2002 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

Hon. G. Plant

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Hon. G. Plant

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)

Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Organ donations

R. Nijjar

Community crime watch program

P. Wong

Funding for hearing-impaired

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Health care facility closings and layoff of nurses

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

Use of closed courthouse buildings

D. Chutter

Hon. S. Santori

Aboriginal services

B. Belsey

Hon. G. Abbott

Disabled access to parks

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)

Petitions

R. Sultan

R. Hawes

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, annual report, 1999-2000, 2000-01

Second Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill

26) (continued)

J. MacPhail

T. Christensen

S. Orr

J. Kwan

Tabling Documents

Job Protection Commissioner, annual report, 2000

Second Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill

26) (continued)

Hon. M. Coell

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill

27)

Hon. M. Coell

J. MacPhail

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

(continued)

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

[ Page 2891 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Plant: We are joined in the gallery today by a distinguished former member

of this assembly who was also at one time the Attorney General of British

Columbia. In fact, I've known him for many years, which means he could tell

stories about what I was like as a kid in the neighbourhood. I never got up to

any bad things, I can assure you. I can say this: he did tell me that I was

taking on a challenging job. He's been absolutely right. I'm sure that all

members will welcome Russ Fraser to the precincts.

[1405]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure all Members of the Legislative Assembly would like to

join with me today in recognizing what the historic occasion is on April 17,

2002. This is the first day of the trek of the Vancouver Canucks to winning

their first-ever Stanley Cup.

Mr.

Speaker: I suppose, then, that the House will adjourn at 4 o'clock.

[Laughter.]

Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce nine representatives of the

sight-handicapped community who are visiting in the gallery today. They are

Janet Erikson, Don Noble, Betty Noble, Peter Bourne, Julie Caudle, Linda

Bartram, Gary Peister, Richard Marion and Theresa Andrews — and their guide

dogs, Milicent, Jo-Etta, Kirsty, Gina and Finch. Would you please make them

welcome.

Brice: I am pleased to have guests in the gallery. I would like to introduce

my brother, Ron McMicking; his wife, Linda; and their grandsons Travis and

Jordan Heemskerk. I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Wong:

I'm very pleased this afternoon to introduce two groups, with a total of 83

grades 11 and 12 students of history and social studies, from Sir Charles Tupper

School in Vancouver, led by their respectable teachers, Mr. David Dougall, Ms.

Smith, Ms. McBride, Mr. Williams and Mr. Trask. Will the House please make them

most welcome.

Suffredine: Yesterday I had the pleasure to speak on the importance of law

reform. Today in the gallery we have Greg Steele, the chair of the B.C. Law

Institute, and Arthur Close, the executive director. Arthur was the mainstay of

what was formerly called the Law Reform Commission for a decade or more.

I also have

a rather dedicated constituency assistant, Ms. Caroline Rushton, who has come

down to see how Victoria works. Would the House please all welcome them.

Hon. G.

Campbell: In the gallery today is Dr. Paul Tennant. Dr. Tennant has been the

éminence grise of the legislative internship program in British Columbia

for a number of years. All of us, regardless of our political background, have

been privileged to work with a number of young British Columbians who are

interested in government, who are interested in public policy and who have been

a huge support to us over the last number of years in the legislative session.

I'd like to thank Dr. Tennant for his leadership and thank the legislative

interns for their commitment to public life in the province, and I know the

Legislature would like to make Dr. Tennant welcome and say thanks.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm always delighted to see students in the gallery of the

Legislature, and I, too, would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the

students from Sir Charles Tupper. I would also like to, in particular, single

out Ajay Sharma, who is with the group today and who I know has been very active

in politics and is looking forward, we think, to a great career ahead of him one

day in politics as well. I hope the House will make him and the whole group

welcome.

Penner: It's my honour today to introduce Prof. Don Alper and his class of,

I believe, approximately 26 students from Western Washington University in

Bellingham. This class is studying Canadian government and politics, and I had

the privilege of speaking to them earlier today and fielding their questions.

This bright and inquisitive group is now in the gallery, and I ask that the

House please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

I'm very pleased today to introduce two hard-working volunteers from my riding

executive who join us today in the gallery. Would the House please welcome Lisa

Karoway and Stephanie Smith.

Sultan: Accompanying her brother, the former Attorney General, in the

gallery today is Joan Fraser, the former chief reference librarian at the

University of Victoria. Would you please make her welcome.

[1410]

Chong: Today I'd also like to welcome two young individuals, two very

energetic Young Liberals who not long ago managed to get me out on a night of

bowling, something I haven't done for a long time. One has already been

introduced — that is, Lisa Karoway. She's the University of Victoria president

of the B.C. Young Liberals. Along with her is Dallas Henault.

[ Page 2892 ]

Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

INTERJURISDICTIONAL SUPPORT

ORDERS ACT

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Interjurisdictional Support

Orders Act.

This bill

is designed to make it easier for families to get support orders when only one

of the parties lives in British Columbia. The bill streamlines the process for

obtaining or changing a support order when only one of the parties lives in

British Columbia by reducing the number of court hearings required from one to

two — from two to one. For a moment there I was afflicted by NDP math.

This bill

also updates the process for registering support orders made in other parts of

Canada. Once these Canadian orders are registered in British Columbia, they will

be able to be enforced just like orders originally made in British Columbia.

This bill enhances access to justice by improving the way family law works for

all British Columbians.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Trustee Investment Statutes

Amendment Act, 2002.

This bill,

which is based upon a report of the British Columbia Law Institute on trustee

investment powers, is designed to modernize trustee investment powers in order

to enable trustees who are not acting under a sophisticated trust instrument to

invest efficiently and productively under modern circumstances. The bill will

also allow the standards of performance required of trustees to better reflect

modern standards and conditions.

The limited

list of authorized trustee investments that currently exists in

section 15 of

the Trustee Act will be replaced with a provision that will permit trustees to

invest generally, subject to the terms of the particular trust. In so doing, a

trustee must exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent

investor would exercise in making investments.

There are

also amendments to other statutes to bring the provisions relating to trustee

investment powers into accord with the amendments to the Trustee Act.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill represents a step forward in the implementation of this

government's commitment to private law reform and is, I think, a tribute to the

work of the B.C. Law Institute towards ensuring that we have a modern and

effective system of civil private law. I congratulate the Law Institute for

their hard work in preparing the report that underlies this bill.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 30

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1415]

ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Neufeld presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes several minor amendments to four

statutes: the Coal Act, the Oil and Gas Commission Act, the Petroleum and

Natural Gas Act and the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

The

amendments that I am introducing today illustrate our commitment to cutting red

tape and creating a thriving private sector economy that supports high-paying

jobs for British Columbians. The Coal Act will be amended to create certainty

for coal tenure access by removing the references to higher-level plans. It is

also being amended to remove duplication of regulation and costs that discourage

the use of on-site materials. These changes demonstrate to the mining industry

that we are listening, as these have been long observed as issues that stood in

the way of coal development.

[ Page 2893 ]

The Oil and

Gas Commission Act is being amended to reduce regulatory burdens on industry by

making the rules and processes clear and more effective. There will also be

changes to the executive structure of the commission, which include having the

Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines serve on the board as director and chair.

These changes will increase the commission's accountability and help ensure that

its operational practices and processes reflect government's priority and

interests.

Amendments

to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act aim to improve the industry's ability to

assess resource potential by eliminating depth restrictions. This will promote

the exploration of new resources like coalbed methane.

Changes to

the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act establish a cost-recovery

framework for the use of roads, bridges and other works used during energy,

mineral and petroleum exploration and development. These changes lead the way

for creating public-private partnerships that promote greater access to the

province's mineral, oil and gas resources and lead to the creation of new jobs.

We need to

move from process-based prescriptive regulations to results-based regulations

and from performance-based compliance to enforcement models. We need to show

industry that we are doing what we can to foster growth and restore investor

confidence while maintaining high environmental health and safety standards.

These changes are a positive step in that direction.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 36,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ORGAN DONATIONS

Nijjar: Next week, the week of April 21, is Organ Donor Awareness Week. I

wish to make every member of this House and the public aware of the importance

of considering registering for organ donation. In British Columbia over 500

people are waiting for life-enhancing or life-saving organs, and many of them will die

waiting. These deaths are needless. For example, we have two kidneys; we need

only one. We can live healthy, regular lives with one kidney. If we can find it

in our hearts to give one kidney to a fellow human being, we will have saved a

life. We will have done one of the most personally rewarding acts. Please

consider this. The chances that you will require an organ transplant far

outweigh the odds that you will ever be a potential organ donor. Less than 1

percent of all deaths in B.C. result in potential organ donation. Relative to

many other countries, British Columbia has a very low rate of organ donation

registration. Based on a public opinion survey, 75 percent of British Columbians

said they support organ donation and intend to register, yet only 11 percent

have done so.

With the

national organ tissue donor awareness week fast approaching, now is the time for

British Columbians to act. Registration has changed from putting a decal on your

driver's licence or CareCard to completing a simple on-line form at

www.transplant.bc.ca or by calling 1-800-663-6189. Tomorrow I will be giving

every member of this House a green ribbon pin to wear during Organ Donor

Awareness Week. Please wear this pin and promote organ donor registration and

help save lives. Thank you.

[1420]

DICKENS COMMUNITY

CRIME WATCH GROUP

P. Wong:

The last few months have been a very busy time in my riding. Families are

working hard to make ends meet and pay the bills. Students are planning to work

throughout the summer holidays, and a number of people in the riding are giving

up their time to make our communities and streets a safer place for all of us.

Vancouver-Kensington

residents take great pride in their neighbourhoods. In our community one such

group is the Dickens Community Crime Watch formed by volunteer residents in

response to an increase in neighbourhood prostitution, drug dealing and

associated crime around the two Dickens elementary schools. They do this through

police-sponsored patrols and street garbage and graffiti cleanup, contacting

small businesses and neighbours and working on long-term solutions. They know

that safe streets and closely knit communities don't just happen. They are built

over time with the commitment of dedicated volunteers. They also know that great

communities must take action at the grass-roots level. Safety and community are

too important to be left solely to the government.

I am so

proud to be affiliated with this group that has worked so hard to make

Vancouver-Kensington a better place for all of us. I am proud to have marched

with them to signal to drug dealers that it's not acceptable to do drugs on our

streets. I have picked up garbage with them and have worked with the city of

Vancouver and our community policing centre to develop and implement real

solutions to the problems facing our communities.

I would

like to thank the members of the Dickens group for setting such a good example

for other neighbourhoods in Vancouver. I know that this partnership would

benefit all residents of the riding and will help to make a safe and vibrant

community.

FUNDING FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED

Hayer: I rise today with some good news. Last week in my riding of

Surrey-Tynehead the Minister of Children and Family Development presented

cheques

[ Page 2894 ]

totalling $650,000 to help the children of British Columbia who suffer from

impaired hearing.

The British

Columbia Family Hearing Resource Centre in Surrey-Tynehead helps more than 325

children and their families from across British Columbia to deal with this

devastating condition. I know from personal experience how hard this can be on

families, as my own nephew suffers from a severe hearing disability.

With one of

the cheques, for $175,000, presented last week to the centre, it can now replace

outdated equipment, which will assist the exceptional and dedicated staff

members to improve the children's ability to communicate. I must also say that

remedial training and support that children and families receive at the centre

is outstanding. I should point out that the Minister of Children and Family

Development also presented a one-time cheque for $475,000 for the building of a

new facility, in addition to the $175,000 for equipment. The centre also

receives $600,000 a year in operational funding from the ministry.

There are

many other contributors, including the Variety Club, corporations, foundations

and individual donors. There are also many others who help out, including those

who volunteer their time.

In closing,

to all these groups and individuals and especially to executive director Susan

Lane, I want to say thank you — and recognize last week's grant by the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. This was not only good news for all

the hearing-impaired children of British Columbia, but it will make life more

exciting and much brighter for them and their parents in the future.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE FACILITY CLOSINGS

AND LAYOFF OF NURSES

MacPhail: The Health minister has admitted that he's getting ready to make a

big announcement next week that will inalterably affect health care delivery in

this province. The back bench have been given their lines, told what to say, and

the plans are now signed off.

[1425]

Every

single community in this province is extremely anxious about what's going to

happen to their community. Yesterday at a meeting with nurses, the Health

minister only added to every single community's concerns by saying that every

single community would be affected.

I'll give

the Minister of Health Services an opportunity to put British Columbians' minds

at ease. Will the minister stand up today in the House and assure every British

Columbian that no hospital will close?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I can give the assurance to every British Columbian that we're

actually fixing a health care system so that it's going to start to work for

patients in every part of British Columbia. I can give assurance that we're

going to go from what has been a disjointed system that hasn't met the needs of

patients and communities to a system that's actually integrated, where you've

got hospitals that work in conjunction with each other so that patients know

exactly where they can get the care they need, when they need it, in every

community throughout this province.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Well, that isn't any assurance whatsoever that there will not be a

hospital closing.

Yesterday

the Minister of Health Services was confronted by nurses at the highest level of

our health care system. He also seemed to suggest to those nurses that he had

plans to lay off nurses. That came as a complete surprise to many British

Columbians because here's what this minister had to say recently about laying

off nurses. This is a quote from the Minister of Health Services: "I don't

think that nursing layoffs are in the future cards for B.C. for some time."

The Premier

also said that he doesn't believe that hospitals will be forced to lay off

nurses.

Can the

Minister of Health Services stand up today and provide the assurances today that

he couldn't yesterday that he has no plans to lay off nurses as part of next

week's radical health announcement?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I want to be clear with the member, and I was very clear with the

nurses who confronted me yesterday in the hallway as I was exiting the hotel.

There are going to be changes in the way facilities get used in British

Columbia. There may be some nurses in certain locations that will be laid off. I

also stressed to them that there are tremendous opportunities in nursing not

only for those RNs currently practising in British Columbia but for students who

are in the training programs in British Columbia today to become our future

nurses.

The nursing

strategy that was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Health Planning

last August addressed the issues around training. We have an additional 99

nurses in training today that would not have been there without those changes.

We have new certification programs to upgrade skills. At the time when that

nursing strategy was brought in, we had 1,000 nurse vacancies in British

Columbia. We've managed to reduce that to 750. As a direct result, there are

tremendous opportunities for nurses in this province today, next month, next

year and in the years to come.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services is admitting that he will be

laying off nurses, but somehow, when he's confronted by the highest

nurse-managers in the province, he thinks everything's going to be fine. Nurses

will be laid off here, but don't worry, there'll be vacancies over there. But

this Minister of Health Ser-

[ Page 2895 ]

vices cancelled the only agency that could train and reassign those nurses:

the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency — gone. It's gone, with Bill 29. He

throws the system into chaos and then deletes the very service, the very

agency….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: His health plan will be throwing the system into chaos, and the

very agency that could train and reassign nurses is now gone. What possible

substitution does this Minister of Health Services now have for retraining and

reassigning nurses that could possibly replace the well-functioning Healthcare

Labour Adjustment Agency?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: It was not good enough for a $10 billion organization in British

Columbia to say that somehow there's this little bureaucracy on Broadway Avenue

in Vancouver that's going to manage all of their training needs. We have given

that responsibility for in-service training…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …and for human resource planning to the six health authorities,

because it is the CEOs of those health authorities that I want to make sure are

responsible for training needs and to make sure that their future human resource

needs are met.

[1430]

EFFECTIVENESS OF

REFERENDUM ON TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

J. Kwan:

The Attorney General has returned from yet another leg of his "yes"

tour. Before leaving, he wrote a letter to the editor that succeeded only in

adding to the confusion about what a yes vote is or what a no vote means. In his

letter the Attorney General says that a yes vote means that the government is

not necessarily bound by the principle, and he says a no vote means a position

not necessarily linked to a principle.

The fact is

that this government is going to do whatever it wants. The member for Prince

George–Omineca describes the referendum as a "non-event." Can the

Attorney General tell us just what the point is of spending $9 million of

taxpayers' money on this meaningless non-event?

Hon. G.

Plant: For what the member calls a non-event, I think the fact that as of

today, we've got over half a million returned ballots should tell us something.

Here's what

I said in the letter: "As a matter of law, the answer to the question on

each principle is binding on the government if more than 50 percent of the

validly cast ballots vote the same way." If more than 50 percent of the

validly cast ballots are cast yes, the government will be bound by the result.

If more than 50 percent of the validly cast votes are cast no, the government

will be bound by the result."

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

It has always been clear that private property is not on the treaty table. First

nations know it. The federal government knows this, and the people of British

Columbia know this as well, yet question 1 asks if there should be. When asked

about this in Nanaimo, the Attorney General said that one answer to that

question is "so what?" Perhaps the Attorney General would like to read

the ballot again. "So what?" is not an option.

Again to

the Attorney General, just what is the point of a referendum if yes doesn't mean

anything, no doesn't matter and "So what?" is not an option?

Hon. G.

Plant: Actually, listening to the member's question, I'm not surprised she's

having a hard time reading the ballot.

The first

principle reads as follows: "Private property should not be expropriated

for treaty settlements." If the voters of British Columbia believe that the

province's negotiators should be at the table, bound to advocate that principle,

they vote yes. If they don't want the government to be bound to advocate against

private property expropriation, they vote no. It's pretty straightforward. It's

very important, and the people of British Columbia are telling us that they are

glad that we have given them for the first time…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Plant: …a direct input, a direct vote on the fundamental issues that

affect the province's participation in treaty-making.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for Yale-Lillooet

has the floor.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

MacPhail: I am in order.

[ Page 2896 ]

USE OF CLOSED COURTHOUSE BUILDINGS

Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. A number of

courthouses in my riding were recently closed due to the fact that they are not

being fully utilized. These buildings are important landmarks in the communities

I represent and hold great potential for use by either the public or the private

sector. Now that court services will no longer be provided in these buildings,

can the Minister of Management Services tell my constituents what he is doing to

ensure that they remain a contributing part of these communities?

Hon. S.

Santori: I thank the member for his important question. B.C. Buildings

Corporation realizes the pivotal role that courthouses have played in

communities. I have directed the corporation to work closely with communities to

look at the possibility of purchasing the buildings from the British Columbia

Buildings Corporation or finding alternate uses.

[1435]

B.C.

Buildings Corporation will not engage in any private sector sales for a period

of 90 days after being offered to the municipalities. We feel very confident

that we can work out creative solutions to ensure that the courthouses continue

to play a pivotal role in the communities where there are closures.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has a supplementary question.

Chutter: There have been reports in the media that both lease costs and

for-sale costs…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Chutter: …of buildings owned and operated by the B.C. Buildings

Corporation are excessively high. Can the Minister of Management Services assure

us that BCBC always benchmarks these costs against fair market rates?

Hon. S.

Santori: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I am totally confident

that BCBC consistently benchmarks with the private sector both in terms of lease

costs as well as sale of properties. As a matter of fact, two recent studies by

independent agencies have found that, in fact, in most cases we are getting a

lower rate. Also, with respect to properties for sale, assessments are done by a

third party, and I can assure you that the rates are market-driven as well as

benchmarked on a regular basis.

ABORIGINAL SERVICES

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. This government made a number of new-era commitments to aboriginal

peoples of British Columbia. The service plan of the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services further details these commitments. Can the

minister tell us what progress he has made to turn these well-intentioned words

into action?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We did, in the last election campaign and in our service plans, set

out some very ambitious commitments in relation to aboriginal communities in the

province, including aboriginal languages and support for young aboriginal people

and so on. I am delighted to say we've made great progress, and in some cases

we've actually completed our commitments. The important thing that's allowed

this to happen is that we have set up opportunities, over the last several

months, on an ongoing basis to speak to aboriginal leaders throughout the

province and to aboriginal communities. It has been remarkably successful, and

we look forward to completing even more of our commitments in the months ahead.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Coast has a supplementary question.

Belsey: The new-era commitment was to double the First Citizens Fund. Can

the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell us what progress

he has made to keep this promise? How will it benefit aboriginal people in

British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The member is correct. We did make the ambitious commitment to

double the First Citizens Fund over the term of our government from $36 million

to $72 million. I'm proud to say today that as of April 1, 2002, we will be

halfway there. We will be halfway to doubling the fund. The kinds of things that

will be completed or that are ongoing through the First Citizens Fund are, for

example, student bursaries and the operation of aboriginal friendship centres

throughout the province. Important economic development opportunities are

provided by the First Citizens Fund. Of course, in the area of language and

culture and so on, we can do some important initiatives, as well, through that

fund. It's been very good, and we look forward to completing it.

DISABLED ACCESS TO PARKS

J. Kwan:

The Liberal member for Cariboo South continues to lobby the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection to overturn the government's mean-spirited

decision to take away disabled park passes from people with disabilities. No one

in this government is listening. Should the member's constituents infer from the

minister's refusal to even consider this request that the government doesn't

care what he thinks? Could they conclude that the member for Cariboo South is

just another interior Liberal MLA who has been written off in the next election

by the Premier, similar to the member for Yale-Lillooet and similar to the

member for Nelson-Creston?

[ Page 2897 ]

[1440]

Hon. J.

Murray: I'd just like to remind the member that I've answered this question

previously, in that this government has maintained camping subsidies for seniors

and for the disabled. The disabled subsidy is now focused on people that need it

the most, but I'm very pleased that we're maintaining this at a time where we

have a lot of fiscal challenges and that this is the only disabled camping

subsidy in western Canada and the best program in Canada.

[End of question period.]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings seeks the floor.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for my remark to you saying that

I'm in order. I withdraw that, and I apologize.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, on April 15, during the course of debate on second

reading of Bill M201, intituled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002, the

Government House Leader rose on a point of order stating that in his view the

bill was out of order on the grounds that the proposed

section 13(5)(a)

"requires that a person pay a fee to be prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, therefore this bill is out of order."

Before

dealing with the substance of this point of order, certain events occurred at

the opening of the morning session on April 16 which bear comment. Firstly, the

Government House Leader rose on a point of order which turned out to be a second

submission on the issue raised on April 15 relating to Bill M201. The submission

should not have been made nor heard. It has been a longstanding tradition in

this House and in Commonwealth parliaments that once a point of order has been

made, and appropriate replies heard and the Chair has reserved its decision,

further representations by members on the matter are inappropriate.

Having

heard the Government House Leader, the Chair was obliged to listen to

representations by the Leader of the Opposition. As it was inappropriate for the

Government House Leader to make a further submission, it was equally

inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to discuss what advice she had

received from an officer of this House. Furthermore, to imply that there was

some nexus between an opinion expressed by an officer of the House and the fresh

submission made by the Government House Leader is not only inaccurate but

improper.

To the

extent that the Chair was in error in hearing these additional submissions from

either side of the House, the Chair apologizes. I do note, however, that at the

time the additional submissions were made, the Chair observed that the points

raised were well known, that the matter was in hand and that the decision would

be made on an impartial basis, relying on long-established precedents of this

House.

Let me

assure all hon. members that the decision on the original point of order as

raised on the 15th has not been influenced in the slightest by these additional

submissions, which — apart from the comments I have made above — are being

treated as a nullity.

When the

status of a bill or motion before the House is raised on a point of order, it is

the Chair's duty to consider the points raised and, in addition, to examine the

bill or motion in all its aspects and apply the appropriate parliamentary law. I

ask the House to bear with me, as this matter is one of some complexity.

A key

standing order of this House affecting the propriety of bills and motions is

standing order 67, which reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful for the

House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the

appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost to any

purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the

Lieutenant-Governor in session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill

is proposed." I should add that the wording of this standing order is

virtually repeated in

section 47 of the Constitution Act of British Columbia.

examination of the questioned bill, the proposed amendment to

section 13 of the

act has two paragraphs: paragraph (a), which repeats verbatim

section 13(5) of

the existing act, and paragraph (b), which presents a novel proposition, which I

quote: "A licence shall not be issued or re-issued under this part for the

purpose of finfish aquaculture unless that operation is a closed containment

facility."

The key

question for the Chair to consider is whether or not the proposed

section

13(5)(

b) as quoted above amounts to an impost and, in the absence of a message,

is out of order by virtue of provisions of standing order 67.

[1445]

In this

regard the Chair has found considerable assistance in the decision of Mr.

Speaker Whittaker, reported in the Journals of this House on November 29,

1939, page 77. In that case Speaker Whittaker was required to make a

determination as to whether a bill before the House requiring provincial mines

to provide certain accommodation to employees was in order. The learned Speaker

examined in considerable detail the distinction between impost and tax, as

contemplated by standing order 67, and concluded that the requirement to provide

accommodation under the proposed bill "would undoubtedly involve a charge

upon a

section of the people."

The view,

as stated by Speaker Whittaker, was adopted by later decisions of the House,

including a decision by Speaker Irwin reported in the Journals of the

House on October 17, 1953, at page 72, and a further decision by Speaker Hartley

reported in the Journals of this House on April 3, 2001, at page 42. I

note

[ Page 2898 ]

that standing order 67 in 1939 is identical in wording to standing order 67

today.

In the

result, the Chair has had to resolve two questions:

1. Is the

Chair obligated to examine the bill as a whole notwithstanding that the point of

order raised does not identify with exactitude the potential flaw in the bill?

2. Does the

proposed subsection (

b) of the bill create an impost as contemplated by standing

order 67?

Conventions

relating to the duty of a presiding officer and precedence of this House

produced an answer in the affirmative to both questions.

The

practical effect of enacting subsection (

b) as proposed would be to require

those engaged in finfish aquaculture to convert to a closed-containment

facility. The result would, to quote the words of Speaker Whittaker,

"involve a charge upon the

section of the people." Therefore, the bill

is out of order in the hands of a private member, and I so rule.

Thank you

for your attention.

Petitions

Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition. These three loose-leaf

booklets contain signatures collected from 10,548 British Columbians from North

Vancouver to 108 Mile Ranch, from Comox to Prince George. These petitioners ask

that the government find some way by which the audio books program, on behalf of

the blind and the seeing-impaired, may carry on.

Hawes: I rise to present a petition from 242 elementary students at Edwin S.

Richards Elementary School in Mission around health care issues.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J.

Murray: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of

Environment, Lands and Parks for the fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R.

Coleman: In Committee A, I call the estimates of Attorney General. In this

chamber we'll be debating second reading of Bill 26, the Employment and

Assistance Act.

[1450]

Second Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

On the

amendment (continued) .

Mr.

Speaker: On debate on the amendment to Bill 26, the Leader of the

Opposition.

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, could I have advice, please, as to how much time I

have left?

Mr.

Speaker: I'm told, hon. member, that it's ten minutes.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

addressing what we call the hoist motion brought in by the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, which speaks to the issue of taking this bill off

the agenda for debate for six months and allowing the community to go out and

examine this bill. Then, perhaps, the government could seek the advice or at

least have the input of the community on this bill.

Even

knowing how difficult it is to make any points in this Legislature about

anything, every night my colleague and I go home to do our research. Overnight,

after we've prepared for debate, we listen to the people who call in, write and

e-mail us about the debate that's taken place.

One person

who is going to be deeply and negatively affected by these welfare cuts said

that she went to the New Era document, and she couldn't find anywhere in

the New Era document where they talked about these changes to welfare.

She read it — and this, of course, she knows is the bible of this Liberal

government and that everything they do is supposed to be outlined in this New

Era document — because she didn't believe that they'd actually mislead

her, a welfare recipient, about their plans around welfare.

She

believed the Premier when he said before the election that he had no plans to

cut welfare. So she went to the New Era document thinking that maybe she

had missed the announcement of the government about these welfare cuts, and she

went through the letter from the now Premier that's headed "We Can Work

Wonders." There was nothing there, absolutely nothing. Well, actually

here's one line that she wondered if she had misinterpreted. It says: "We

can restore the sense of hope and prosperity that defined B.C.'s past, to build

a future in every community that is ripe with opportunity for our children and

families." That didn't seem to her to mean that she was going to be cut out

of the agenda.

She looked

further to see where there was any mention of welfare in this document — any

mention whatsoever. She flipped through all pages: the slagging of the previous

government, the talking about how tax cuts would pay for themselves, how health

care is in trouble but there's a new era for it, a new era for students. She

kept on searching. You know what? She called, and she said: "Never once did

this government come clean about the draconian cuts they were making to welfare

— never once."

[1455]

And why was

that? Why did this government deliberately mislead the most vulnerable in our

society? Instead of saying that we have no plans to cut welfare, why didn't the

Premier write in the New Era document: "We're cutting welfare for

single moms. We're forcing single moms into the workforce, even though there are

no jobs, when their child is three. We're kicking people with disabilities off

their pensions. We're cutting child care subsidies for people with low incomes

and people

[ Page 2899 ]

on welfare so that when they're forced to look for work, they can't find

any." Why didn't the Premier say in the New Era document: "Oh,

and by the way, to pay for that tax cut for the wealthiest, we're going to take

$600 million out of the welfare system that supports the most vulnerable in our

society and give it to the big corporations"? Why didn't this open and

accountable government just say that?

Was it that

they didn't have enough paper? Or was it because they didn't want British

Columbians to know how they were going to attack the poor and people with

disabilities in this province? Is that what's really going on here?

If it's

not, why doesn't this government say: "Oh, do you know what? You're right.

We didn't tell British Columbians how much we were going to cut welfare. In

fact, it's not mentioned in our New Era document, so maybe we should

rethink this and give it six months to be examined before we pass this

legislation"? That would be the decent thing for every Liberal member of

the Legislature to do: to see whether it's welcome in the community and whether

the community has a different view on this legislation. Maybe the community

would like to rethink future tax cuts, which were allotted and quite nicely

outlined in the New Era document. Maybe this government wants to actually

support this hoist motion and give consideration for the bill to be hoisted and

taken back to the community.

I must tell

you, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is causing huge, huge concern.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure that there's a quorum present. I'd like to call for a

quorum.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I have counted the members in the House, and there is

a quorum present. Thank you.

MacPhail: It is interesting how little attention this debate is getting,

given the fact that it's the first time ever that British Columbians have had

any discussion of this legislation.

[1500]

It's

interesting to note how important this issue is to so many MLAs in this

province. I look in my own town, Vancouver. My colleague and I are looking at

the density of income assistance cases in region 1 — in fact, that's

Vancouver. Yes, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant represents the

constituents who have the most need of income assistance, but the second most

populous need for income assistance is in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. Where

is the member for Vancouver-Burrard on this issue? His constituents, after

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. The greatest number of income assistance cases

— those are real human beings — reside in Vancouver-Burrard, so I can hardly

wait to hear why the member for Vancouver-Burrard suggests somehow that anyone

who has concerns about this is fearmongering. If he had any gumption about

representing his constituents, he'd get up and speak against this bill. In

Vancouver, it's his constituents that are going to be more adversely affected

than anything else.

Here are

some other concerns that people have written in. It comes as a complete shock,

as a result of this legislation, and it's why people need to have time to

consider this. This is new. Placing a lien on a family home can now occur if a

family is in receipt of income assistance for more than six months in a 12-month

period. Wow, all those forest workers. Won't they feel wonderful knowing that

even if they've owned a home and had a job for years, if they need income

assistance now for more than six months, their home will be placed under a lien?

Where's

that in the New Era document? Is that going to be part of the softwood

lumber dispute summit that the Premier has? Is he going to announce that his way

of helping forest workers is to say, as he did to airline workers: "Go on

welfare"? I think that's what he said, didn't he? His job training program

for airline workers was: go on welfare. Is that what he's going to say to forest

workers? "Go on welfare, and oh, by the way, if you take more than six

months of welfare in a 12-month period, your home's under a lien." I can

hardly wait for the Premier to announce that as the way he supports laid-off

forestry workers.

Here's what

the member for Vancouver-Langara said yesterday:

"The

other reality that concerns me within this act — and it concerns me in a

lot of acts, but probably none more so than this one — is that the act is

in effect, for all its fine words, a blank cheque. All of the regulations

that will make the act work, the gas that will make the motor run, the

drivers who will drive it and the rules and regulations by which they

operate, by and large, aren't in this act.

"This

indicated that some of the regulations which are already in place, and

others that may be forthcoming and for which as we raise the issues, could

be changed. To me, had all the regulations been available at the same time

with the act, then we would have been in a better position to debate

them."

We have

time now to do exactly what the member for Vancouver-Langara suggests. We have

time for the minister to come clean with the regulations. We have time. Just

support this motion to delay the passing of this bill for six months. What

better reason? The devil is in the detail, although I must say that this act is

the work of Satan, if you ask me. The devil is in the detail. All the minister

has to do is say to his own colleagues….

[1505]

Even the

member for Victoria–Beacon Hill had a series of questions about this bill that

were stunning. At the end of it, even though we asked a series of very detailed

questions that have no answer in the legislation, he then did say that he would

be voting in favour of it. Unbelievably good questions were raised by the member

for Victoria–Beacon Hill, and yet they go unanswered.

I am going

to suggest that this House now vote in favour of this motion to suspend the

passing of this legislation for six months. Add a page to the New Era

[ Page 2900 ]

document. The government can come clean and add a page to the New Era

document that explains what they're doing to welfare, to explain to people on

welfare why this government was silent in the New Era document about

these draconian changes.

Mr.

Speaker: Further debate on the amendment to Bill 26? Division is called.

Could I ask

all hon. members to please take their seats as quickly as possible to aid the

Clerks in preparing the list.

[1510]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 64

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Wilson

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Clark

Bond

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

Mr.

Speaker: The motion is defeated. We are now moving on to the motion of

second reading of Bill 26. Those in favour say aye.

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were going to let it clear. I

was just waiting to see whether anyone else was going to speak. I'd like to

speak to Bill 26, second reading.

[1515]

Mr.

Speaker: One moment, please. We'll just pause for a moment while members

make their way elsewhere.

Debate

continues on second reading of Bill 26.

On the main

motion.

Christensen: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to Bill

26, as I do believe it really is important legislation for the province. It is

legislation that comes in an area of government policy that I think all of us

undermine the challenges and difficulty of dealing with.

In general,

I certainly support the intent of Bill 26, although I do have some specific

concerns in relation to particular sections of the bill. Some of those concerns

I will canvass in committee stage. I do want to say that I strongly support the

government's stated intent behind Bill 26, and that is to encourage and support

people to find and maintain employment rather than having to rely on income

assistance.

It should

go without saying that being gainfully employed is preferable to being reliant

on income assistance. The vast majority of people who receive income assistance,

or who at one time in their lives have found that they needed to rely on income

assistance, would agree with the fact that they certainly would prefer to be

employed. There's a strong need to focus on employment and to commit to

supporting people in finding long-term employment or developing the job skills

to have long-term employment.

The numbers

do tell us that the jobs are out there. There are vacancies around the province.

The Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, which tracks those things,

reconfirms that on an ongoing basis. There are a number of government programs

that identify that jobs are available. Often the problem is that the jobs and

the people looking for jobs aren't necessarily in the same place. More often the

skills that people have to offer don't necessarily apply to the jobs that are

readily available.

We do know

from programs like Job Wave that connecting assistance recipients with jobs and

working to equip income assistance recipients with the skills to pursue those

jobs does result in people moving into employment.

As I said

at the beginning, this is a very difficult area of public policy. I can in no

way claim to be an authority on what programs will and won't work to assist

people in moving from income assistance to employment. I know from looking at

the statistics for the Ministry of Human Resources offices in my own

constituency that there is quite a significant turnover in the number of

families dependent on income assistance. That suggests to me that a good number

of people are finding means to no longer be reliant on assistance, whether that

is by gaining employment or otherwise.

[ Page 2901 ]

Unfortunately,

I can also see that many individuals and families are finding that they are

dependent on income assistance for a prolonged period of time. In looking at the

statistics from the Vernon office, which indicate the number of case files open

for more than eight months, I found that for single-person income assistance

recipients — and I'm not dealing here at all with people that fall into the

disabled categories — 44 percent have been reliant on income assistance, or

their case files have been open, for more than eight months. That grows to 63

percent among couples. It grows to 65 percent among two-parent families. I think

it's most alarming and concerning that it grows to 75 percent among

single-parent families.

[1520]

I don't

think there's any question, and I think all members of this House would agree,

that the government needs very much to address that prolonged dependence.

While I

agree in general with the intent of Bill 26 and the philosophical shift that the

minister has indicated from a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment,

I do have a number of areas of concern that I will be monitoring closely as

changes are implemented. These concerns relate primarily to changes to income

assistance that have already been implemented as of April 1. They arise from my

own review of the regulations, as well as feedback from various people in my

constituency. Most of that input from my constituency comes from very dedicated

people in my community whose work often brings them in contact with people

receiving income assistance and who as a consequence can see firsthand the

impact of changes. Most of those people certainly agree that at this stage of

the game, it's too early to really see what impact these changes are going to

have. Nevertheless, the concerns are heartfelt and very real.

I do want

to speak briefly on where those concerns arise. Certainly, in terms of dealing

with single parents in particular…. As I noted, a very high percentage of

single-parent income assistance recipients have been dependent on income

assistance for a long time or certainly more than eight months, and that needs

to cause us all concern. I know that the minister is pursuing some policies that

the government believes will address some of that prolonged dependence by

encouraging people to enter the workforce sooner rather than later.

One of

those policies has been the reduction from seven years to three years as the

child's age at which a parent is expected to seek employment. If we think about

that for a moment, it does make inherent sense in that if somebody has been out

of the workforce for seven years, there's little chance they have any of the

skills to get back in. If we look at other areas of society, we know that

employment insurance, for example, allows a parent to be out of the workforce

for a year before that insurance scheme disappears. Certainly they have a job to

go back to, so it's a very different situation than for somebody on income

assistance. The point is that we should be encouraging people as soon as

possible to get back into the workforce and to assist them. We should be

assisting them in getting back into the workforce.

I do want

to clear up some of what I think has been misinformation surrounding this

particular change. It seems to be suggested that the day the child reaches age

three, all of sudden, the next day, the parent needs to be at work. Certainly,

if a job is available, that is desirable. But on my read of the legislation and

in my discussions with the minister, it seems clear to me that once the child

reaches age three, the expectation is that the parent be pursuing employment or

be involved in an employment program with the goal of obtaining gainful and

long-term employment. That's a vast difference than simply, on day one, that's

the end of the story.

Around

single parents, I'm also concerned that obviously child care is a very major

issue. You simply need to have reliable, safe, trustworthy child care if you're

going to be at work during the day or the evening. I do have concerns that we

need to be working towards ensuring that adequate child care is available. I

know that the Minister of State for Women's Equality is working on a broad

government policy in this direction to replace what was the so-called universal

day care program that had been introduced by the previous government, and I'm

looking forward to the government's new policy under child care.

[1525]

I think we

all recognize that around a universal day care policy, some of us who have

children would certainly think, "Hey, that's great, and we'd love for the

government to be paying for our day care," but I think it's not

particularly realistic at this juncture to expect the government to pay for

child care for those of us who can in fact afford it. I'm very pleased that this

government is looking at a new child care policy that is going to focus those

resources on the persons least able to afford it otherwise.

As well, in

dealing with single parents, we need to ensure that there are suitable

employment opportunities. When you combine this with the day care pressures, we

can't necessarily expect single parents to be working evenings, for example,

when day care often isn't available. It's difficult to expect them to be working

overnight. I think the practical reality there is that if you're a single

parent, your options for employment, simply by virtue of your need to care for

your child, are much more limited than they would be if you did not have

children.

Again, we

need to take those factors into account. I myself will certainly be looking at

various options and bringing any information I can find myself to the attention

of the minister to ensure that as policy in this area evolves over time, we can

do the best job possible to meet the needs of single parents in getting them

back into the workforce.

Really, at

the end of the day, that is by far the preferred route for both the parents and

in particular those children. I do struggle with this myself, as I said. They're

difficult areas of government policy. I strug-

[ Page 2902 ]

gled with the rationale behind decisions that have been made in the past, and

I will struggle, I'm sure, with the rationale behind decisions that are made in

the future.

Another

area where there has been a change is in respect of income assistance recipients

aged 55 to 64. One reaction, I think, is: with the assistance that is provided

to you by government and intended to be on a short-term basis, why should that

change all of a sudden as you reach your fifty-fifth birthday? Really, I don't

have an answer for that. I think the need for the assistance of government does

not necessarily change from the time you're 54 to the time you're 55, so I think

it's an arbitrary distinction.

I do see,

though, that there are obviously some challenges around finding suitable

employment for people who are older and may have been out of the workforce for a

long time or may have very limited skills. Again, I'm really looking forward to

the unveiling of the job training and employment programs the minister will be

working on. I look forward to seeing how those programs are going to address

some of these specific needs.

One of the

areas of interest for me, one that I certainly commit to speaking to the

minister more about — and he's well aware of this — is the issue of

financial incentives to try and get people back into the workforce. I understand

that the research behind financial incentives is far from conclusive as to

whether or not they do provide assistance in encouraging people and providing an

incentive for people to find more full-time employment.

From a

gut-reaction standpoint, it seems to me that getting into the workforce — even

on a part-time basis, even if it's a few hours a week — and being able to

retain some of those earnings is a good way to transition people into

employment. Particularly in the area of single parents, I think we need to study

very carefully what opportunities there may be to assist single parents in

getting into the workforce by allowing them to retain some measure of their

earnings.

[1530]

In many

communities around the province, I don't know that the opportunities for

full-time employment are there for single parents, given the child care options

and given the particular job options in those communities. It's an area that I

think requires more study, certainly. I think, in particular, it requires

probably some different pilot programs around various parts of the province to

see what works. It may very well be that there are policies we could follow in

more rural areas of the province that will work there but aren't necessarily

appropriate for more urban areas.

We need to

perhaps look very carefully at pursuing different opportunities or different

policies in various parts of the province to see what does work for each of our

communities, because as has often been said before, one size does not fit all. I

think that's particularly true in a province as diverse as British Columbia and

in a province where the economy and the economic drivers in various parts of the

province really do differ very much from one community to another.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

I do want

to thank the minister for accommodating a number of discussions with me over the

last number of weeks to discuss these concerns. I know the minister takes this

area of policy very seriously, and he truly desires to see that people who are

on income assistance do find themselves in a better position through finding

employment. I certainly hope that we do see some considerable improvement in

that area.

As I've

said, these are not at all easy issues to deal with, and I know that the

minister has consulted very widely over the last number of months in trying to

come to terms with what might work and what might not work in respect of income

assistance. I know that in the estimates debate, the question was asked of the

minister as to who he had consulted with, and I think he listed somewhere in the

neighbourhood of just under 50 different organizations that had been spoken to

in respect of the needs of the Ministry of Human Resources and the challenges it

faces.

I sincerely

want to see improvement for people that currently find themselves on income

assistance. I'm going to be monitoring very closely what happens over the next

number of months, and I certainly will be speaking to the minister on a number

of occasions. I will be looking to other jurisdictions for successful models,

and if I can find something that perhaps the ministry hasn't considered, I will

certainly bring it to their attention.

As I've

said, I think it's a critically important area of public policy and a very

difficult one, and I certainly wish the minister the best of luck in pursuing

these policies. I commit to him that I will certainly continue to work with him

in trying to identify opportunities and bring to his attention perhaps

unintended consequences that may arise in the next number of weeks and months.

Having said

that, those are my concerns. They are concerns I hold very strongly, but at the

end of the day, certainly the overall intent of the legislation is strong. I

think focusing on getting people back to work and finding employment

opportunities that are beneficial to them and their families is really the only

way we can go in this area of government policy. The trick is: how do we get

there effectively?

Deputy

Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside speaking to Bill 26, second

reading.

S. Orr: I

rise today to speak to Bill 26.

Before I

start I want to make it very, very clear that I have had many meetings with the

minister. This has been a very open process. I can say unequivocally that his

door has been open, and he has been very, very forthright in everything he's

been doing. He's talked very, very clearly to me about what he's trying to do.

[1535]

I recognize

fully that he has 251,000 people on employment assistance, and that's a lot of

people. We have financial challenges that are almost unbelievable.

[ Page 2903 ]

I also recognize that the minister has $300 million that he will be spending

on job placement and job training programs. We have talked at length about those

training programs, over and over again — his ideas and my ideas.

I am the

sort of person that tends to, when I'm presented with a situation, try to go at

things in a very proactive way as opposed to a reactive way. I have been

involved in many social issues on the streets and right on the ground in my

community, and I have done a lot of work with a lot of people. It certainly was

not a picnic for the last ten years. I can tell you that. I have spent hours

with single moms and going to meetings. What we had certainly was not workable.

That's just in my opinion. All I can say is that I was just an on-the-ground

worker. That was volunteer working; that wasn't paid work. Let's be very clear

that I did this because I have a passion for it.

Again, I'm

looking at this and saying: what can we do to make things work — again I have

to say — given what the minister has presented here in his bill and with the

challenges he has? I'm very, very cognizant of that. However, in saying that, I

have to make it very clear that it is very important for me and it is very

important for my constituents that I register my concerns about what this bill

means and maybe — and I just say maybe — some of the unintended consequences

that could happen.

You know, I

represent a community in the South Island that is home to many, many of the

people who will be affected by the changes that are going to be made in this

bill. They're concerned, and their concerns are legitimate. It immediately

affects their means to live. One of the concerns that is a worry to my

constituents is the lack of any sort of independent appeal provision for

whatever employment plan they're given. The employment plan is a very good

thing. I think there's nothing better than having people sit down and say:

"We can get you back to work. Let's talk about a plan." This is a very

proactive thing. This is something that shouldn't be constantly batted. It's

good for two people to sit across from each other and say: "You know, look,

we can help you. Let's work out a plan."

A concern

that I and my constituents have is that if that plan doesn't work for that

constituent, then the appeal provision won't be there simply because they

wouldn't agree with what their plan was. Their only option is to accept an

employment plan if they don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it, then

they could have some problems. I believe in my heart that when we sit down with

these employment plans, their skill levels will be looked at and they will find

suitable things to help them complete those employment plans. But it is at this

stage, this employment plan stage, that I and my constituents have deep

concerns.

The

concerns are for those people that could possibly fall between the cracks. I say

that those are the people who have barriers to getting back to work. These

aren't the barriers you and I or probably the general public think about. That

is, you can sometimes visibly see people that have barriers to get back to work.

I'm going to talk mainly about older women, women who have been in the workforce

in some job that has no pension plan — probably a job that didn't even allow

them to pay into CPP. Or maybe they did get a little bit of CPP, and then when

they hit 65, they get a very small old age pension.

[1540]

These women

are at a stage where they weren't very well educated, but they were the backbone

of our society. They raised their families, they worked hard, and they built our

communities. I look at them as heroes. They're not employable. By the time

they're 55, they're just not employable. They don't have the skills that are

required today. So I worry about those people.

Again, I

say that in my heart, and with what the minister has told me, there will be a

one-on-one. These people will be worked with, and there will be an employment

plan put in place for them. But I have concerns about that. I worry that if we

can't find an employment plan for these people, it'll make them feel even worse

than they already do. I have to make those comments, because it's these older

vulnerable women that I'm very concerned about.

However, I

must say that listening to the minister's comments yesterday about how the

programs are going to work, it has given me some confidence. The minister made a

speech yesterday morning on his plan. Again, I've spoken to him a lot, and I

have to take that confidence. I'm going to reiterate that those plans have to be

well thought out between two parties — that's my constituents and the ministry

staff. I can say that I'm going to be keeping a very, very close eye on that

process. It's that process that is going to make this program work.

I have

other concerns, and this is really where vulnerable children come in. In the

bill we talk about verification of information. My concerns on that portion are

to do with the vulnerable children. Vulnerable children could be the unwitting

victims of parents' pure stupidity for not giving correct information. That

happens, and I wish it didn't, but it does. They not only give incorrect

information but probably do it because they mean to do it. That causes the whole

family to lose their benefits. The stupidity of the parents causes the child the

problem. That bothers me.

The other

part that bothers me is that the bill has contradictions in it. A contradiction

is where a family who meets its employment-regulated obligations does get

protection. So I want to put that out there. There's that part of it that I'm

concerned about. Again, this is specifically to do with children that are in a

family.

I recognize

that most of the power in this legislation is going to be done through

regulation. It's important to my constituents that these regulations are fair

and reasonable and do not cause undue hardship. I've gone through all the regs

— well, not all of them, but as many as I can — and some of the regulations

that were there from before. There are many that were there from before which I

feel weren't very well laid out. Again, I'm going to say that I really feel that

it's through the

[ Page 2904 ]

regulations that we must be sure they're fair and reasonable.

Some

regulation changes have already occurred. That already has had a negative impact

on some of my single young moms. I'm working with these moms, particularly

single young moms with kids, who will see their cheques reduced this month.

Again, it's the children that suffer because of this. I have great concern.

I'll say it

over and over again. I'm cognizant of what we have to do with finances. I

realize that. I'm trying to get my head around how we're going to work with

these young moms to get them moving in the right direction.

[1545]

What I

would like to have seen is maybe a phasing-in of young moms that are already in

the transition to work. These are moms who have already done quite well, and

they're already there and moving along. We would have been able to protect them

for at least a year, so we could have readjusted their…. They have financial

plans, and we're having an impact on them. I'm sure you can see where I'm going

here. I'm really going into day care subsidy rules.

For some of

the moms I'm working with right now, it's a very positive thing. We've got them

into our office, and we're working out plans for them to go back to school.

We've got some terrific success stories. We've laid out their finances, and

certainly they are ahead of the game. The minister said that, and I've done the

math. I do accounting, and I've done the math. I've sat there, and they are

ahead. There's no question that they are. But it's the moms that are already in

the workforce that worry me. Their portion has gone up. It's made it a little

bit harder for them.

Again, I

have to say that the moms I've worked with, where we're laying out plans right

now, are ahead. That is better. When the moms I'm working with now move forward,

there are things they're going to find difficult, although they're ahead. There

are things that happen when you go to work. You have to buy a few new clothes.

You buy a bus pass. You have a cup of coffee with your workmates. All these

incidentals cost money. So we're balancing.

Now, with

that, I have to say that where we've really had our constituents get excited is

when we've talked about their future, when we've said: "Okay, we're going

to go in now, and you've got this amount of money, and you're a little bit

ahead. You're not a lot ahead, but you're a little bit ahead. But you can

progress. You can get an increase. You can do well. You can take courses, and

you can get better, and you can move along further." That really, really

excites them, but immediately it's a worry.

I have to

say that the reason I really understand a lot of what I'm talking about is

because I lived in subsidized housing for six years. When I lived there I had

three young children, and we struggled. My husband and I really struggled. And I

had a husband, which really helped. I don't mean that that's so terrific for the

single moms who don't. I'm just saying that it helps with the workload. Gosh, I

hope he isn't listening today.

We worked,

and we got ahead. We lived on very little, but we worked and worked, and we did

get ahead. There's no better way to live your life than to feel good about

yourself. I agree 100 percent with the minister's philosophy on that. There's

nothing better in the world than going from subsidized housing, where I lived

— young children, working hard and then getting ahead. There's no better

feeling in the world. I really believe that the moms I'm working with get that

when I talk to them.

I do

genuinely believe that the minister's strategic shifts are good ones. I know

what he's trying to do. I just feel it's very important for me to point out some

of the things in the legislation that are going to cause some hardship at the

beginning for some of my constituents. I've made it very, very clear that I'm

going to watch this legislation very carefully as it's implemented. If I see

unintended consequences, I will certainly be raising those concerns. I don't

believe that is the intent, but, again, it's important for my constituents to

know that I will be watching for them. Many of the consequences are going to

basically depend on the regulations and their application. That is very

important.

[1550]

I recognize

that the goal is to get people back to work, not to create unnecessary hardship.

I know that the minister is not intending to create a burden for people. The

intention is to encourage people back to work.

When I read

the legislation…. Certainly under the new

definitions — as I read it, anyway

— the most vulnerable, who qualify for continuous assistance, are well

protected. I have no problem with this at all. Again, I have to stress that it

really is my duty and my job to bring forward the concerns of my constituents.

As the minister knows too, I have concerns, and it is also my duty and my job to

make sure that the shifts that we are making really do work for the people that

we have set this up for.

As I say,

in closing, I just feel that I know the intention is good. I know we're going

down the right path for getting people back to work. I know how that feels, and

the people I'm working with know how it feels. It's just that there are sections

that I shall be watching. We'll continue when it comes to debate at committee

stage.

MacPhail: I rise to oppose, with all of my heart and soul, this legislation,

Bill 26.

It is

interesting to note that the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who made some excellent

comments, and the member for Victoria-Hillside, who also made some excellent

comments, had serious, serious questions — both of them, who are merely the

two previous speakers — about this legislation. I commend them for putting

those on the record. They did it in the way that any government MLA has to do in

this government. They have to do it couched in the softest of

[ Page 2905 ]

terms, in the nicest of ways, praising the minister while asking him some

very, very tough questions about how this bill is really going to affect their

constituents.

It would be

nice if the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Victoria-Hillside

truly represented their constituents and put an end to this legislation and

voted against it. Of course, the questions that the members have asked cannot be

answered to the satisfaction of their constituents. We know that.

The same

questions that these members ask have been asked by my colleague the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in estimates. She'll be doing quite a detailed

analysis of that very shortly to show that the minister has no answers, or if

those answers are there, they're to the detriment of the concerns raised by both

those members. Nevertheless, I praise those members for Okanagan-Vernon and

Victoria-Hillside for raising these very important questions.

The member

for Vancouver-Burrard said to me yesterday, Mr. Speaker: "If you'd sit

down, I'd speak." That's what he said to me. Well, I can hardly wait to

hear him speak, because at the very moment he was saying that, one of his

constituents was calling in to my office. Let me tell you, I don't even know, as

I describe this, whether this will have a reaction of revulsion from these

government members, saying, "This is exactly the kind of person we're

trying to get off welfare," or whether it will break their hearts.

18-year-old young person, who has been living on the streets due to a terrible

home situation, can't get any help from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development because he's 18. They changed that rule. He's on the streets, and he

can't get any income assistance because he hasn't been out of his parents' home

for two years. Boy, talk about falling through the cracks.

[1555]

The first

call he made was to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, because that's who his MLA

is. That's where he's living on the streets. That office told this young person

to go to the job board at the EI office and also gave him the location of a food

bank. Now, there's a compassionate government, isn't there? There's a

compassionate office — the member for Vancouver-Burrard's. That's why this

legislation can't answer one of the concerns raised by the government MLAs.

That's the intent: "Go get a job, even if you're an abused young person

that had to leave your parents' home, even though you're not eligible for income

assistance. Go to the food bank." We heard yesterday about how well the

food banks are doing trying to cope with the deep and draconian cuts of this

government.

I said

earlier today that there are shocking consequences of this legislation that have

never been discussed. Stand up, government MLAs, and tell my colleague and

me…. When they went into their constituencies and told forest workers that

their homes are threatened because of these welfare changes…. That's exactly

what this legislation does. If you have to collect welfare for six months — is

it? — in a period of 12 months and you own a home, oops, there's a lien going

on that home. Which MLA discussed that with the forest workers in their

constituency?

Here's a

forest worker that was described in the Times Colonist last month. I'm

just quoting from the

article in the Times Colonist dated March 23, 2002:

"McGonigle

has worked at the mill for 17 years. He's 43, a saw filer. His wife is

unable to work. They have two kids. Not a lot of wriggle room for a saw

filer in the information-based economy of the new millennium.

"What's

next? 'I really don't know.' There used to be retraining for redundant

forest workers, but the provincial Liberals took care of that. 'One of the

first things they did when elected was dismantle the forest renewal

program.'"

There's a government that cares about forest workers. Dismantle the training

programs for Forest Renewal B.C. that this forest worker said was good for the

forest industry, then say: "You gotta go on welfare, but if you go on

welfare, your house is at risk. We're going to put a lien on your house."

Well, I bet you Mr. McGonigle feels good. I bet you the 35,000 IWA workers that

are at risk of layoff feel really good about these welfare changes.

We are

being inundated with telephone calls and e-mails and letters like we have never

been before in the opposition. It is truly unbelievable. It brings my colleague

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to the verge of tears at every

single letter and e-mail we read. They're not make-believe situations. They are

real situations of people saying: "I don't know what I'm going to do. I

don't know where I'm going to turn." It's very interesting. I haven't heard

one Liberal MLA stand up and talk about the effect this is going to have on

refugees — not one. Refugees will be cut off, never eligible for income

assistance. I guess they'll go to their churches and their food banks. Will

they? Is that what they'll do?

[1600]

I have to

tell you that this legislation is so devastating to so many British Columbians

that I am going to move the following amendment. I table it, Mr. Speaker. I'll

read the amendment. I move:

[That the motion for second reading of Bill 26, intituled

the Employment and Assistance Act, 2002, be amended by striking out the

words after "that" and inserting, "This House declines to

give second reading to Bill 26, intituled the Employment and Assistance Act,

2002, for the reason that the bill, in principle, puts at risk the lives of

those who have no other means of support or assistance."]

Deputy

Speaker: Member, you can speak for the remaining part of your 30 minutes to

this amendment. No?

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

I rise to speak in support of my colleague's amendment. The amendment is an

important one, and I would hope that the members and the government members in

this House would rise to speak in support of it as well.

[ Page 2906 ]

The issue,

of course, for the members who have raised their concerns around Bill 26…. The

member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member

for Victoria-Hillside, the member for Okanagan-Vernon — they've all risen in

this House and expressed concerns with respect to Bill 26. From what I gather,

the underlying theme, if you will, around their concerns centres around the

principle that it puts at risk the lives of those who have no other means of

support or assistance. Bill 26 puts at risk individuals and families in British

Columbia who have no other means of gaining support.

If they

truly have these concerns, then I would expect that they would rise in this

House and support this amendment, speak in support of it and vote in support of

it. The thrust of what they said centres around the principle that government

has a responsibility as a social safety net to prevent people from being at risk

and putting their lives at risk.

In the

world of politics, in the work that we do, the value of our words are worth only

as much as our actions. That's how we're measured by the public and by our

constituents. That's how we're evaluated in our performance. Let's put the words

of some of these members who have spoken to the test and see whether or not they

truly believe in the principle that government does have a responsibility of

ensuring that British Columbians who have no other means to support themselves

or gain assistance are not put at risk.

The reason

why my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has put forward this amendment is

because Bill 26, the way we read it, and the policies that government wants to

push through this House with their large majority do indeed put individuals at

risk.

[1605]

I come from

a riding that has probably the highest number of income assistance recipients.

We're also known as the riding that has the poorest of the poor in all of

Canada. We have an area in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant known as the downtown east

side. In that area, we have a postal code that starts with V6A. The people who

engage in placing advertisements in the community with their junk mail and all

of that kind of stuff don't even bother sending that junk mail to the

individuals in the downtown east side community or to those who have the V6A

postal code. Why? Because the people who live in that catchment area are too

poor. The stats tell them so. So they don't even bother wasting their money to

advertise in that area.

I actually

had done some research with regards to the areas — in the lower mainland,

particularly — that have the highest density of income assistance cases. My

area, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, shows up as the area that has the highest

density of income assistance cases. That was done effective January 2002, so

it's current. Then, in this map, it also shows the next-highest-in-density area

with income assistance cases. You know what area it shows? Vancouver-Burrard.

Not only

that, I also have a map not just for regular income assistance, which shows the

people who are disability level 1 income assistance cases. Once again, my riding

shows up as the area that has the highest density of disability level 1 income

assistance cases. This map — it was obtained from the economic analysis branch

of the B.C. Ministry of Human Resources, effective January 2002 — shows that

Vancouver-Burrard is the next riding that has the highest density of disability

level 1 income assistance cases.

When you

look at the third map, which shows the density of disability level 2 income

assistance cases in this region, once again my riding shows as the area with the

highest density of disability 2 income assistance cases, effective January 2002.

The next area…. Once again, the trend is consistent. It shows

Vancouver-Burrard as the area that has the second-highest density of disability

level 2 income assistance cases.

Why I raise

these issues and questions is, of course, that I'm wondering to myself why, so

far to date, we have not heard from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. We

haven't. I wonder where he is at. Why isn't he in this House advocating on

behalf of his constituents? He's silent. His constituents are going to be

greatly impacted by this piece of legislation that deviates from the principle

that government has a responsibility of ensuring that those who are in the

greatest need, those who are most vulnerable and most marginalized in our

community, have support and assistance made available to them. This bill puts

that principle at risk.

The

amendment calls on the government to ensure that no British Columbian is left

out, cast aside, deemed to be unimportant and their lives not valued as

individuals. We as a society, we as a community and the government have the

responsibility to ensure that their lives are not put at risk.

[1610]

I have to

wonder: where are the voices of the elected MLAs who are supposed to be the

advocates in their communities who would raise these issues? Certainly, the

member for Vancouver-Burrard is not one of them. I have not heard him speak to

date on this important matter, advocating for his constituents.

Yesterday

when I engaged in the debate, I talked about some of the issues that impact

British Columbians with respect to this bill. There was an

article I've come

across that I'd like to bring to the attention of the members in this House. The

article is called Behind the Numbers: Upstairs, Downstairs and In Between —

The Assets and Debts of British Columbians . The

article was written on March

22, 2002. The reason I want to bring this

article to the attention of the

members is that I want to highlight for members in this House and give an

overview of what it means to be poor in British Columbia. Maybe it will shed

some light for some of the Liberal members — the true Liberals — in this

House on what it means to live in poverty.

The

article

is not a long one. It's about six pages in length. It takes a closer look at

three distinct groups in British Columbia, based on data from Statistics

Canada's recent survey of financial security: the poorest 20 percent of family

units, the middle 20 percent and the richest 20 percent. The survey showed huge

differences

[ Page 2907 ]

amongst the three groups in terms of their assets, their debts, their wealth

and their net worth.

It states

that the average holding amount of the 72 percent of the poorest family units

that had bank accounts or guaranteed investment certificates was $772. That's

how much people have — the poorest family units — and that is those who have

bank accounts. I have to say many people in my own riding don't have bank

accounts, because they don't have access to banking services.

In an

effort to address that, the previous government brought about the Four Corners

Community Savings, which was a banking institution that didn't charge fees for

low-income people. That's all changed since the election, because as soon as the

Liberal government came in, they began to charge a fee for low-income people.

Many of them find it difficult to keep the bank account because of the fee that

is being levied.

I know that

for some members in this House, $1, $2, $3 or $4 may not mean a lot to them.

It's just everyday loose change — a cup of coffee. But for people who are

desperate, who have very little disposable income, who are on income assistance,

a quarter makes a difference for them. Many of them don't even have a telephone,

which I know I even take for granted now. The constituents in my riding don't

even have access to a telephone, and that's part of what it means to be poor.

[1615]

This

article highlights that overall, the poorest 20 percent of family units had

debts that were larger than their assets. The average assets worked out to be

$10,806. The average debts were $21,052. The average wealth was minus $2,759.

That's what the study found. The study also found that for Canada as a whole, 3

percent of the poorest 20 percent of family units were homeowners, and the vast

majority of them were mortgaged to the hilt.

Now we have

a piece of legislation before us where this Liberal government is going to make

people who are on income assistance put a lien on their mortgage. The studies

show that for Canada as a whole, only 3 percent of the poorest 20 percent of

family units were homeowners. That's 3 percent. I don't know how much of that is

within British Columbia — probably a smaller number than that. They will now

be forced to put a lien against their home by this Liberal government, putting

at risk individuals, family members, children, their ability to have access to a

safe, secure home — putting them all at risk, putting them at risk for

homelessness.

The middle

20 percent of family units invested heavily in housing but also managed to build

up a few financial assets, according to the study. The average assets were

$180,152, and the average debts were $103,378, with an average wealth of

$95,871. Three-quarters of this group own their own homes and also are faced

with sizable mortgages. Some of these people, I have no doubt, are the

individuals who are going to be faced with a very difficult future because of

the resource sector downturn.

colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had mentioned that the millworkers, the

forestry workers, have had to go on EI because they've lost their job because of

the softwood lumber dispute. As their EI runs out, they have few options other

than welfare. Many, I'm sure, will try and get work elsewhere. I have no doubt

about that. Some may be successful, and some may not be successful.

This is the

situation that I know one worker is faced with. It was reported in the Vancouver

Province on March 24, 2002. It was headlined "Only Way Out Is If I

Die":

"Sidhu

[had] eight weeks left of employment insurance payments and a $140,000

mortgage on his Abbotsford home. After seeing his take-home pay plunge from

$3,500 a month to $1,200 a month, he ran up $20,000 in debt over nine

months.

"'I

was thinking, "If I go back to work, my family won't even

know,"…Now there is going to be such devastation on my family.'"

"'I

was thinking: "The only way I can get out of this kind of situation is

if I die. If I die, at least my family would save this house." That

went through my mind.'"

Sidhu's

predicament is one that faces thousands of B.C. families in hundreds of

communities. When they have run up the debts — no more assets, no more

disposable income, no more income, unable to gain employment — they may well

have to turn to the income assistance program. Now the minister will tell them:

"You have to put a lien on your house." That's the message from this

government. Even the middle-income people will be faced with tremendous

hardships.

[1620]

The study

goes on to say that the richest 20 percent of family units were better off

financially in every respect than the other groups. The differences were

dramatic. The group's aggregate assets were a gigantic $326 billion, about 16

times larger than aggregate debts of under $21 billion.

Not

surprisingly, the difference in the assets and debts of British Columbians

reflect vastly different degrees of financial security. People on the low end of

the wealth scale are least able to withstand any kind of financial crisis —

personal financial difficulties, a downturn in the economy or cuts in government

programs and services. People in the middle may also have difficulty weathering

a financial storm because so much of their wealth is tied up in housing. Only

people at the top of the wealth scale have the luxury of true financial security

because they have sizeable liquid assets in addition to housing and other fixed

assets, and they have little debt.

The lack of

financial security for a large portion of the B.C. population does not bode well

at a time when the province is going through hard times. People in tenuous

financial circumstances are unlikely to spend more on consumer goods, and that

makes it harder for the economy to weather downturns and to recover. That is

part of the conclusion of this study.

Hon.

Speaker, the reason why I raise this study, as I mentioned earlier of course, is

to highlight what it means for some people who are living in poverty, who are

poor, in our province and to compare that to those who are middle income and

those who have the high-

[ Page 2908 ]

est income. And then, bringing it back to government policies, what we saw

with the Liberal government, before they even had the chance to look at the

books in the Legislature, was that they made a decision to give the highest tax

breaks to the highest income earners in British Columbia. That's what this

government has done. Who is paying for that? Income assistance recipients. Six

hundred million dollars' worth of cuts.

This is

from a government that during the election campaign…. Every single Liberal

government MLA ought to take responsibility for this, because they campaigned

with the now Premier on the promise that they would not cut welfare rates. They

would not make cuts to welfare. That was a promise from the Premier, and every

single government MLA who campaigned with the Liberal Party ought to stand up in

this House and give an explanation about how it is that they can stand now and

break the promise. It is absolutely relevant in every single way to this debate

and to the amendment that's been put forward by the member for

Vancouver–Hastings. For those who.…

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The member from Chilliwack is asking: what do I know about poverty? Well, let me

tell him. Let me tell him what I do know about poverty. I've experienced

poverty. I grew up in poverty. I cited that yesterday in this House.

I'll tell

him something. If he has not taken the opportunity — and I invite every member

in this House to do this — I will personally take him on a tour of my riding

to speak to the people. This bill is going to cut off assistance for them and

render them homeless. Speak to those individuals. The blood and the sweat they

go through to try and survive every single day…. I challenge the members in

this House to take me up on this challenge and come and visit my riding and talk

to my constituents and tell them that they don't believe these cuts by this

government, in this bill, would hurt them.

J. Les:

What did you do for them in the last ten years?

J. Kwan:

I challenge this member to do that.

You know,

this member from Chilliwack asks what the previous government did in the last

ten years. Well, let me count the ways. Child care. The previous government

brought in universal child care, understanding that child care is a cornerstone

of providing support to families, low-income or middle-income, and understanding

that it shouldn't just be the rich who should get access to safe, affordable,

secure child care for their children. The government brought that in.

[1625]

What did

this government do — this Liberal government? One of their first acts was to

cut the universal child care program. Not only that, but what the Minister of

Human Resources has also done in Bill 26 is cut the subsidy for those who need

child care services — on income assistance, to reduce the threshold of

eligibility.

Not only

that, but for single parents, if your child turns three, you're expected to go

out and look for full-time work. If you don't find full-time work after two

years, guess what happens to you in this piece of legislation. Your rates are

reduced by 25 percent, according to the minister. If you're desperate and can't

find work, guess what. If you're a single parent, you can't get day care,

because the universal child care program has been cut. The threshold for

eligibility has been made higher. Then, if you can't find work and if you're a

single parent, after two years your rates will be reduced. It's taking money,

quite frankly, away from children.

Tell me:

how does that not put at risk the lives of those who have no other means of

support or assistance? How is that not relevant to this amendment? It is every

bit relevant.

I only wish

the members would have the courage to stand up in this House and say: "You

know what? We, the Liberal government now, were wrong. When we campaigned on

this issue during the election, we promised that we would not cut welfare rates.

We made that promise, and we want to keep that promise now. Therefore, we will

not support this bill."

I predict

there'll be very few members — maybe one — who have the integrity to do

that. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe there are more members who have the integrity to

do exactly that: to vote against a government bill when the time comes. I'll

watch for that very closely, but I expect and predict that there may be only one

member on the government side who will have the integrity to rise up in this

House to vote against a government bill that hurts income assistance recipients,

people on disability, single moms, seniors and children — who will rise up in

this House and say: "You know what? I made a campaign promise that I would

not cut welfare, and I'm going to keep that promise, so I will not support this

government bill."

We'll wait

and see whether or not there are people on the government side who have the

integrity to do exactly that.

Throughout

the fall of 2001 and the early months of the year 2002, British Columbians have

been presented with piecemeal information about the provincial government's

plans to rewrite the province's welfare program. In November 2001 the Minister

of Human Resources presented the cabinet with the ministry's core services

review. Then on January 17, 2002, the Ministry of Human Resources released its

service

summary plan for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. January 17 is now known as

Black Thursday.

Then on

budget day, February 19, British Columbians were promised a more detailed report

on the changes to the welfare program. They were told that there would be an

introduction of the bill in the spring session, this session, to repeal the BC

Benefits Act and bring forward the Employment and Assistance Act. The

regulations containing the details of the benefits and eligibility rules would

follow in the early months of the fiscal year 2002-03.

[ Page 2909 ]

[1630]

The service

summary plan released on the 17th, known as Black Thursday, shows that the

bottom line is the reduction of the welfare budget by 30 percent over the next

three fiscal years. Of course, the minister in his message box, which we've

heard him cite over and over again, says that the legislation will shift from

what the minister calls a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment. The

implication is that the welfare program in B.C. has allowed people to lounge

around on income assistance and that this government will give these people the

necessary push to go and find a job. The reality is quite the contrary. The

number of individuals on welfare had been steadily declining since the B.C.

Benefits program was introduced in December of 1995. The welfare caseload had

declined 32.6 percent between December 1995 and August 2001…

Deputy

Speaker: Member, I'm assuming you're the designated speaker on this

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Yes, I am.

Deputy

Speaker: Thank you. Carry on.

J. Kwan:

…when there were 120,700 fewer people on B.C. benefits. I would argue that the

B.C. Benefits program contained strict rules of eligibility then. In some cases

I would argue that it penalized people as well. That's what brought me into this

Legislature. I ran in 1996, and one of the things that I wanted to work on was

to make changes to the welfare system so that those who were in greatest need

would not be denied assistance and that people would have better opportunities

to break out of the cycle of poverty but in a way that is humane, in a way that

would not render them desperate, as this bill I know and predict will do.

Given that

we already had a lean and, I would say, mean welfare program in this province,

how will the government accomplish its goal of achieving a 30 percent cut in the

welfare budget? And what will the impacts be? Looking at the announcements to

date, there appears to me to be three ways: to prevent people from getting on

welfare in the first place…. Before people will be able to apply for welfare,

they will have to participate in an employment orientation and a three-week

self-directed job search. I know, because I just spoke with my constituency

assistant this morning.

Since the

bill was introduced, my office has been receiving somewhere between 20 to 30

phone calls a day from recipients who are frantic about what will happen to

them. They're absolutely beside themselves, sick with worry in terms of what

will happen to them. In my own riding some of the welfare offices are bracing

themselves for Monday, because some people who are coming to the office on

Monday are going to be in desperate need of assistance. They will anticipate

that when they show up at their welfare office, they will be able to receive

some financial assistance. Instead, they won't. They'll be turned away, and

they'll be told to go and engage in this three-week self-directed job search.

They will have to wait three more weeks before they even qualify for financial

assistance.

[1635]

In my

experience, both in my capacity as an advocate before I got into politics and

since I've been elected, and with the people I have spoken to, I have yet to

come across a person who sits up day and night trying to think of ways they can

rip off the system. The people I've met with are individuals who don't want to

be on the system, but they have no other way of supporting themselves and are

forced to be on the system.

Many of

them are not proud of it. Many of them are very embarrassed about it, but that's

the only way in which they can get support. Of course, they continually look for

work, and oftentimes they're rejected time and time again. What does the

minister think when he says he's going to put forward this piece of legislation

that would require a person to go on a three-week, self-directed job search?

Does he think people don't do that already?

The fact of

the matter is that people do that already. The minute they don't have work,

they're looking for work, and they do it on an ongoing basis. When they are

finally out of all resources, then they go to the welfare office. It is only at

that moment they go, because they have no other means whatsoever.

Now, with

this proposed legislation, people will show up at the office, and the workers

will tell them: "I'm sorry. We can't provide you with any support. What you

have to do is go on a three-week, self-directed job search, and after that you

can come back. Then we can process you to determine whether or not you're

eligible." By bringing forward such a policy, I would submit that the

government is putting at risk the lives of those who have no other means of

support or assistance. That's exactly what the government is doing.

If they

fail to understand that, all they have to do is go out and talk to the people at

the welfare offices, talk to the FAWs who are worried sick that come Monday,

when people show up at the office who are at the end of their rope, at the end

of their wits and looking for help, they won't be able to get any. They'll be

told to go away for another three weeks before they can come back to be

assessed.

Applicants

aged 19 and over will have to be independent for two years after leaving their

parents' homes to be eligible for assistance. This is of great concern to many

people, for young people who need assistance now, not two years later. If they

can be independent on their own, they wouldn't show up at the welfare office.

It's just logical. If people have means, they wouldn't show up there. It is only

when they don't, when they have no other option, that they end up being there.

Now young people are going to be put at risk because of this change.

There will

be no assistance at all, not even hardship assistance — simple things like a

referral to a shelter or food vouchers — for certain categories of individuals

such as the refugee claimants or people deemed to have voluntarily quit a job

without cause. Sometimes

[ Page 2910 ]

to prove that you've quit a job with cause is very difficult. For those who

may be faced with harassment in the workplace, those who may be faced with a

dangerous work environment, it's very difficult to prove that.

They may

not be able to go to the employment standards branch to make that claim. When

they can't, what are their options? Welfare is not an option, because there will

be no assistance for them, even the basic minimal assistance of a shelter and

food voucher. That's what this piece of legislation is bringing in, and by

virtue of that, I would submit that it puts at risk the lives of those who have

no other means of support or assistance.

[1640]

Individuals

convicted of welfare fraud will face a lifetime ban from receiving assistance. I

think the member for Vancouver-Langara put this most eloquently in the House

when he suggested that those who've been convicted of murder would have the

basic means provided for them: shelter and food and clothing. For welfare fraud,

if you're convicted, you'll be cut off.

For those

who are cut off — and I would argue that sometimes people inadvertently

defraud the system…. They don't do this necessarily with intent. Sometimes a

person might have received, let's say, a $50 Christmas gift for a period in

which they used it to pay the hydro bill. The individual might not have reported

that to the welfare office. That constitutes fraud, and if they're caught doing

that, what will happen to them? Will they be cut off? Will they be convicted of

fraud and therefore unable to access government support?

I know of

people in my own riding who are what we term "dumpster divers." They

are people who have been unable to find work, and they are innovative, though.

They're innovative. What they do is go out and rummage through the garbage cans

— yes. They look for pop bottles and recycle those. What they do then, after

they've collected bags of the pop bottles, is bring them to a neighbourhood

recycling depot in my riding called United We Can.

They cash

in their little cans. Now, if the people don't report those earnings — it's

not a lot of earnings, but people do that sometimes all day long…. They work

hard, let me tell you. They're up and about, walking around in the rain at 6

o'clock in the morning, working late at night to just make that little extra

cash to help them through the month. If they don't report that, that

constitutes, under the changes brought forward by this minister, by this Liberal

government, fraud. What will happen to them?

You know,

there's a success story behind United We Can. I'm so proud of that organization.

Ken Lyotier started it. I remember I was on city council when that happened. He

was looking for a site to initiate this non-profit organization to give job

opportunities to the people who were very marginalized in our community to work

at their own pace, make a little bit of money to support themselves and also to

contribute back to the community by making the community more green on the

recycling of pop cans.

It took him

many years to get the city's approval to get a site. They got it set up, and it

took a long time to get the depot up and running. You know what? They've now

hired 20 people from the community who were formerly on income assistance.

People who are what was known as dumpster divers, over time, got a job there.

They've now hired 20 people in the community doing that work. I call it

low-threshold employment. It's rewarding for the people who participate in it.

It's rewarding for the community, and it works. It's gotten people off income

assistance in a way that doesn't threaten their livelihoods, that doesn't put

them at risk but rather in a supportive way.

Now, some

may say: "Well, 20 people is not a lot of people, you know." But you

know what? It made a difference in the lives of 20 people. I know one fellow

who's working there now. Some years ago, when I first spoke with him, he told me

he was so desperate. He had no money. He was so ashamed. He slept in the bushes,

and he ate food from the garbage. He picked berries off the bushes in the

summertime. Ken found him one day. Ken invited him to come and work with him at

United We Can. Over time this person obtained a full-time job there. His life

completely turned around because there was an opportunity.

[1645]

What will

this piece of legislation do? It makes the assumption that people who are on

income assistance are lazy people and that they don't want to find work. So the

government's going to threaten them even more if, in the government's

definition, they don't go out and look for work.

If you're a

single parent, by the time your child turns three, you'd better be looking for

full-time work. If after two years of that you can't find full-time work, we're

going to reduce your rates. If you're single, you're going to be cut off. It's

as simple as that.

This is how

the government is looking at how they can save money on welfare: making it

harder for people to get on the system in the first place. It doesn't support

people in any way. It's just saying no. That's all.

The

provincial welfare is Canada's social safety net of last resort. The proposed

changes will exclude thousands of people from the program, notwithstanding

abject poverty. For the individuals and families directly affected, this may

mean, yes, homelessness, malnutrition, health problems and even death.

Under the

current system it takes several days, sometimes weeks, to get through the

application, orientation and verification of eligibility. The addition of three

weeks before someone can apply for assistance will cause extreme hardship. The

two-year ineligibility period for youth will force many youth to live

underground, perhaps push young women into prostitution, increase

criminalization and health problems.

There was a

case that involved a women called Kimberly Rogers. The death of Kimberly Rogers

was on August 9, 2001, and her death should not be forgotten. Ms. Rogers was cut

off income assistance in Ontario following a conviction for welfare fraud for

not

[ Page 2911 ]

disclosing receipt of student loans. Ms. Rogers started a court case

challenging the Ontario welfare regulation as being contrary to sections 7, 12

and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was outside the

legal power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of Ontario.

[H. Long in the chair.]

On May 25,

2001, Madam Justice Epstein of the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, granted

Ms. Rogers interim relief, reinstating her Ontario Works benefits pending the

outcome of the constitutional challenge. Judge Epstein stated in her decision:

"Ms.

Rogers has no reliable alternative source of income. She is at the brink of

being homeless. She is at this moment unable to feed herself adequately. The

medical evidence in the record is clear that as a pregnant woman in her last

trimester of her pregnancy, the applicant is exposed to serious and perhaps

permanent health problems unless, at the very least, she has access to

proper nutrition, if not shelter. The irreparable harm is clear and

obvious."

Even when

Ms. Rogers's benefits were reinstated, the money was absurdly tight. As a single

person she was entitled to receive $520 a month from Ontario Works. However,

because of her debts to the ministry, it was clawed down to $468 a month. Her

rent, when paid in full, ate up $450 of what was left. From May until her death

on August 9, 2001, Ms. Rogers would have had to survive on $18 a month while

being confined to her apartment as a result of fraud conviction.

[1650]

Ms.

Rogers's lawyer, Sean Dewart, noted that his client would have been better off

if she had committed a violent crime and had been sent to prison. He was quoted

in the Globe and Mail: "If sentenced to jail, she would have had the

necessities of life. She would have had access to medications. If something had

happened to her, it wouldn't have been two days before her body was found."

When asked

about how such a tragedy could happen, Harold Duff, the director of the Sudbury

office of Ontario Works, said that the changes that the Harris government made

to the welfare system in 1997 created an atmosphere in which more people simply

slipped through the cracks. "The focus is now on employment. We're not

really into the social service side anymore."

This is

exactly what this Liberal government and the minister are doing. They're getting

out of the business of providing a social safety net, and they're moving into

the direction of employment. Not that there's anything wrong with employment.

I'm not arguing that people should not work and should all be on welfare — not

at all. What I'm saying is that for those people who cannot find work, they

should receive the support of government, and they should not be forced off

income assistance. That's what the two-year time limit does. If you're a single

person, after two years you're cut off income assistance.

If you get

caught defrauding the system…. What happens if there's such a case here in

British Columbia — another person who's got a student loan, hasn't reported

that and is then convicted of defrauding the system and cut off? The minister

now is instituting a process whereby every single thing that you owe to the

ministry is being deducted, even damage deposits. I'll go into that a little

later. When those moneys are cut off of your cheque and after you've paid rent,

you have no more money for food. You may be pregnant with a child, and your life

is at risk.

You know

what? In the case of Kimberly Rogers, her life was at risk, and she died. She

paid the highest price there is to pay — her life and the life of her child

— because of the government's policy, their emphasis on employment and not

social services. That's exactly what happened.

You would

think that this Liberal government would learn from that experience, from

Ontario. I know they look to Ontario. They worship Mike Harris and Ralph Klein.

I know that's where the Premier is at. They wish they could be just like them in

every aspect; hence we see Bills 26 and 27 coming in, in terms of the welfare

changes. But even Mike Harris learned from the Walkerton tragedy, and he stepped

down. He took responsibility as the Premier who had contributed to the deaths in

Ontario as a result of the Walkerton tragedy because of the government's policy.

You'd think

this government would learn from that. You'd think the Premier would learn from

that. You'd think the Minister of Human Resources would learn from that. You'd

think the Liberal MLAs sitting in this House who claim that they care about

people, who questioned the minister on some of these changes, would learn from

that. We'll wait and see whether or not they have. I want to see how they're

going to vote and whether or not what they say is worth the air time in this

House, see whether or not what they say matches their actions. Or is it just

doubletalk, so much of which is what this government is engaged in? Just

doubletalk, plain and simple.

On damage

deposits. I wanted to come back to this question.

[1655]

Before I do

that, I want to put in another quote. It's a statement made by Amanda Chodura of

the Elizabeth Fry Society regarding the Ontario case — Ms. Kimberly Rogers's

case. "This tragic case is a symptom of a government putting policies into

practice without doing any research. What transpired was that she and her child

were placed in a dangerous situation. This should never have happened. Two lives

are over."

Damage

deposits. One of the changes being proposed by this g