on that question for me, please.

MacPhail: I'm worried about people falling through the cracks. These are

people who have disability 2 payments. They are reviewed, they are denied, and

they are declared ineligible for disability 2 payments. Do they automatically go

onto temporary assistance, or what happens? Are we keeping track of them?

[1620]

Hon. M.

Coell: We will be doing that. If someone applies for disability assistance

and they're not already receiving it…. If they didn't receive

persons-with-a-disability designation, their EAW would also do a screen for

persons with multiple barriers to see if they fit that category, and if need be,

they would do an employment plan with that person. Someone who is on the

caseload now, who applies and doesn't meet the criteria, would also have an

immediate appointment with their EAW to do a scan to see about the

persons-with-multiple-barriers designation as well.

MacPhail: Earlier today, during introductions, I introduced a man who was

here for question period: Theodore Hawryluk. He actually asked me to read this

into the record during introductions, and it wasn't appropriate. But let me read

it to the minister now.

I'd like to

ask the House to rise and acknowledge the existence and presence of Mr. Theodore

Hawryluk. Mr. Hawryluk owned and operated several businesses before becoming

disabled in 1996. From 1996 until September 2002, Mr. Hawryluk was a volunteer

news broadcaster at CFUV radio in Victoria to — as he puts it — give

something back to his community.

After

receiving his 23-page re-evaluation, Mr. Hawryluk has become very depressed. His

days are now filled with fear and anger — fear that for the sake of a few

dollars the province is losing its soul and anger because the backbenchers sit

back and say nothing to defend the rights of those that are least advantaged.

Mr.

Hawryluk is not from my constituency, by the way. Mr. Hawryluk is here today to

watch people earning three times his income cut his income by 25 percent. Mr.

Hawryluk dares any one of us, me included, to live as he does on $786 per month.

Try to remain happy and motivated while being threatened with a reduction to

$610 a month.

Mr.

Hawryluk is extremely anxious and wishes desperately to be a productive citizen

but can't because

[ Page 6055 ]

of his disabilities. What happens to Mr. Hawryluk if he loses his DB-2

benefits? When he meets with his EAW, does he automatically get the social

assistance, or does he have to come up with an employment plan and wait three

weeks?

Hon. M.

Coell: It really depends on the individual case, but what we're trying to do

is adjudicate within an eight-week period, which is sort of traditional. Some

have been longer than that, but if we got a review form in at this stage, we

would be looking at eight to 12 weeks before we got back — but, I suspect,

closer to eight.

If you

received a letter saying, "Thank you very much for the information. It

assists us in helping with the designation. You've been approved for the

designation, " then nothing would change. If someone received a letter

saying that there wasn't sufficient information to make the definition, then

they would have an appointment very shortly with their EAW and look at the

screen for persons with multiple barriers to employment. Also, if someone was

able to work, they would do an employment plan and go through the employability

programs.

MacPhail: Is there a possibility that people who are now declared ineligible

for DB-2 could be cut off for a few weeks or months?

Hon. M.

Coell: No, that's not the case.

MacPhail: What happens to them? Do they automatically go on temporary

assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: There is a three-month notice once someone has been given…. If they

sent in the review form and were approved, then nothing changes. If they did not

receive the designation, then they would have three months from that point

before any changes, and that would give them time to come in, speak to the EAW

about the persons-with-multiple-barriers-to-employment designation or do an

employment plan and be in the employment programs.

MacPhail: Yes, all right. So in the three-month notice, they have to appeal.

If they lose their appeal, then do they…? Sorry, I'm not completely up to

speed. Isn't there a three-week waiting period before you go on temporary

assistance? Do they have to do the three-week waiting period?

[1625]

Hon. M.

Coell: No, that's not the case. Someone would just be moved either into the

persons-with-multiple-barriers category or into the temporary assistance

category.

MacPhail: How much money has the ministry budgeted to assess how many of the

recipients currently receiving disability benefits will qualify for the

employable category?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm not sure I understand the question, but we have $3.8 million in

the budget this year for the assessment part of the review process.

MacPhail: So the $3.8 million includes the work the EAW is going to do after

they've been turned down?

Here's how

I've been told that people think it's going to work. A person is on DB-2 now.

They get the notice saying: "You're not eligible for DB-2." They have

the right to appeal. If they lose the appeal, they'll have to go in and be

reassessed for everything with their EAW. How much is the ministry budgeting for

the transition after they've lost their appeal?

Hon. M.

Coell: That would just be part of the everyday function of the ministry.

There's no additional cost to that. That would be within our staff allocations.

MacPhail: Can the minister put on the record now what the definition for

persistent barriers to employment is?

Hon. M.

Coell: For the member — and I'll take a moment here — persons with

persistent multiple barriers are those persons who meet the following criteria:

have received assistance for 12 of the last 15 months; have severe multiple

personal barriers to employment; and have a medical condition, excluding

addictions, that has lasted for at least one year, is likely to continue or

recur frequently for at least two years and seriously hinders their ability to

search for, accept and continue employment; or have a medical condition,

excluding addictions, that has lasted for at least one year, is likely to

continue to recur frequently or for at least two years and by itself precludes

their ability to search for, accept or continue employment.

I'd just

take a moment longer for the member. An individual's personal barriers are those

that are beyond a person's control, cannot be overcome despite all reasonable

attempts by the client — excluding medical conditions — and directly prevent

the person from maintaining employment now or in the foreseeable future.

MacPhail: That's persistent barriers to employment. What's the definition of

multiple barriers to employment?

Hon. M.

Coell: That's persons with persistent multiple barriers, and there's just

that one category. I'm sorry if I didn't add the multiple barriers in. So

there's just the one category: persons with persistent multiple barriers.

MacPhail: How many people are in this category?

Hon. M.

Coell: We're budgeting for 10,000 in this category.

[ Page 6056 ]

[1630]

MacPhail: Are those 10,000 spread throughout all of the categories as well?

When you say you're budgeting for them, are they part of the…? Or are they

just part of the disabilities category?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's part of the continuous assistance category, but it's a separate

category. I think what the member is looking for is: are those people part of

the 46,000? They're not; they're on top of that. That would be 56,000.

MacPhail: Cases?

Hon. M.

Coell: Cases.

MacPhail: So a person who loses her appeal for being kicked off DB-2 would

be screened for being eligible for the persistent-and-multiple-barrier category.

How many people are in the category as of last year? This year you're budgeting

for 10,000. How many were in the category last year?

Hon. M.

Coell: This is a new category. It's not the previous DB-1 category that was

cancelled; this is a new category. We're budgeting that 10,000 people will be in

this category. Some of the DB-1s will be in this category; probably a majority

of them will be in this category.

MacPhail: Okay. Could the minister update me on when the change is going to

take place and where the DB-1 people have been? When does the change take place,

when he says it's a new category…?

Hon. M.

Coell: The new category actually started September 30. We had started

receiving applications at that date.

MacPhail: How many are in the category now? So all DB-1 people had to

reapply for multiple-and-persistent-barrier category. I understand that's

correct.

How many as

of now or the last time you kept stats, February '03, are in the

multiple-and-persistent-barrier category?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said, that new category came into existence on September 30.

We've budgeted for 10,000 in that category, and as of today just about 9,000

have been approved and are in that new category.

MacPhail: So how many does the minister anticipate will move from DB-2 to

the persistent-and-multiple-barriers-to-employment category?

Hon. M.

Coell: At this point we don't know, because none have moved from the former

DB-2 caseload to persons with multiple barriers. They're all still on the

caseload as persons with disability.

MacPhail: What's the timing for completion of the review of people with

disabilities?

Hon. M.

Coell: We've told people that we would have everyone notified by June 15.

There may be some exceptions to that, but June 15 is the date that we're

focusing on at this point.

[1635]

MacPhail: And then the appeal period after that? The minister is nodding

yes.

When did

this process start? Was it October?

Hon. M.

Coell: The review started September 30 — or October, as the member

suggests.

MacPhail: We're in our seventh month of this review now. By the time the

minister expects it to be completed, it will be nine months. Then there's the

appeal period after that. I'd say that's a lot of anxiety for people to have to

go through — a lot of stress. What groups is the minister working with to

establish the appeal process or to make sure the appeal process is working as

smoothly as possible?

Hon. M.

Coell: The appeal process was set up under the administrative justice

project. A new tribunal was put in place by the legislation last year. We're

continually getting input from people with regard to the appeal process. We'll

make changes as need be.

MacPhail: The minister has an advisory group, he said earlier. What changes

have been made in the appointments to that advisory group in the last six

months?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member may be confusing the two. The appeal board is

quite separate from the minister's advisory council. It's specifically on

employment and employment strategies for people with disabilities. The two are

not connected in any way.

MacPhail: Oh, okay. His advisory council is not assisting him with this

appeal process. Who is, then? Is he consulting with the Canadian Mental Health

Association?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll just take a moment, if I may, to outline the implementation of

the appeal tribunal. It's an independent office with its own budget and staff.

Its contracted lawyer provides legal assistance. Its chair reports to the

minister through an annual report. Case details, of course, are — the same as

the previous appeal tribunal — confidential.

The

minister's council, as the member was commenting, is separate from this group.

They're volunteers. They're people we looked at from around the province who had

the ability to, I think, effect some change with business practices for hiring

people with disabilities.

MacPhail: How is the minister going to ensure the independence of the…?

How long have the re-

[ Page 6057 ]

gional tribunals been operating under the minister's new system?

Hon. M.

Coell: The regional tribunals were effective September 30 as well.

MacPhail: How many are there? How long have they sat? How many cases have

they heard? How many regions are there? Could the minister please give me the

details of the regional tribunal hearings — how many decisions in favour of

the appellant, how many denied?

[1640]

Hon. M.

Coell: It's really a small window from October to December, and I do have

the information. The ministry has moved from nine regions to five regions — I

think I mentioned that earlier — more in line with the Ministry of Health

Services' regions and the Ministry of Children and Family Development's regions.

It came into effect September 30, so we're looking at a window basically from

October to December. There are 192 members of the tribunal. They have had in

that short period of time 299 tribunals; 156 have confirmed the ministry's

decision, and 79 have rescinded the ministry's decision.

MacPhail: What happened to the rest?

Hon. M.

Coell: They're still in process. Sorry, I should have added that.

One thing

the member might be interested in is that over 65 percent of the issues are

resolved at the reconsideration level in the ministry.

MacPhail: Which occurs before the tribunal level. So in three months there

were 192 members, 299 tribunals. What was the three-month cost for running the

tribunals?

Hon. M.

Coell: The estimate for the employment and assistance appeal tribunal for

'02-03 was $2.241 million, and the estimate for '03-04 is $2.417 million.

MacPhail: Is there a review going on, or is someone monitoring the new

appeal process? My understanding is that there is no judicial review of the

appeal process anymore.

Hon. M.

Coell: No, a client can still go to a judicial review.

MacPhail: How many judicial reviews have there been?

Hon. M.

Coell: The ministry has not initiated any judicial reviews, but some clients

may have. We wouldn't be aware of that.

MacPhail: I remember one of the sticking points, in terms of acceptance of

the regional tribunals, was that the appellant used to have the right to choose

one member of the tribunal. That is no longer the case as I understand it. Does

the minister still appoint all members of the tribunal?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes.

MacPhail: Has there been any feedback on that? What monitoring is the

minister doing of the appeal process? Who's he working with?

[1645]

Hon. M.

Coell: The employment and assistance legislation lays out the rules by which

the appeal tribunal must conduct appeals. The appeal tribunal clearly operates

independently from the ministry, but we do monitor the processes and procedures

to ensure that they're operating effectively. The chair of the employment and

assistance appeal tribunal monitors the appeals when appeals are filed and when

decisions are rendered. If delays occur, I will meet with the chair to discuss

the processes and procedures. One of the things that we were trying to do with

this is to make a more timely appeal process, and I think that's taken place.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister reiterate again how much more timely

it is, then?

Hon. M.

Coell: I guess the timeliness would be that an appeal must be held within 15

days of the date a notice of appeal is delivered to the employment and

assistance appeal tribunal — so 15 days.

MacPhail: Is that being met? I'm sorry. Did you say the appeal has to be

heard in that time? If so, is that happening? What's the time line to the

rendering of decision?

Hon. M.

Coell: It is 15 days unless both parties agree to an extension. Sometimes,

if someone has a doctor's appointment on that day or something, they might

extend it. We would make a decision within seven business days.

MacPhail: I want to move back to the…. That's the appeal process that

people with changes in their disability 2 status will have to follow. Is that

correct? The minister is nodding. The training opportunities that the minister

will offer people. I'm thinking now of these people that will be moved from DB-2

into other opportunities. I'm glad to hear that they won't have all of their

welfare cut off. But other training — where's the training taking place? Are

they on the job, work experience? Does the ministry have any training programs

left at universities or colleges?

[1650]

Hon. M.

Coell: The goal of the ministry — and I think the previous member's goal

was probably the same when she was the minister of this ministry — is

[ Page 6058 ]

to have a continuum of programs and strategies for people on income

assistance and for people with disabilities.

As we've

stated earlier, there is the $330 million commitment over three years, of which

$24 million is for persons with disabilities and employment strategies this

year. The first part of that program is really the job plan. Now, as part of

income assistance and through the last year and this year, we're developing

those programs and then going back and seeing where there are any gaps in

services and trying to plug those gaps.

There's

been a series of RFPs. The member may have noticed that. Then there are some

just going forward now, $14 million worth for persons with disabilities. There's

been a series of RFPs that have been spread out over the year so that contracts

don't end and start all at the same time.

We have the

public service training program which has been there for a number of years and

still is there, the employment program for persons with disabilities, the

supports to employment, the pre-employment services, the innovations fund, the

employment initiatives or confirmed job program, the orientation sessions, work

connections, employability skills and the volunteer incentive program, which is

more likely to be taken up by persons with disabilities. We have the

self-employment program, the work-based training modules, Job Start and the job

placement programs, which are the contracts that have been there for a number of

years, and as I've said, we've retooled and refined them after review. Then we

have centrally managed funds, which would be the community assistance program,

which are programs out in the community throughout the province. We will

continue to look at that broad range of programs to see where new opportunities

can be found for people on income assistance and people with disabilities as

well.

MacPhail: I'm interested to know what the effect on the ministry's

employment programs has been with the cuts to ABE, adult basic education, around

the province and/or the charging now for tuition for adult basic education.

Hon. M.

Coell: We pay tuition for persons with disabilities, and they can access ABE

as well. There haven't been any changes in that category.

MacPhail: There have been changes to the ministry's budget. That's what I'm

interested in. Tuition wasn't charged for that before.

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm sorry. I wasn't specific enough. We will pay for that. There's no

charge for that, but there hasn't been a big uptake in that as well.

MacPhail: But there is a difference. I mean, people with employment programs

under the Ministry of Human Resources are now being charged for what used to not

be charged against them. The greater government would provide for free adult

basic education, and now this ministry's budget is being charged for that, so

that probably means less service can be given. I'm sorry. Did the minister have

a figure for how much is being paid for adult basic education?

Let me ask

this other question. This government is now charging tuition for

apprenticeships. Is there any money being paid for that?

[1655]

Hon. M.

Coell: In this year's budget we have $2.34 million for direct payment for

those services the member was mentioning.

MacPhail: Well, it's unfortunate that the changes this government brought in

to charge for tuition and adult basic education are taking money directly out of

the programs moving people from welfare to work, to the tune of millions of

dollars. What agreements does the minister have with various employer groups to

continue to provide on-the-job work experience? Could I have specific names of

programs, please?

Hon. M.

Coell: I may have mentioned some of these, and I'll give a little bit more

detail: the confirmed job program, the orientation sessions, the volunteer

incentive program, the self-employment programs. Then the two major ones are the

training for jobs and job placement programs. Those partner with the chamber of

commerce and the tourism factors. We've expanded that to two other partners.

One, ASPECT, the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career

Training, will deliver in the Fraser North area. KOPAR Administration Ltd. will

deliver in central B.C. and Prince George, northern B.C. We've got the two major

groups that were actually put together by the previous government, which are

still in place, and we've added two partners with that: ASPECT and KOPAR.

They in

turn partner with businesses small and large within their community. I can give

you an example, if the member would like, of some of the service providers the

training for jobs pilot program has. Malaspina College is one, and Changes

Training Centre, A. Horton Consulting Services, North Okanagan Enhancement

Society, Training Innovations Inc., Steele O'Neil and Associates and Canadian

Home Builders Association of B.C.

partnered with the home builders and the college here in town on a program

called hard hats, which takes people on income assistance, gives them a broad

range of skills in the construction industry and then guarantees them a job in

the construction industry. We just had our first graduation class at Camosun two

weeks ago, and there was a group of people who went through this program. They

have the ability to look at cabinetmaking, at welding, at roofing — those

sorts of things — and then they decide which they want to get more involved

in. At the same point, the industry finds them a job at the end, so they leave

income assistance after that short training period.

[ Page 6059 ]

School

district 64, on the North Shore, is one of our partners. There's Spectrum

Community School, Sprott-Shaw Community College, the Open Learning Agency,

Career Connections and, as I said, ASPECT and the Kelowna Economic Recovery and

Employment Development Association as well. That gives you a mix of some of the

training programs our partners have hooked up with.

[1700]

I think one

of the important things for us as politicians to know is that we've got to make

as many contacts as possible out there if we're going to provide the jobs. We

can't just think that government can do it. That's one of the reasons why our

ministry partners with so many other agencies — so that we can try and find

the best possible employment opportunities for people on income assistance.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

What I hope

you'll see this year — and we've talked about it a bit — is that increase

for programs for people with disabilities. We'll expand that partnership, as

well, through the minister's council and through other contacts that we've made

over the years. I think you'll see us continuing to expand the amount of people

we work with and contract with. The bottom line is: how do we find jobs for

employable people who need them?

MacPhail: Do any of those programs, the employer programs, deal specifically

with people with disabilities who suffer an episodic illness, where it's

recurring but periodic?

Hon. M.

Coell: That's one of the reasons we had the rapid reinstatement as part of

the legislation — part of the regulations — so that if someone with a mental

illness, as a good example, could work for a short period of time and wanted to

and found they couldn't, then they could rapidly be reinstated back onto the

persons-with-a-disability assistance.

The

increase in the earning exemption to $400 from $200 is to do that, so if someone

is able to work for a couple of months, they can actually earn enough. Then if

they can't work, they're not losing the ability to do that.

I think

there's a number of different avenues that you try and focus on, with earning

exemptions being one, for people with periodic recurring illnesses — the

ability to…. As I say, the minister's council is for businesses to understand

that if they take on an employee, this may be something they have to work with

the employee on. There's a number of things we're going to do with the

minister's council with workplace accommodations, too, over the year to try and

find areas where we can help people with — I would say — their ability to

work periodically. We want to be able to enhance that for them.

MacPhail: Yes. My question was: is there any interest from the employers in

working on that?

Hon. M.

Coell: Actually, I met with the business learning network this morning, and

we're…. Between that contact and the minister's council and the terms of

reference, which are on the website for the minister's council, those are areas

where we want to enhance businesses' receptiveness — I guess, more than

anything — to people with disabilities and to people with unique disabilities

that will challenge both the person and the employer to find ways of dealing

with the disability that allow them to be employed at the same time. So, yes to

the question.

MacPhail: I have several questions from disparate areas, and then that will

be it on these estimates for me. I am disappointed that I have not had the

information about the caseload, unless the minister has it now.

Hon. M.

Coell: It hasn't come yet.

MacPhail: Sorry? Okay. Will I get it tonight?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes.

MacPhail: Yes, thank you. The minister is saying yes. There was a rule that

was put in place that in order to be eligible for claiming your child for

welfare payments, the child could not be truant from school. Could we have the

status of that rule?

Hon. M.

Coell: That policy hasn't been implemented at this point. We're still

working on it.

[1705]

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I missed the answer.

Hon. M.

Coell: I didn't notice that the member wasn't paying attention. We haven't

implemented that policy. We're still working on it.

MacPhail: Has there been feedback from school districts about the

advisability of proceeding on that policy?

Hon. M.

Coell: No, I don't believe we've had any feedback from school districts.

MacPhail: In communities like Port Hardy, people on disability are having

difficulty getting their reassessment forms filled out because of the difficulty

of getting appointments with GPs and psychologists.

Is the

minister going to provide some sort of remedy for this issue either by extending

the deadline or by increasing resources to communities like Port Hardy?

Hon. M.

Coell: One of the undertakings we took in the last month or so was to

actually contact everyone we hadn't heard from. As I said earlier in the

estimates, we have heard from all but a hundred people who we were expecting to

have the review form in.

[ Page 6060 ]

There were

about 700 that we now know are either at the doctor's or the health

professional's office, so they'll be coming in. We're looking at a case-by-case

basis. If there's someone in Port Hardy that the member knows about who is one

of those hundred, I'd be interested to know so our staff could contact them

directly.

MacPhail: Is the ministry currently working with the auditor general's

office on the review that the auditor general is conducting of the disability

benefits review?

Hon. M.

Coell: Staff have spoken with the auditor general and will be working with

the auditor general during the review.

MacPhail: When did the benefits change for people on social assistance for

MSP coverage for podiatry, optometry, etc.? That's number one. When did the

change kick in, and what has been the change in usage?

Hon. M.

Coell: The regulation changes were September 30. I don't have the detailed

information that the member is asking for, but I will get it to her.

MacPhail: The changes are, as I remember them, that there's a visitation

limit that now has to be shared amongst all of the supplementary medical

services. Could the minister explain the change, again, that took place

September 30, 2002, and is he tracking usage?

[1710]

Hon. M.

Coell: I think I was a little confused between what Health Services changes

were and what ours are.

If someone

has access to

schedule C in our ministry, they would get 12 visits for physio

and chiropractic or massage over and above what MSP allows for.

MacPhail: Yeah, that's the question, and MSP doesn't cover it anymore in

certain areas. But the usage of it — will that be an MSP question?

Hon. M.

Coell: We do track it. It is very small; it's not a large number. I could

get that number for her. We don't have it here, but I could get that number to

the member.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, those conclude my questions. It is a year of great

change, '03-04, in the social assistance system not only for people on temporary

assistance but also for people on continuous assistance. I am pleased that the

auditor general will be doing a review of the disabilities review initiative.

We, from a public accounts point of view, will be watching that very carefully.

I said to

the Minister of Children and Family Development that when the economy recovers

— if the economy recovers, and I certainly hope it does — it would be my

wish to have extra resources assigned first to the Ministry of Human Resources

and their clientele, and then to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development. So I repeat that for this minister.

My riding

is one of…. I love my riding. It's an eclectic riding, it's a diverse riding,

but it also has pockets of extreme poverty that in my view…. And certainly,

the community advocates whom I've worked with for years say that the changes in

human resources and social assistance have affected the community deeply and in

a very troubling way. So I will be anxious as I watch the changes unfold

throughout '03-04, and I hope that by '04-05 this government can see its way

clear to try not to have the narrowest and smallest and shallowest social safety

net in all of Canada.

Hon. M.

Coell: I will make sure that the information I promised the member this

evening gets to her office. If she doesn't mind, it might be late this evening,

but I'll make sure it gets to her office.

J. Bray:

I have several questions stemming from the ministry's service plan, and I hope

not to be too redundant on any of the earlier debate.

Certainly,

as I've commented before during estimates debates, the first thing I'd like to

do is acknowledge…. Service plans are often documents which people sometimes

think are just sort of little add-ons that ministries do. In fact, they are very

important aspects of planning and service delivery, and a way of accountability

for both ministries to use but also for the public to gauge the success of the

ministries as they outline their plans and meet their objectives.

[1715]

I want to

acknowledge that the Ministry of Human Resources service plan is excellent, and

it's clear that staff who work for the ministry put in a lot of time to really

develop a well-thought-out, well-rounded service plan. One of the great things

is that it's a very useful tool for the public. One of the detriments for

ministers is that it creates a lot of opportunities for further debate, because

there is so much information in the service plan. So I will try to follow the

service plan as best I can with my questions, and as debate happens, we may move

around a little bit.

The first

thing I note during the strategic context in which the plan was laid out…. On

page 4 there is some talk about some new initiatives. The first one I noticed is

employment plans and the whole concept of employment plans, and I'm wondering if

the minister can provide some more information on what these employment plans

are, what the goals of the employment plans are and why this is new from what's

occurred in the past for recipients of income assistance.

Hon. M.

Coell: Thank you, member, for your kind words.

The

employment plan. I'll give you an example. I've taken the initiative to go and

visit a lot of our offices over the last year. I was up in Port Alberni on

Friday visiting with our office, and one of our staff said something that really

struck me. She said: "The employment plan is a way for us to work with our

client in a posi-

[ Page 6061 ]

tive way. You're looking at not just pushing paper, but you're actually now

allowing our front-line workers an added tool to help people." They were

very much in favour of the employment plan aspect of the program.

So I think

it focuses our minds as a ministry, and it also focuses our client's mind that

temporary assistance is temporary and that our goal is for them to be employed

and making two to three times more money in an employment situation than on

income assistance. For me that's the key of it.

I think the

last speaker mentioned it — that people on income assistance generally don't

want to be on income assistance. They'd like to be working. So if right from the

beginning of someone walking into our office, we say, "We've got a plan,

we've got programs, and we've got the ability to help you find employment and

support you in that employment," whether a person is without disabilities

or with disabilities…. I think there are some challenges that used to be there

with our front-line staff, which the employment plan actually takes away and

adds a benefit.

J. Bray:

The reason why I started with this particular area with respect to the service

plan is that, as the minister knows, prior to this current

chapter in my life I

actually worked, starting as a financial assistance worker, in the Ministry of

Human Resources and ultimately ending up as a policy analyst and an area

manager. So I have worked with the same clients the minister talks about both as

a front-line worker as well as somebody developing overarching policy and some

of the implementation strategies accordingly.

In my

13-plus years of working with the ministry, we had a variety of tools — and

sometimes I'll use that term loosely — to deal with this particular area of

how you actually take somebody who you don't know coming in, applying for income

assistance, and develop some form of strategy that will, at the end of the day,

attach them to the labour market or at least maximize their ability for

independence.

I recall

there were forms that were called the life forms, which were literally just a

one-page series of boxes that you ticked off yes or no, that you applied to

everybody evenly regardless of their individual circumstances, regardless of

their age, regardless of anything else. At the end of the day the only thing the

minister was monitoring those years was just how many forms were completed, not

actually the outcomes.

I'm

wondering if the minister can provide us with some idea of what this employment

plan looks like. What's the process when a client is in the office with their

financial assistance worker? What does that process actually looks like? The

minister, in his previous answer, talked about a collaborative and supportive

approach, so what does it actually look like? What is this going to mean for

clients when they're working with their financial assistance workers?

[1720]

Hon. M.

Coell: Just in general, it's about a