2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 7, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 16 — Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. T. Lake

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Organ donation and transplantation

G. Kyllo

Women in labour movement

J. Darcy

Community forest project in Chilliwack

J. Martin

Nelson Hydro and solar garden project

M. Mungall

Community projects by youth in Vancouver

S. Sullivan

Response to cyclone in Fiji

S. Hammell

Oral Questions

Acute care beds in Fraser Health Authority

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

S. Hammell

Post-secondary tuition policy and fee increases

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

M. Mark

Vancouver Community College fee increases and role of board

M. Mark

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Disability benefits and bus pass program changes

S. Fraser

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Court ruling on ICBC handling of accident claim

A. Dix

Hon. T. Stone

Vacant properties and housing availability in Metro Vancouver

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

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

L. Popham

V. Huntington

J. Wickens

R. Austin

M. Farnworth

D. McRae

M. Karagianis

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Morris

K. Corrigan

D. Plecas

M. Elmore

J. Rice

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

H. Bains

Hon. S. Thomson

K. Conroy

D. Donaldson

B. Ralston

[ Page 11099 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I’d like to introduce two people who are visiting the House today. They are from the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The CEO, Don Forgeron, is here with us, as well as Aaron Sutherland. Aaron would be a familiar face in government here, but he is now the manager of government relations for western and Pacific, IBC.

IBC has been a fabulous partner to work with in emergency preparedness. They’re strong advocates for preparedness. They represent Canada’s property and casualty insurance companies, which assume the risk for Canadian homes, businesses and autos.

[1335]

I want to congratulate them for their support of the small business awards. They have been a title sponsor for that as well as a title sponsor for ShakeOut B.C. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

V. Huntington: I thought perhaps government members would be introducing an old, old friend of mine, Michael McSweeney, who is the CEO of the Cement Association of Canada, and Mr. Pat Heale, who is the vice-president of Lehigh Hanson in my riding.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 16 — COMMUNITY CARE AND

ASSISTED LIVING AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. T. Lake presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. T. Lake: I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake: Assisted living is a semi-independent type of housing which provides residents with hospitality services such as meal provision and laundry services. It also includes prescribed services such as help with medication and daily living activities like eating, mobility, dressing or personal hygiene, among others.

As the province’s seniors advocate noted in her report on housing last year, many seniors had to transfer to residential care sooner than they needed to because of the rules under the existing legislation. These changes being introduced today recognize the varied needs of people in assisted living and create more flexibility to accommodate the range of services they may require so they can stay longer in the more homelike setting of assisted living.

The amendments remove the limit on the number of prescribed services a resident can receive while still remaining eligible to live in an assisted-living residence.

The amendments also increase regulatory oversight for assisted-living residences, allowing the assisted-living registrar to inspect a residence at any time if they feel there is a risk to the health and safety of a resident, rather than only in the event of a complaint.

The amendments mean better care options for seniors and added protection for those in assisted-living residences.

I move that the Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Community Care and Assisted Living Amendment Act, 2016, 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 25B)

ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION

G. Kyllo: March is Kidney Month, and this Thursday is World Kidney Day. In recognition of these events, I’d like to share an inspirational story of Sarah Sutherland, from my home town of Sicamous, who recently donated a kidney to her brother Aaron.

Two years ago Aaron was nearing his 40th birthday when he found out that his kidneys were functioning at only 15 percent. Sarah immediately knew that she wanted to donate one of her kidneys to her brother Aaron and began the screening process to determine if she was a match. After many tests, it was confirmed that Sarah was a suitable donor. By this time, Aaron’s kidneys were functioning at only 7 percent, and he was on dialysis four days a week.

Now, three months post-surgery, I’m happy to announce that both Sarah and her brother Aaron are doing extremely well. Aaron is now walking up to five kilometres a day. Sarah told me she is feeling almost like her old self again, albeit a little bit lighter.

“No big deal,” she says. “I would tell anyone to consider donating a kidney. It gives someone a second life, and I have noticed minimal change in mine.”

[ Page 11100 ]

Many in this House know that I’m on a bit of a personal crusade to urge as many British Columbians as possible to register their organ donation wishes on B.C. Transplant. We are continuing to make it easier for British Columbians to register as organ donors.

I’m happy to report that we had a record number of 38,000 British Columbians register their wishes on B.C. Transplant last year, largely due to efforts of the Service B.C. centres to raise awareness and improve access as well as focused access and efforts by organizations like the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

Now B.C. Transplant and ICBC have announced a new pilot project at four ICBC offices across the province, again to help improve the access to registering on B.C. Transplant.

Remember that one organ donor can save up to eight lives, so please join me in registering your intention to become an organ donor.

[1340]

WOMEN IN LABOUR MOVEMENT

J. Darcy: This week, International Women’s Day is being celebrated across B.C. and around the world. It will no doubt also be the subject of some very slick marketing campaigns, so I think it’s important to recall the origins of International Women’s Day over 100 years ago — the struggle of working women for safe workplaces, for higher pay, for a better quality of life. As the anthem of the women’s movement born then says: “We fight for bread, but we fight for roses too.”

Today I want to salute the women from the labour movement, some of whom are here today, for the wonderful work that they do every single day for equal pay, safety at work, seniors care, reproductive rights, poverty reduction, justice for murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, and an end to harassment and discrimination in all its forms. Today union women are meeting with MLAs to discuss child care, the minimum wage and support for victims of sexual assault.

These women have also fought hard to gain their rightful place in the labour movement, which I know a little bit about, having once been the only woman to lead a national union in Canada. As Nancy Riche, a dear friend to many of us, once said: “I’ve hit my head up against that glass ceiling, and I discovered it’s made of golf balls.”

Today one union woman reminded us of what she learned to say when she studied to become a child care worker: “Use your words.” Good advice, she said, for the labour movement — and for us in this House too.

Thank you to union members for the work they do every single day to advance equality. They give real meaning to the words: “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

COMMUNITY FOREST PROJECT

IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: One of the truly rewarding aspects of being a member of this Legislature is having the opportunity, over and over again, to witness community groups, businesses, non-profits and individuals working together, being able to support local projects. Well, these are inspiring projects. They’re creative, and they’re all community-driven.

One of the local initiatives in my area is the Chilliwack Park Society and its community forest project. Revitalizing existing trails and creating new trails, the park society advocates for providing opportunity for active and healthy lifestyles while protecting associated flora and fauna.

In partnership with the city of Chilliwack, park society volunteers set out to convert an underutilized, city-owned, 100-acre forest into a multi-use community park, including picnic facilities and a trail system for hiking, biking and running. Marc Greidanus of the park society, Vanessa Oddy of Tourism Chilliwack, Kevin Koopmans of Chilliwack Futures South Fraser and other local leaders have been pivotal in developing these plans and engaging families to be part of the trail-building process.

I had a chance to hike up one of the trails recently, and I have to say that it’s truly exciting to see what has been accomplished in the eastern hillsides of Chilliwack. Locals and tourists alike will certainly enjoy what is being created in the community forest project, and I encourage everyone to make this trail system part of their next staycation plan in the eastern Fraser Valley.

I wish to thank and congratulate my constituents in Chilliwack for their participation in the first phase of the community forest project. I am eager and excited to be a part of their continued progress.

NELSON HYDRO AND

SOLAR GARDEN PROJECT

M. Mungall: Nelson is home to B.C.’s very first hydroelectric plant. Under the ownership of John Houston, it began operations in 1896 at Cottonwood Creek Falls, just behind today’s farmers market and rod and gun club hall. Then, in 1897, Nelson became a city and John Houston its first mayor.

Shortly after, the new mayor, acting on behalf of the city, bought Nelson Electric Light Company from its private owner — yes, it was himself — and thus began Nelson Hydro, a utility owned and operated by the public.

One hundred and nineteen years later, Nelson Hydro remains one of the few municipally owned electricity generators, transmitters and distributors. Without a doubt, Nelson Hydro gives Nelson and district considerable power — and not just to turn on the lights or charge our phone batteries. Nelson Hydro gives us the power to

[ Page 11101 ]

generate revenue for the city and to find sustainable, renewable ways to do it.

As energy demand grows, Nelson Hydro is committed to finding innovative ways to meet that demand with as little impact as possible on the earth. The recent announcement — and success — of Canada’s first community solar garden shows that they are meeting that commitment.

[1345]

Nelson Hydro customers were given the opportunity to directly invest in the solar panels for the solar garden, and we jumped on it. The incredible interest has resulted in a minimum of 200 solar panels for the array at the Bonnington generating station, and more than 200 customer investors will see our bills credited with the proportion of our investments.

This is just a beginning. Whether in 1896 or 2016, Nelson Hydro is leading the way in energy production, showing that our public utility gives us the power to leave a legacy.

COMMUNITY PROJECTS BY

YOUTH IN VANCOUVER

S. Sullivan: I’d like to share some ways that young people are contributing to their community. Throughout the month of March, a group of LGBTQ young people, led by Cory Ashworth, will be hosting the March Sweater project. This recognizes the older LGBTQ pioneers who’ve done such hard work in creating a more inclusive and welcoming society.

The project will feature a documentary, fundraising sweatshirts and a public art exhibition at the Burrard Arts Foundation, 108 Broadway, led by another young person, Christian Chan. They have a gallery near Main and Broadway. They will feature a portrait series, video installation and interactive social sculpture.

The March Sweater displays an inverted pink triangle that LGBTQ people were made to wear in concentration camps in Europe during the Second World War. How thoughtful that young people would make this effort to acknowledge these pioneers.

Many of you have seen a Shreddies commercial on TV featuring Jordan Kerton teaching people with disabilities how to paddleboard. This summer, she will be bringing this program to False Creek, the centre of my riding. The adaptive paddling program, or APP, will happen adjacent to the Creekside Community Centre and Science World. In the fully accessible facility, they will bring this first program of its kind in the world.

There will be two full-time staff throughout the summer. They hope to recruit up to 30 volunteers. Jordan Kerton will direct the staff and the volunteers. They hope to log 500 unique life-changing paddleboarding experiences. Each paddler will be on an Onit paddleboard and have a volunteer either accompanying them or on a paddleboard beside them.

I’d like to congratulate all the young people who are making our world a better place.

RESPONSE TO CYCLONE IN FIJI

S. Hammell: Cyclone Winston, the most powerful storm ever recorded in the southern hemisphere, hit the shores of the island nation of Fiji on February 20. This massive storm brought with it devastating winds measuring 330 kilometres an hour at their peak and left destruction and carnage in every corner of the country. And 42 Fijians lost their lives. That number is predicted to rise.

An estimated 24,000 homes were destroyed or damaged, leaving 120,000 residents in need of immediate shelter assistance. Currently, the damage is being assessed at over half a billion U.S. dollars. That number is rising daily, as the toll of the cyclone continues to be tabulated. With over 130 schools destroyed or damaged and medical trauma centres being stretched to their limits, the effects of the cyclone will be felt for months, even years to come.

With aid starting to pour in from nations around the world, at the local level, the large Fijian population in B.C. has banded together to collect supplies and funds to send to the many Fijians left with nothing.

An ongoing disaster supply drive at the Delta Pentecostal Church will be held Wednesdays and Saturdays throughout the month of March. During the International Rugby Sevens tournament being held in Vancouver later this week, Rugby Canada will be donating $2 from every program sold to aid in the disaster relief operation currently underway in Fiji.

Over $100 million in aid has already been pledged from countries like Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. I hope Canada and B.C. will join in supporting our friends in the South Pacific. Let’s all keep the Fijian people in our thoughts as they try and recover from one of the largest national disasters in the country.

[1350]

Oral Questions

ACUTE CARE BEDS IN

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY

J. Darcy: Over the last few weeks, the emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital has been so overcrowded that some days 95 patients have been waiting to be admitted into hospital beds. Critically ill patients are waiting up to four hours just to be triaged and sometimes several days to be admitted. At Royal Columbian Hospital, the story of hallway medicine is the same.

Despite this, this government is closing over 100 acute care hospital beds throughout Fraser Health. Why is the Minister of Health proceeding with this reckless act of closing acute care beds in British Columbia’s fastest-growing region?

[ Page 11102 ]

Hon. T. Lake: We know that during the winter months we will run into congestion in our hospitals as a result of flu season, primarily. This particularly affects older seniors — patients that have chronic complex problems, like congestive heart failure or COPD — and often will send them into a situation where they need to go to emergency.

We’re working very closely with our health authorities to make sure that we get the flow looked after to ensure that patients are seen on a timely basis. We also know that we have to provide support in community, and that’s what we’re doing.

The member mentions that Fraser Health is looking to restructure and provide care not in the acute care hospital but in the community. This will create appropriate care for particularly our seniors, and we’re committed to doing that.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: Of course we need more home care and we need more residential care beds in Fraser Health, but there’s already a very, very long wait-list for those long-promised residential care beds as a direct result of this government’s failures to keep its earlier promises.

There are also thousands of people waiting in pain for months, sometimes for years, to be admitted for surgery because there aren’t enough acute care beds. Yesterday a constituent of mine who’s having difficulty walking told me that she will have to wait at least a year and maybe two to get a knee replacement.

What the government is doing is a shell game. Once again, they are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. To the Minister of Health: why is this government closing acute care beds while patients wait in hallways and on wait-lists to get into those acute care beds?

Hon. T. Lake: The member has been associated with health care for a very long time, associated with health care in the 1990s, when more than 3,000 hospital beds were closed. More than 1,600 full-time nursing positions were cut.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: This government has put over $10 billion into building health care facilities around the province of British Columbia, and we are spending a great deal of effort working with health authorities to make sure we provide the appropriate care, that we make sure that we’re not having people in the acute care system that do not need to be in the acute care system. That’s by providing more beds in community, in residential care, in hospice care, in home support care. Our goal is to make sure that British Columbians get the appropriate care, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a final supplemental.

J. Darcy: The seniors who are waiting in hallways with indignity at Royal Columbian Hospital or Surrey Memorial Hospital don’t care about the 1990s. They want to make sure that they get the care they deserve right now.

The minister should go back and check the commitments made by this government since they were elected 15 years ago and all the broken promises to build those very residential care beds that the minister is talking about today.

[1355]

The minister should get into the real world — out of his briefing books, into the real world. This is what’s happening: 35 beds, it’s estimated, are closing at Surrey Memorial; 11 in Burnaby; ten in Chilliwack; ten at Peace Arch; seven at Ridge Meadows; 12 in Langley. Those cuts have already started.

Can the Liberal government be so out of touch with today’s reality that they would think that leaving patients in hallways and languishing on wait-lists is acceptable in British Columbia’s fastest-growing region. Is that acceptable to this Health Minister and to this government?

Hon. T. Lake: In the member’s own riding, we are rebuilding Royal Columbian Hospital — the first phase is $258 million — in that member’s riding. As I mentioned, over $10 billion…. If you look at our three-year capital plan, billions and billions of dollars are being spent on hospitals around the province. We can name them.

We can talk about Penticton. We can talk about Kelowna. We can talk about Vernon. We can talk about Kamloops. We can talk about Comox and Courtenay. Communities that that government, when they were in power, ignored are getting new facilities under this B.C. Liberal government. We’ll continue to invest in health care all around the province.

S. Hammell: The promise was: “Health care where you need it, when you need it.” These cuts are happening at a time when patients are struggling to have basic medical needs met. At Abbotsford hospital, two out of three patients are not admitted within the government’s own benchmark of ten hours. Nurses and ambulance paramedics have been sounding the alarm that patients need medical attention and were still waiting for a bed at Abbotsford general 48 hours after arriving at the ER.

Yet in B.C.’s fastest-growing region, this government is cutting acute care beds — ten in Abbotsford alone. The Liberal government has ignored recommendations

[ Page 11103 ]

made years ago that the region would need more acute care beds and community care beds to cope with rising demand. Why is the government closing acute care beds in Abbotsford and the majority of hospitals in the Fraser Health region?

Hon. T. Lake: I wonder if the member realizes who built Abbotsford Regional Hospital, who built Surrey Memorial Hospital. We’re investing billions of dollars. But if I can channel my Kevin Falcon….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please wait.

Members, we will listen to the question and the answer.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: If I can channel a former Health Minister, Kevin Falcon: in NDP world, nothing should ever change; that’s for sure.

What we are doing is we are changing the way we provide services. Fraser Health is opening over 400 beds in the community, but those members don’t recognize that.

We know we need to look after people in the community to take pressure off the acute care system. We know if the members opposite had their way, we would not have a sustainable health care system, and we would not have the results we have. We are committed to having a first-class health care system in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: That just makes a lot of sense. [Applause.] You’re closing hospitals…. So the sense you’re clapping about is you build hospitals, and then you close the beds within them, in a region that is growing as fast as any region in the province.

[1400]

The health authority’s own report card shows that 60 percent of patients wait more than ten hours for admission to hospital from the emergency ward — 60 percent. This government was told years ago that it needed to increase both acute care beds and community care beds to meet the growing patient demand, and these recommendations are not being followed. You build hospitals, and then you close the beds within them.

Why is this government cutting acute care capacity when it will result in longer wait times for patients?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite, I guess, do not understand the way health care has to change to meet the needs of an aging population. We need to ensure….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

Continue.

Hon. T. Lake: The reality is people need to be supported in their home, in residential care, in the community, and we’re happy that the federal government has seen this as a priority as well. We know we can’t be sustainable to have people that are better looked after in home and community if they’re sitting in the acute care system at $1,200 to $1,500 a day. That makes no sense. But the members opposite don’t understand that. We’ll continue to evolve health care to make sure we’ve got appropriate, first-class health care, as we have here in British Columbia.

POST-SECONDARY TUITION POLICY

AND FEE INCREASES

K. Corrigan: Last Thursday the Minister of Advanced Education defended taking more money out of students’ pockets. The minister said that he would only approve new fees “where they have been imposed with consultation with the students.”

The student union at Vancouver Island University is pretty clear about what it thinks of the proposed 6.5 percent fee increase. It said: “We have received no evidence that charging students more money to attend VIU is in our members’ best interests.”

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why is he going to impose a 6.5 percent fee on students at Vancouver Island University despite their objections?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’ll just take a moment to unravel the tangled ball that the member put on the table.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to see they’re paying attention.

I met with the students union representatives of Vancouver Island University and with the administration on January 22nd of this year and, in a more orderly fashion, raised the issue of fees with the students. The issue became: are the students going to get value for money? I asked the students to verify that with me, if they thought they were getting value for money out of these fees, and I put it to the administration that these new fees had to be justified by benefits to students.

We have now advised all the institutions in the province that we will be doing a review of these fees at the end of the term to make sure that students are getting value for money, and we’ve asked the student associations to provide input to that review. So this matter is well in hand, and our job is to make sure students are getting the education they need to be prosperous in this great province of British Columbia.

[ Page 11104 ]

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I think what I heard the minister say was that consultation is…. They’re going to do a survey after they’ve imposed, after the term is over. That’s like surveying homeowners after they’ve had a tax hike and asking them if they’re happy about it. That is not consultation.

The minister may have dashed off a letter to the colleges after question period last week as sort of clarification of his earlier clarification, but it won’t help students facing huge fee increases. At Selkirk College, students were pretty clear about the minister’s plan. The students union said the college is circumventing provincial tuition policy. The students union also said: “As students, we find it unreasonable that we have to pay for this.”

[1405]

If the minister is going to impose new fees on students despite their objections, then why is he even bothering to consult with them in the first place?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’ve become very accustomed to the members opposite having a hue and cry in claiming political interference every time something comes up in this chamber.

We have 25 autonomous institutions with their own boards of governors and the letter we have written to them says — perhaps I can quote, if they would care to listen: “Proactive consultation and engagement with students should be undertaken prior to board review and approval of new fees. Institutions should also consult with the ministry early in the process when new fees are being considered. Institutions will need to track the benefits to students of the new fees, and the ministry will collect this information as part of the annual tuition- and fees-reporting process.”

We have a very clear eye on this. We have the fourth-lowest tuition in the country — 430,000 very happy students in the system, because they are getting the skills to lead to a prosperous future for themselves and their families right here in British Columbia.

M. Mark: So the Minister of Advanced Education says new fees can only be imposed in consultation with students.

When Vancouver Community College proposed new fees based on direction from the minister, the students union’s response was unequivocal. It said: “We ask you to ensure that government policy is enforced and that these fee increases are avoided.”

My question for the minister is: who is he going to listen to — Vancouver Community College students or the VCC board that he appointed?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, I should introduce my response by saying I had the great pleasure about a year ago of giving an award to the now member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I was impressed at the time and continue to be impressed with her skills, her ability and her superior intellect.

With that in mind, I can only encourage the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to draft her own questions rather than read out the ones foisted upon her by her leader.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the member may not be aware that a number of fees proposed by Vancouver Community College have not been approved by their board, and we’re keeping a close eye on the matter to make sure that education in British Columbia continues to be affordable.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a supplemental.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE

FEE INCREASES AND ROLE OF BOARD

M. Mark: Last year we asked the minister about college boards hiring lobbyists. The minister was outraged and said he would put an end to this practice. The minister just started appointing lobbyists, like Steve Kukucha, to the board of Vancouver college instead.

My question for the minister is: will Mr. Kukucha lobbying to protect students from this fee increase, or will he be lobbying to impose the fee increase?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Clearly, the team on this side was waiting with bated breath for the answer.

We’ve been delighted to be able to appoint hundreds of skilled individuals to boards around British Columbia, notably to those in the Ministry of Advanced Education’s 25 higher education institutions.

Of course, we have been very pleased to pick up talent wherever we can on non-partisan lines, including former NDP Premier Dan Miller, former NDP MLA Gwen O’Mahony and a few others that we are more than happy to have work for the betterment of British Columbia, regardless of partisan lines.

[1410]

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND

BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

S. Fraser: My constituent Susan’s two adult sons have developmental disabilities. They rely on the bus pass to get to day programs, to recreational activities, to have some level of independence.

[ Page 11105 ]

Susan wrote to the Minister of Social Development about the challenges her sons face. Instead of listening, the minister replied by saying she apologizes for any confusion Susan may have experienced due to the misinformation being circulated. Susan is not confused. She has the information. After years of stagnant disability rates, she knows her sons need every nickel for food, for utilities, for clothing.

Does the Minister of Social Development think that this kind of patronizing response to people whose families are struggling to get by on disability assistance is the right approach?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The $170 million investment we have made to increase the rates for people with disabilities across this province creates fairness and equity. I understand that people across this province would like to have seen a bigger increase.

That is something we will continue to build on, something we will continue to invest in on top of all the other changes and policy reforms we have made in this ministry over the last number of years, on top of the gifting and assets, on top of the annualized earning exemptions, on top of the single-parent employment initiative — all ways that we are working towards finding ways for people with disabilities to reach their full potential, to gain their independence and to be able to be part of community.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: My constituent wrote the minister in response. She said: “Your response goes to prove how out of touch your government is with the developmentally disabled community.” She goes on: “People with disabilities across the province are united in the need for a rate increase, not divided by the difference in transportation subsidies.” Further, she states: “Just do the right thing: raise the rates and leave the bus pass alone. Your government should be ashamed.”

Will the Minister of Social Development do the right thing? Will she end the bus pass clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: We did, in fact, do just that. We increased the rates with a $170 million investment. The constituent that the member opposite speaks of still has the bus pass. They will see a $25 rate increase each and every month to ensure that they have more money in their pocket today than they did yesterday.

I can attest to the fact that…. I do apologize that there has been misinformation out there. In fact, on Twitter, on Friday, the national anti-poverty advocacy group B.C. ACORN called the NDP rhetoric fake outrage. They agree that the bus pass program isn’t the place to focus on. They have exposed the NDP tactics by saying it is working in their benefit to help raise the interest in the fact that they want the rates increased. It’s not the bus pass; it’s the rates. It is something we will continue to work on.

COURT RULING ON

ICBC HANDLING OF ACCIDENT CLAIM

A. Dix: To the minister responsible for ICBC, the minister is in the habit of blaming customers for rising rates at ICBC. Yet in the Arsenovski case, ICBC displayed reckless and litigious behaviour, and it is ratepayers who are going to have to pay for it.

In August 2011, ICBC actually made a settlement offer of $10,000, which Mrs. Arsenovski accepted because she was more concerned with clearing her name than in making money. What happened? ICBC withdrew the $10,000 offer. They gambled and lost with ratepayers’ money, and their misconduct led directly to a $360,000 judgement against them.

[1415]

The minister was unwilling to apologize to the Arsenovskis on Thursday. Is he prepared to apologize today?

Hon. T. Stone: I will repeat, for the member’s benefit, what I said in response to the exact same question last Thursday. Nothing has changed from then to now. I cannot, I will not comment on the specifics of a matter that is before the courts. ICBC is mulling its options in light of the decision that was rendered last week. One of those options could be an appeal of this decision.

I did say, also, last week, which I will reiterate again, that certainly this government expects — and I expect, as the minister responsible — that ICBC treat all motorists who find themselves in a situation like this with fairness. ICBC is continuously striving to improve that experience that motorists have.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Please take your seat.

Hon. T. Stone: At the end of the day, it is also important that ICBC balance those efforts with cracking down on fraud where fraud does exist in the system.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: ICBC has missed all its targets. The minister constantly blames its customers for problems of Liberal management at ICBC. In this case, it’s surely a case study of this kind of behaviour.

Madam Justice Griffin ruled that ICBC’s conduct was “so high-handed, reprehensible and malicious” that it offends this court’s sense of dignity. What was that? Misstating evidence, making trumped-up criminal charges as a means to dissuade claims — remember, Mrs.

[ Page 11106 ]

Arsenovski didn’t make a claim against ICBC — trying to convince other arms of government that the couple was committing fraud. These are the judge’s findings of fact in this case.

In light of the court’s findings that ICBC attempted to enlist other agencies, including Immigration, Fraser Health, the Medical Services Plan, in their abuse of claimants in the Arsenovski case, what actual directives is the minister planning to correct this practice? Does he view those practices as standard at ICBC?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, in the matter of this particular case, I’m not going to comment on the specifics. ICBC will determine its next course of action.

On the broader question, I would expect that the members opposite would support ICBC in the interests of applying as much downward pressure on rates as possible, doing everything that they can in the corporation to ensure that where fraud exists, a bright light is shone on it so that we can actually begin to see fraud coming back down. That’s what ICBC does as a matter of course.

That being said, ICBC is constantly striving to improve their practices to ensure that they are as fair and as reasonable with every British Columbian who finds themselves in the unfortunate situation of having to move forward with a claim.

VACANT PROPERTIES AND HOUSING

AVAILABILITY IN METRO VANCOUVER

D. Eby: Vacant investment homes and condos have been a source of concern for Vancouver residents for years. Now a long-awaited study on empty homes is being presented at Vancouver city council tomorrow. The mayor of Vancouver wrote to the Premier about this months ago, asking for a change to the Vancouver Charter to help deal with the issue. He got a polite non-response and no action.

I asked the Housing Minister — well, the minister we’re told is responsible for housing — about this last week, and he had no answer either. He took it on notice. So again to the Housing Minister, who was answering media questions about this in the hall today: with growing concern that Metro Vancouver houses and condos are being kept vacant as investments during an affordability crisis, why hasn’t this government acted on the mayor of Vancouver’s request for assistance?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. Like him, I understand there is a report that will be tabled before the council for the city of Vancouver. I’m interested to see what it includes, what the methodology was.

To characterize, as the member has, that the government has taken no action, I think is incorrect. Clearly, there is an interest on the part of the government — I think, on most members of the chamber — to better ascertain the circumstances that prevail within that part of British Columbia’s housing market. That’s why we announced the changes relating to the collection of data and information. I think that will better help make informed choices.

I will simply, and finally, say this. There are many reasons that a residence can be vacant. In proceeding along some of these recommended paths, we’d best ensure that we do not have unintended consequences. We’ll look for the report from Vancouver, collect the data and then be in a better position to make informed choices on behalf of all British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, it’s the estimates of the Ministry of Forests; and in this chamber, it’s continued second reading debate on Bill 3.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

(continued)

L. Popham: I’m rising to continue debate on Bill 3, which we started on Thursday. Bill 3 is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act.

What we see happening in this act is something that I think is quite welcome. This bill amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons, as defined in regulations, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous, 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

When you look at a bill like this and the amendments that are going to take place, you wonder why it’s taken so long, to begin with. A 28-page form, for just about anybody, is onerous, but when you think about who is actually affected by this bill.…

I think that for every one of us, as MLAs, who runs a constituency office and spends time in that office, a lot of the constituents that we will see come into our offices are people that, in some ways, are trying to navigate the system, navigate paperwork, in a lot of cases. It takes some assistance to work through those forms and then direct

[ Page 11107 ]

them in the right direction of where they need to go next. From that experience that we’ve all had, I think that we can all agree that reducing paperwork is the right way to go.

Because we’ve been dealing with this for so long, it’s almost…. It’s irritating that the government would come up with a day, during the last year, called Red Tape Reduction Day and pat themselves on the back for something that of course they should be doing anyway. But now we have a day to celebrate.

[1425]

It’s like a festival for the B.C. Liberals to celebrate something that should have been done anyway. For me, when I see the paperwork being reduced in this case, it’s not a moment to celebrate. It’s a moment just to get to work and do it. It should have been done a long time ago.

I think one of the reasons why I feel that way is because you think about the people that are affected by this paperwork and the implications it has had in their lives. When you look at each individual story and how they’re affected, it’s beyond me how this could be a celebration — Red Tape Reduction Day.

This, I’m sure, will be one of the things that’s touted as: “We did it. We reduced red tape.” But you don’t get to see the individual stories that walk into our constituency offices. There are many people — just specifically around this, these types of forms — that fall through the cracks. It’s often people who need assistance most. Now, in this this case, with this form, people that are having a severe challenge getting through this paperwork are people that might live on the streets or that don’t have a family doctor.

The participation by a general practitioner is something that they need in order to complete these forms. They can either have a GP fill the form out in completion, or they can use a general practitioner and an advocate to help them. But either way, each part of these forms — and this is on a good day — would take about 30 minutes per section. If you think about going into a walk-in clinic…. I know there are examples around Victoria where you can actually go to a walk-in clinic, put your name on a wait-list for the walk-in clinic and come back hours later or else be referred to a wait-list for the next day.

You put your name on a wait-list. You get in to see a doctor who’s working at the walk-in clinic, who’s never seen you before, and this general practitioner is expected to fill out 30 minutes’ worth of paperwork — the first

section of the form. It’s 30 minutes’ worth of paperwork which looks at quite a lot of detail around how the person is living day to day. This would require an extensive interview and time to get to know the patient.

In a walk-in clinic, it’s very unlikely that a GP would have the time available to be able to assess a person properly in order to fill out this form. Sitting down for 30 minutes on paperwork doesn’t include the interview on getting to know the person. If the person is lucky, they may have an advocate that joins them that is able to continue filling out the other

section of the form, which also takes 30 minutes.

This has been a form that has been living in our system, and people have been grappling with it. You think about specific examples in your constituency and, as I said, the implications to people’s lives — those who can’t get this form filled out. I’m going to tell you about a specific example. It starts to help us put faces and situations on this form and the implications that it’s causing.

I don’t think “inconvenience” is really a word that you can use around the paperwork. I think a more appropriate word might be “devastation.” What I’ve seen is that this form has been devastating to people’s lives. It has put them into a position that they should never, ever have been put into, simply because there was too much to do on this form, and it’s not acceptable.

I have a family who lived in Saanich South. They were contributing to our community. The father was the main income person in the family. There were two children. One of them had some special needs, and the mom took care of the kids during the day while the husband went out and was the primary income provider.

[1430]

One day, the gentleman went out to work and got a serious back injury, so serious that he was unable to continue working. This family rented their residence. Almost immediately the family was thrown into very serious financial distress. The employment insurance ran out very quickly and became exhausted. Any savings that they had became exhausted.

Their situation was not unlike many families that we meet today. They didn’t have any extended family in the area, so they had nobody else to fall back on. They’re living in rented accommodation with their kids. The father, of course, is struggling around his own injury, and they’re completely broke.

What he needed to do was to be able to fill out this form. If he could have filled it out himself, possibly it would have gone faster. But he couldn’t fill it out because he needed a portion of the form to be filled out by a doctor. So his form was sent to a doctor, who is known to be one of the busiest doctors that there is. It’s a maternity doctor in the area and extremely, extremely busy. There is no way that this doctor would have an extra 30 minutes or more to sit at the desk and fill out a form.

What happened to this family? This is not about celebrating a Red Tape Reduction Day and creating something celebratory around it. This is a disaster for this family. An eviction notice was given because they were waiting and waiting and waiting for this form to be filled out.

You have a family of four who are contributing to our community. The children were being raised in a very loving environment, and the parents were doing everything they could to make sure that everything was great for those kids.

Then an eviction notice was given. An eviction notice was given because they’re completely broke. Meanwhile, my office is calling to see if the form can be done any

[ Page 11108 ]

sooner, but it wasn’t possible. And there’s no blame going to the doctor, because what was required of the doctor — it wasn’t something that that doctor should have had to do.

An eviction notice was given. This family, this lovely family, was basically, in an instant, facing homelessness — a family of four living in Saanich South facing homelessness because of a 28-page form that this government couldn’t see fit to do anything about until just now.

The application sat on the desk for weeks. In the meantime, my office had to step in and chatted with the landlord of the family. Fortunately, in this situation, the landlord was very reasonable. Once we explained what was happening, they gave them an extension, and they weren’t kicked out. But the crisis that the family was thrown into, prior to having that conversation with the landlord, was excruciating.

Can you imagine, as a parent, having to tell your kids that you’re going to have to go live in your car because you just couldn’t get help filling out a form? There were no exceptions made. They had to go live in their car, potentially.

The family got an extension. Eventually the form was filled out, and they were able to move on into a different housing situation. But I think this delay added such an enormous amount of stress into this family’s life. It would be what you would call an absolutely unfair situation.

Obviously, I am in support of creating a form that’s easier for people to navigate. But as for doing this, there’s no need to stand up and have a parade talking about a red-tape-reduction celebratory day. What we need to do is think about every situation that was caused by having paperwork like this, every single situation. This is just one of them. But could you imagine? Just this form alone has created such havoc in people’s lives, and it’s pushed them to the edge.

[1435]

I’m going to support this amendment bill, but I certainly am not going to stand up and celebrate it like it’s something that’s been amazing, that somebody has created something new and fabulous by having a form that’s easier for people to fill out.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers…. Oh, member for Delta South.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m so used to hearing opposition, Liberal, that I just normally assume that the Liberals will be up.

I would like to rise and speak briefly to Bill 3. When I attended the minister’s announcement in the rotunda a week or so ago, it was nice to hear that there was an opportunity being presented that will make the transition, for many people, from certain programs to PWD much easier and less costly in the long run.

The very act of smoothing out some of the red tape and cutting assessments from programs such as Community Living B.C., the At Home program, PharmaCare palliative plan and CPP disability…. Making those programs smoothly transition to PWD for about 1,000 people in the province is an excellent move. While it isn’t earth-shattering, it is indeed smoothing the transition to disability assistance for many people.

However, there remain serious problems within the disability application process itself. I’ve spoken to those briefly in the House previously, when I mentioned that the January 2014 report of the Ombudsperson reviewed complaints that had been received about the length of time it took disability application reconsiderations to be heard within the ministry. It was taking far longer than the legislated time period permitted, and the Ombudsperson suggested quite firmly that the ministry needed to review its reconsideration process.

In so doing, the Ombudsperson noticed that of the reconsiderations that were being undertaken, two-thirds were overturning the original decision to deny. Thus, the Ombudsperson recommended strongly that the ministry review not only the reconsideration process but the application process itself.

It did review the reconsideration process, and in fact, our office has noticed that a very speedy, smooth reconsideration time frame is in place and is working well, in our opinion. However, the application process itself, while reviewed last summer, basically has not changed, and the reconsideration rates remain very high.

So I think the minister has a lot more work to do. She has got to have her staff consider the application process itself. She has to move to make that smoother, to make it faster and to make it better. You cannot have a process where the majority of applications that go to reconsideration are being overturned. The minister has got to ensure that her staff look at that and change this process and create one that is working well for the department and for their clients.

I’ve spoken to the minister before, in estimates last year and again in a meeting with the minister and her two deputies, about what our office feels is a significant vacuum of service within Delta South. In its efforts to create financial efficiencies within the ministry, they have moved all of the services from the ministry and, indeed, from income assistance also. The two ministries have moved all their services out of Delta South.

Now residents of Delta South who need these services must access Surrey offices, which is a two-hour bus ride, one way, away from Delta South, or Richmond. If you’re disabled, the Richmond office is not on a bus route, nor is it on a sidewalk. There is a whole problem here in servicing clients within those communities that the ministry has moved out of entirely.

[1440]

I spoke with the minister. We presented quite a lengthy report, trying to factually explain what the issues were and the fact that our office, the Member of the Legislative

[ Page 11109 ]

Assembly for Delta South, is being forced to pick up a great deal of the work that would otherwise be done by employees of her ministry. But because these individuals can’t access human contact, because some of them have no computer systems, because some who have come to our office are illiterate, and it takes a while to uncover that that’s the problem, we are spending many, many hours a day on disability assistance applications in our office.

I suggested to the minister…. It wasn’t a criticism of the need to create efficiencies, but if they’re going to do that and create vacuums in communities of the size of Delta South, then you have to look at how else you can provide that service. I suggested that they consider a mobile office, that once every two weeks, for instance, the office come to Delta South, to Ladner and Tsawwassen. We could create a list of individuals who needed to speak to somebody. That would ease the pressure on our office and would also smooth the ability of clients to access the services they so badly needed.

What did we get? We got a list of contacts, all of whom we already used and spoke with routinely and regularly. The list was nice. It contained many contacts that we didn’t need, because they weren’t in our community or in our service area, but all of the ones that we routinely accessed.

I must say those individuals that were on the list are extremely helpful. They are the contacts for Members of the Legislative Assembly for assistance within the ministry to help individuals that come to our offices. They are very knowledgable. They are very helpful. We have absolutely no criticism of the way that they conduct their business on behalf of the ministry. However, they aren’t the people that the client needs to access.

We need to have assistance from the minister’s staff who do the job, who understand the job and who understand the process. We need to have them be able to sit down with clients who need the service.

We were told that they have a wonderful phone system, that the client can access the services by phone. Well, we’ve heard so many stories — and, I dare say, every other MLA in this House has heard so many stories — that the phone service simply is not adequate and that the wait times are long, up to 50 minutes, 60 minutes. Often the phone is disconnected. They have to try again. Disconnected again.

We decided that we would also phone up the service and just see for ourselves what the problems were. Sure enough, a 50-minute wait the first time, a 45-minute wait the second time, two hangups in the process. We gave up. If we’re going to give up, what does a client do who hasn’t got access to a phone in his own home or who is using an expensive cell phone or visiting a neighbour so that he can be on the other end of a telephone when he’s expecting a call?

There are problems in this ministry that need to be resolved. We can talk ad infinitum, but we need to see some changes — some revisions to process, some changes to the way the ministry conducts business and contacts its own clients. Many, many wonderful things happen through this ministry. We know the service it provides. But when it isn’t providing a service in an efficient, caring way, then the minister herself should be taking a look at it.

I just wanted to have those few words. Bill 3, as far as it goes, is a good step forward, but there is a great deal more work to do, work that this minister should be taking a personal look at, because there are ways of solving the problem. Mobile offices, or having an individual come to our office or a community office once every two weeks or so to see clients in the flesh, would go a long way to solving the problems that we’re facing in my office in Delta South and that the clients, the people who need assistance in this community, are facing on a daily basis.

[1445]

J. Wickens: I’d like to stand today to talk to Bill 3. I’ll start by saying that we should always strive to remove barriers for those in our communities that already face incredible challenges. I certainly am in favour of reducing red tape, and I certainly believe in cutting down the bureaucracies that make life challenging for people and families living with disabilities. But I don’t believe that it is something to be boasted about.

Reducing red tape, eliminating barriers and cutting down on bureaucracy should be a central theme to any government, always — period. We need less talk about it and more action. That is what would be good for families and individuals with disabilities.

Government puts incredible obstacles in the way of individuals and families living with disabilities in the province of British Columbia — whether it be with the amount and type of paperwork that is necessary, whether it be with dealing with different ministries that very much act like silos sometimes, or in just accessing some of the most basic supports. I could really go on and on.

Bill 3 is a bill that makes an effort to reduce one of the onerous tasks that people with disabilities face. But I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one, or the first one, to point out that this bill only tinkers with a problem that this B.C. Liberal government created.

A couple of years ago I was taking classes, at Douglas College, in disability studies. I was learning about children and families. I was learning about disability and applied behaviour analysis. It truly transformed my life. I met amazing disability advocates in our community. I worked in practicums, at Vancouver Community College, with adults with disabilities wanting to find employment. I worked with children and youth at risk, and I got to hear many self-advocates and people in the disability community come and speak, who had far more experience than I had up to that point.

I remember one particular class where a practitioner in adult services came to talk about her organization, its

[ Page 11110 ]

strengths and its challenges in serving adults within the system in this province currently. Now, to be honest, I can’t remember everything that this woman was talking about. I can’t remember her name or even the organization that she worked for, but what I do remember was sitting in the class — as a parent of a very young child with a disability, about to transition into kindergarten — and thinking: “It never ends.”

It never ends — the constant advocacy, the chronic advocacy, the constant navigation of supports. If you have a child with disabilities, you have to start working and navigating adult supports at about the age of 13. Forms, like the one that is being talked about in this bill, are just one small part of that problem. When we talk about employment and assistance for people with disabilities, we have an obligation, as elected officials, to try to support things that will make life easier and allow for as much independence and self-determination as possible.

However, when we look at what has been rolled out with the budget, that is not what we have seen being done. We have heard from people with disabilities themselves, and we have heard from leaders in our community asking this government to raise the rates for people with disabilities and leave the bus pass program as it currently stands.

There’s a very well-known saying within the disability community — which I live by and a lot of people with disabilities say: “Nothing about us without us.” People with disabilities want to be meaningfully consulted about their programs, about their supports and about their money.

This government did not do that, and they continue to ignore the pleas of people with disabilities. Using words like “equity” and “choice” is condescending and demeaning to the hard-working people in our community that are appealing to this government today to change some of these choices that they have made around employment and assistance for people with disabilities.

[1450]

From December 3 of 2013 to March of 2014, British Columbians were invited to share their thoughts about how government, businesses and communities can better support people living with disabilities to fully participate in their communities. Everyone was invited to participate, whether it was someone with a disability, whether it was a parent of someone with a disability, whether it was an employer, a neighbour, a friend.

I would say that this disability white paper discussion took an incredible amount of resources, and it’s something that this government should use as a guide to its decision around supporting people with disabilities.

I’ve taken the time to go through and read many of the findings of this consultation. Interestingly, nowhere in this consultation does it come anywhere close to supporting what has been done in regards to this decision around employment assistance and bus passes. So why are we making decisions like this and ignoring the consultation that has already been done?

I happen to believe, in my own personal life, that it is never too late to reverse a bad decision. It’s never too late to realize that a mistake was made. Some of the most powerful learning comes from our own mistakes. I have certainly made lots of them in my life.

This government right now has the opportunity to show a little bit of humility and show a little bit of humanity and listen to people that have come forward and said: “This is not what we want.” After all, we keep hearing over and over again in this House that we have the best economy in the world because of the actions of this government. Why not use that economy to do the right thing for people with disabilities?

R. Austin: I rise to join in the debate on second reading of Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016.

As has been noted, this is a very small bill that seeks to make a change that allows people who are already recognized as disabled in another program, in some cases a federal program, such as the Canadian Pension Plan…. It enables those folks who are already deemed to have qualified for disability in a different program to be able to go on to the provincial program of disability without having to fill out the 28-page form.

Now, my understanding — and listening to the minister who brought this bill forward — is that that will assist approximately 1,000 British Columbians. I have to commend the government for making this change and for helping those 1,000. But the reality is that for those lucky 1,000 who get to not have to go through this onerous process there are thousands of others on disability or seeking disability who have to spend endless hours traipsing from one place to another to prove to the government that they have indeed a right to gain benefits for whatever disability it is or whatever challenge it is they have.

As has been alluded to by other members here, it’s fundamentally wrong, I think, to make people who are already having huge challenges in their life have to figure out how to fill out such an onerous form.

The government spent several months last year going around the province doing consultation with those who are disabled throughout British Columbia, and often we criticize the government on this side of the House for not properly consulting with British Columbians. But on this occasion — let’s give them some credit — a great deal of work went into the committee that went around and listened to those with disabilities and listened to the difficulties and challenges that they have.

[1455]

It’s kind of surprising, then, to think that several months later the only change we have coming out of that consultative process is, essentially, a two-section bill. You’d have thought that during that process they would have heard about many issues from the disability community, and you’d have thought that a government that’s

[ Page 11111 ]

bringing in a new bill for this year would actually have brought in far more changes than this simple one. That is certainly a huge disappointment, and I wish that more good work that had come out of that consultation committee had actually reached it into law here today.

I’d like to talk for a second just about the role that physicians play in helping people with disabilities to fill out the form and to confirm their medical condition, whatever it be, to make sure that they are able to get some assistance from the government.

I’m sure people are aware that there are a number of British Columbians — probably around 300,000 — who don’t even have access to a family physician. That is a huge problem. Also, I think that people will recognize that family physicians are already incredibly busy with the workload that they have, taking in and seeing patients and spending time with them.

Certainly, in my neck of the woods, when you approach the medical building, you will see in the elevator, when you get out of the elevator at the registration or even when you’re going into a doctor’s waiting room, big signs there that state all the things that the doctors do that are covered by MSP and the things that doctors don’t do, for which there is a charge.

Listed in that, of course, is the kind of form-filling that is required here in British Columbia for someone to prove that they are, in fact, disabled and are able to get the kind of help that they deserve. Right there, you have a gigantic barrier to some of the most vulnerable people in our society who are trying to get help and trying to prove to the government that they are deserving of that help.

When this bill came forward…. I think the government needs to find ways to get around this and to assist. I have some solutions. For those of us who have MLA offices, all of us, I’m sure…. Our CAs spend a great deal of time helping people with disabilities in this form-filling process and with a whole host of issues around the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

I think that it’s wrong that there isn’t a central coordinated effort through people who work for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to take on that role. It shouldn’t be up to community activists, NGOs, MLA CAs and a whole host of other people to be able to try and help as advocates to help people with disabilities to fill out this form. It should be something that is the core role of people who work within the ministry to actually coordinate this.

We heard the member for Delta South a few minutes ago talk about how her CAs occasionally call the ministry to get some help with one of their constituents, and what they get is a list of other people to call. Well honestly, surely to goodness, it’s not the job of the ministry simply to be handing out or faxing a list of other people to do work which really, I think, should be done right there.

The ministry, in its title, has the name Social Development and Social Innovation. It seems kind of ironic to me that the Ministry of Social Innovation, in this day and age, in 2016, hasn’t innovated and come out with a better way of helping people with disabilities.

It is such a challenge for many people with disabilities to get the kinds of services that they require. It reminds me. The attitude sometimes — and not all, but in certain cases — of the ministry and of this government is almost similar to what we perceive in WorkSafe B.C. I’m sure there are people from both sides of this House who could tell the kinds of stories that, frankly, are horror stories in terms of dealing with WorkSafe B.C.

Very often, when you are trying to get help for a constituent who has been injured at the workplace, the reaction when they file with WorkSafe B.C. is one of automatically thinking as though the person is being less than truthful. That seems to be the given attitude of that department within government — that people who are injured are obviously faking it.

As a result of that, people who are injured…. I’m assuming that they are telling the truth. Yes, there are some who would take advantage of it. But the majority, of course, are telling the truth and can prove that they were injured and have witnesses and all of that.

[1500]

But WorkSafe B.C. often treats them as though…. It’s like an insurance company where you pay your premium, but when it comes time to make a claim, of course there are all kinds of excuses as to why you don’t qualify.

I think somehow this is also some of the attitude that comes out of the Ministry of Social Development in terms of helping people with disabilities. If you are already marginalized, if you are already suffering from some kind of challenge, then surely the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation should be the most caring ministry of all. You are dealing with the most vulnerable people, some of the most vulnerable people. Surely the attitude of this ministry…. All its staff, its training should be there to help and assist those who are seeking some kind of benefit and have some problem.

I’m going to speak for a second of those who are going into CLBC. Now, here you have a client group of people who are suffering with developmental delays, disabilities. There is no way that they have the cognitive ability to be able to fill out a form like this. So there you have a section…. That’s why it’s a good thing that under this change, we are seeing people who are being transferred over to CLBC, very often from the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. Those who are going into CLBC now find they don’t have to fill out this form.

But there are plenty of others who might not have actually qualified under CLBC but who have cognitive issues, for whom form-filling is a very difficult issue. Surely it is up to the government to recognize that and not be expecting other people in the community to be somehow spending endless hours of their time….

[ Page 11112 ]

When I say this, I don’t want to suggest that people who are working in, for example, MLA offices don’t want to give the time and attention. But the reality is that offices are busy, and there are all kinds of people coming in with all kinds of issues. So if somebody comes in who requires filling of this form, it becomes very, very challenging to do all the other work in addition to helping somebody fill out such an onerous form.

While I have the floor and I’m on second debate, I want to just speak to the major issue that has really, I would say, transformed this period of our Legislature in terms of question period. That is the treatment of people with disabilities around the issue of bus passes. We heard that again today, back and forth, in question period.

The government seems to think that this is just a matter of the opposition creating falsehoods here. But really, those who are disabled who have come into my community office did not need to be riled up or to be spun by anybody in my office around the issue. They themselves see this as something that they always had, in terms of having a bus pass, which in small-town B.C. is a critical, critical thing.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 3.

R. Austin: Certainly. I’m speaking to a disability issue. Certainly, I’ll stick to the bill. But I just wanted to comment that when we’re dealing with people with disabilities, whether it’s filling out a form or whether it’s giving something and taking it back, it’s an overall statement as to how we in society help those who need it the most.

I think that while this bill makes some good changes, small changes, there are a whole host of other changes that could have been added into this bill to make it a substantive piece of legislation, where the disability community would not just be praising the one change that we’re seeing here but would also be able to praise this government for having made a whole slew of changes that are required to make their lives better.

M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise and take my place and speak to Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. It’s particularly interesting that at this point in time, we’re debating this particular piece of legislation, because there has been a significant amount of focus so far this session on the government’s approach to people with disabilities.

[1505]

We saw it in the budget. We’ve seen it with the issue around the bus pass, which has received a lot of attention here in this chamber and outside of this chamber — in fact, most recently on the steps of the Legislature, where people protested the government’s decision to claw back the bus pass, to claw back a benefit that many people in British Columbia, people with disabilities, rely on. So it shines a focus on this particular legislation and the changes that the government is making.

These are changes that, as my colleagues have previously said, are changes that we will be supporting. But it’s particularly interesting — the reason why this particular piece of legislation is here.

What’s also interesting is that, again, as I have stated in this House on other pieces of legislation, much of what this government does is cloaked in rhetoric, using the words “historic” and “outstanding,” using the words that somehow this is something really, really particularly special and that people should, in essence, bow down and thank the government for bringing in this piece of legislation because it is so long overdue and it will make people’s lives so much easier — that people really don’t truly understand how grateful they should be.

The problem is…. I see the minister smiling over there and rolling her eyes. Oh, rolling her eyes and not smiling. Well, the reality is that this legislation is here because this government brought in the changes which this piece of legislation is trying to fix. This government made life difficult for people with disabilities. This government took a punitive approach to dealing with people with disabilities back in the early 2000s.

This is a government that brought in a form so long and so complicated that it turned people off. This is a piece of legislation that is in response to a government that failed to recognize that not everybody has access to a computer, that not everybody has the literacy skills to fill in a form that was excessively long.

This is a government that brought in legislation that made it so that if you, for example, had Down syndrome, you had to, each year, justify, confirm that you still had Down syndrome. That’s just ridiculous. This is a government that failed to recognize that for many people with a disability, the disability does not go away. It is always with them.

This piece of legislation is, in fact, here to do one thing. I mean, yes, it will make life easier for many people with disabilities, with developmental disabilities. But it’s also here to correct the misguided policies that this government implemented when it decided that its direction, its way of viewing the world through an ideological lens, was the right approach to take.

To talk about the particular bill, we want to look at exactly what this will do. This bill will amend two sections of the Employment and Assistance for People with Disabilities Act, the EAPWD, to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons as defined in regulation, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners.

Hon. Speaker, think about that for a minute: 28 pages — an application form 28 pages long. I mean, the long-form census was less than that. When you apply for a passport, which is an important document, you don’t need to fill in a 28-page form. Yet this government, in its wisdom, or should I say lack of wisdom, decided that

[ Page 11113 ]

people with disabilities, in order to be eligible for benefits and to access programs available to them, should have to fill in a 28-page form.

That’s a daunting task for most people, looking and saying: “I’ve got to sit down, and I’ve got to work through 28 pages of a form to fill in.” If you make a mistake, there’s no easy way to fix it. You can phone a number that may or may not be there, may or may not be in service, but you’ll wait and wait and wait.

[1510]

As you know, we have documented many times in this House when people have phoned for government services, particularly people requiring social assistance. You often end up waiting extreme amounts of time, and of course, if you’re using a cell phone, for example, you’re paying for that cost. That’s not right. A 28-page form was a considerable hardship for people, yet it has taken over a decade for government to come to its senses and recognize that changes need to be made.

As previous speakers on our side have said, we’re supporting this change. But the reality is, in essence, it is tinkering at the edges. There needs to be a much broader and much more fulsome look at how programs are delivered, how people are able to access them and how issues around disabilities are dealt with.

It is my hope that the government will learn from the debacle it has created in its budget around the bus pass and the clawback of the bus pass, for example, and that in future those kinds of mistakes will be avoided by working with the disabilities community to ensure that when something is announced, it is, in fact, what it is and not something that when you read the fine print or get into the details….

As we all know, when it comes to legislation and the budget, the devil is very much in the details. As we have seen in this particular situation, the budgetary changes around the bus pass and the clawback of the bus pass have caused a real devil of a conundrum for many people with disabilities in the province of British Columbia. And that’s not right. That is not how the legislative process or the budgetary process should work.

People should have confidence that when an announcement is made, it is, in fact, what it is supposed to be and what they expect it to be — not, as we have seen, a case of giving with one hand and then taking back with another. Not, as we have seen, when it is faced with criticism….

The minister says, “Oh, it’s just a photoop,” when no one from the government side had the courage to go out and to talk with the people who were protesting on the legislative steps — to go out and hear their stories and to understand. They weren’t there for a photo op. They didn’t travel, many with great difficulty, for a photo op. They travelled, many in great difficulty, to make a point to the government — to let them know about their concerns.

This kind of legislation, which the government trumpets as addressing concerns, as I said, only goes partway. It only goes partway in terms of dealing with the challenges that many people in the disabled community face on a day-to-day basis in the province of British Columbia.

Again, nothing illustrates that more than a 28-page form that they were having to fill out. Nothing illustrates how out of touch the government is than when they trumpet the reduction of a 28-page form as red-tape reduction and say: “Oh, aren’t we great for reducing red tape? Aren’t we wonderful for making your lives easier?” In fact, it was this very government that brought in all this red tape in the first place.

It’s always quite interesting. I mean, the government tries to say they’re reducing red tape. They trumpet and they make a big deal out of, “Oh, we’re cutting red tape,” and spend all this time and energy. They spent all this time and energy, for example, in a previous session, introducing Red Tape Reduction Day and trying to give it some kind of holy grail status that it is worthy of being up there with B.C. Day, Terry Fox Day and Remembrance Day — days that we honour and set aside by legislation in this province.

They go: “Oh, Red Tape Reduction Day.” Then, when you actually look at their record, when you actually look at their real efforts, they hadn’t even done anything like this. When they were proclaiming Red Tape Reduction Day, people with disabilities were having to fill out a 28-page form.

[1515]

People with developmental disabilities were going to have to go and get medical confirmation that they were still disabled. In many cases, they had been born with that disability. It is not going away. It boggles the mind that the government failed to understand that or maybe just didn’t care. As they say, government is about choices.

The choices for this government have been pretty clear. In the budget, it was to claw back the bus pass from people with disabilities. At the same time, it was to give a $230 million tax break last year to the top 1 percent and to do the same thing again this year — for almost a half a billion dollars in tax breaks — while people on disabilities were having to fill out a 28-page form.

The government thinks it should be congratulated for bringing forward this change. As we’ve said, we will support the change. But if they think that the opposition is going to praise them for their wisdom or if they think the opposition is going to thank them for deigning to be so gracious to people in this province, they can think again. It’s a point that needs to be reinforced. This government is making this change because it is this government that brought in the original changes, that brought in the original forms that have caused so many people so much difficulty and so many issues and problems with filling out the form.

Just the additional cost, for example, of going to see a physician to get a form signed or certified. That takes time out of people’s busy days, time out of people’s busy lives. I mean, this is a government, as I said, that wants to

[ Page 11114 ]

talk about doing away with red tape. They put rolls and rolls of red tape in front of people in order to have them fill out a 28-page form.

Besides ourselves, people are supportive of the amendments. At the same time, it’s because they have waited so long for those amendments to come.

When looking at this, you really have to question. If it’s taken this long to be able to deal with something that impacts, every day, the ability of people on disabilities in terms of navigating the system…. If it’s taken more than a decade for the government to wake up and realize the problems that they have created, one wonders how long it will take before they start to address the other issues that people in the disability community face. Will this government finally, for example, wake up and realize the huge mistake, the huge pain they have caused over their bus pass issue?

Will they step back and take the opportunity and go: “You know what? We need to take a second look. We need to take a second look and do the right thing and restore the bus pass”?

It wouldn’t take a legislative change to do that, unlike this particular piece of legislation, which has taken so long to get here. It is just three small, simple changes — three small, simple changes that will mean…. I keep coming back to it because I find it amazing. I really do find it amazing, when you think about it: a 28-page form. I mean, briefing notes for ministers are usually only two or three pages at most. I see….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I know. The Minister of Environment says not hers. I know hers will be a one-page briefing note.

[1520]

I make the point, having sat there. I know. Most ministers will tell you that if you cannot tell them about what the issue is, if you cannot do a brief on what your piece of legislation is, no matter how complex that legislation is, in a short, to-the-point briefing note, too often it gets lost. Or when delegations come or someone wants to talk to the minister about a policy change they want, often they will do the classic thing of leaving a stack of material. But they must, in order for it to be successful, be able to tell their story to the minister in a briefing note that is succinct, that is easily readable, that is easily understandable and gets right to the point.

A 28-page form is not that. A 28-page form is not that for someone, for example, with Down syndrome. A 28-page form is not simple, plain and easy to understand for someone with a developmental disability. And it’s not fair when the original diagnosis has been put in place, confirmed by a physician and accepted by the ministry, and then you’re having to do it again and again and again. That’s not fair, and it’s not right.

In that sense, I do give credit to the government for finally coming to the realization of the difficulty that its own red tape — its own red tape that it placed in front of individuals — has caused.

I wonder how this came about. I know the government says that they like to cut red tape. Then, only when they’ve cut some red tape, will additional regulations come into place. And you think about it and you go, gosh, if you’d cut this red tape ages ago, not only would they have actually done something that made sense, but they would have been able to really stand up and say, “You know what? Our red-tape program really has accomplished something. Our red-tape-reduction program really has accomplished something because we have made life easier for people” — when the reality is this is a government that brought this in.

As I said earlier, they brought it in at the same time that they had the…. Well, let me back up a sec. They brought it in saying what a great thing it is that they’re doing it, and we’ve said we’re supportive. But again, you still have to contrast that with their approach last session before this one, where we were treated to Red Tape Reduction Day.

You do have to wonder about the disconnect between the government that, as I said, put so much time and effort and energy into that and then finally realized, so much later, that this particular red tape that they had created really needs to be undone. It needs to be unraveled. We’re pleased to help to untie this particular roll of red tape. But it does not stop at second reading, which is the principle stage of the bill, as we all know. As I’ve remarked in my remarks this afternoon, the devil is often in the details.

As I said, we saw that in the budget around the bus pass issue and this government clawing back the bus pass from people with disabilities and how unfortunate and how unfair and how uncaring that is. When we go through this particular piece of legislation at committee stage, even though it is not long in terms of length, the clauses still have considerable meaning. The clauses will need to be explored thoroughly, and there will be extensive questions asked at committee stage so we can have a full understanding of exactly how the government intends to implement this particular bill.

One of the things I hope that we can get clarified are issues that relate to any ability or any issues that might be done by regulation, for example. We will be able to explore other areas where people can reduce red tape in terms of how it relates to the lives of people with developmental disabilities and the disabled community.

[1525]

Are there ways that we can perhaps improve the legislation so that we do not have to wait for another decade, for example? Are there other areas where government can make changes legislatively or in the regulatory framework so that so that we can do away with more red tape? More red tape that this government…. They say they’re keen to do away with it, yet — I keep coming back to it — their record is often just the opposite.

[ Page 11115 ]

I know that members on our side have considerable interest in that. I know the minister will be fully prepared to answer any and all questions as they pertain to this particular piece of legislation, because I know that the minister wants to do the right thing. I know the minister wants to do away with barriers for people with disabilities. I think all of us do. It’s just that sometimes I know how difficult it can be to get things through your cabinet colleagues.

The fact that this has taken so long to get here is an example of why, on this side of the House, we are making sure that the government understands that from our perspective, from the perspective of the opposition doing its job, this is a crucial issue that government needs to pay attention to. This is a crucial issue that the public are concerned about.

I mean, that’s why we saw so many people the other day on the front steps of the Legislature wanting to talk to members of this chamber and let them know about how the government’s decisions at budget time have impacted them — the pain and the anguish that those changes around the bus pass, for example, have caused. As I said, on this particular piece of legislation, it’s our opportunity to bring those concerns here into this chamber.

It is unfortunate that government chose not to talk with people. It’s unfortunate that, for example, the Premier did not have the courage of her convictions when she was in opposition and was quite happy to raise the issue of people with disabilities and the challenges that they were facing.

She was more than happy to do it if it meant trying to aid her in her climb to defeat the government of the day and get into power. Somehow, once having achieved power, then it seems that those concerns have been discarded, along with so many other issues that the Premier used to champion, once the goal of power had been achieved.

That’s unfortunate, but it means that we in the opposition then must take up that challenge of pointing these issues out to the government, pointing to the failings of the government when it has failed to live up to what it said it would want, what it had planned on doing — failing, I think, to work with people, to ensure that their policies and their legislation and their goals and their regulatory changes would not have a negative impact. Again, that’s why this legislation is so very, very important.

I’m not sure how much time I have longer. I see about five minutes.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says that’s too much. I will say this about my colleague across the way. I have known him to be a quick study and a quick learner, so it is not him that I am worried about in terms of their ability to grasp the arguments before us here today.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on Bill 3.

M. Farnworth: No, no, I’m very much talking about Bill 3. I know that when it comes to understanding the issues facing people with disabilities and just the sheer ridiculousness of someone with a developmental disability having to fill in a 28-page form and then go to a physician, for example, to get that signed on a regular basis, on an annual basis….

[1530]

He would thoroughly understand the problems inherent with that. I know that he would not need five minutes of my time, talking on this particular piece of legislation, this important bill, in order to understand why it’s so important that with the passage of this bill, the government also recognizes this is just the beginning. This is just a small step on an issue that needs much greater attention paid to it by the government. It needs a much greater commitment from government to ensure that, as I said, the pain and anguish that has been caused to too many people over the last years around these forms and these assessments is done away with.

We will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. We will be examining it in close detail at committee stage, which, as you know, will be an important part of the bill. In second reading, we’re just debating the principle of the bill — if we agree with it in principle, which we do. But as I have also said, the issues around the implementation, how it’s implemented, will be up for discussion during committee stage. It is in that committee stage that the minister, I know, will be more than pleased to answer questions and concerns we have about the legislation.

I expect that all members will be participating, and I look forward to further debate and discussion from my colleagues in this chamber, from both sides of the chamber.

With that, I am going to take my seat, and others may take the floor.

D. McRae: I rise to speak to take my place to speak to Bill 3. At first, I thought the debate was going to be much shorter than it was. Now I know that people are so passionate about it, and obviously, the debate is extended. One of the things that inspired me to speak was maybe some of the….

I know some individuals here are wanting to make sure they are speaking for the most impactful 30 minutes they possibly can and perhaps have misspoken. There were some things said in this chamber that I thought I’d like to stand up and defend and correct.

Hon. Speaker, you may know that I actually had the honour — and I call it a very distinct honour — to serve as Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation for almost two years. I had the honour before that to be Minister of Education and Minister of Agriculture. But

[ Page 11116 ]

I will argue in this chamber and outside of this chamber that the most impactful experience I’ve ever had in government was my time with this ministry.

It is often, sadly, one of the most misunderstood ministries in all of government. I’ll use this as an example. Every year — usually in Vancouver, maybe Victoria, sometimes Whistler — the Union of British Columbia Municipalities gathers and speaks with government. They want to speak with individuals from Ministry of Transportation or Ministry of Environment or Ministry of Attorney General. Ministers want to be there to make sure that communities are hearing about their concerns and come forward.

I’ve been there in two other portfolios, as I mentioned earlier. As Minister of Social Development, I was there to attend twice at UBCM. It saddened me that both times, of all the municipalities — between regional district government, between villages and towns and cities, which are almost like 200 different municipalities in British Columbia — I think the record I had for the number of people wishing to speak to the minister and the ministry at this time was five. And of those five, I believe two cancelled.

That was the best I ever had, yet across this province in communities large and small, the ministry has either direct offices or indirectly, through Work B.C., has offices. It has, you’d be surprised to know, one of the largest budgets in government of about $2.5 billion and, also, one of the largest workforces of all government ministries. Approximately 2,400 individuals work in the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

I want to say in this chamber — I think it was said earlier by members opposite, whether intentional or unintentional — that there was perhaps a disconnect with the hard work. I think the members of this ministry, whether they work as an emergency assistant worker on the Downtown Eastside or work in a management position in Victoria, they work so incredibly hard.

[1535]

They’re so passionate, and they work under trying circumstances in regards to people who probably don’t want to actually come to see the government at that time.

There are approximately, give or take, from my time in the ministry, 170,000 individuals who the ministry supports. Probably about 70,000, as they go on and off, are on income assistance — temporary individuals, maybe there for three to five months. Their goal, of course, is…. They’ve had some bad luck, some bad circumstances or just unfortunate circumstances in their life, and they need help. Government is there to help them for a short period of time, hopefully get them back on their feet and get them back into that self-sufficient world.

There’s also this other group, the persons with disabilities, about 100,000 individuals. I’m sure, whether you’re a person who is on income assistance because you temporarily lost your job or a person who was born with a disability, that you don’t want to have government helping you. You’d love to be self-sufficient, and it’s a challenge.

Some individuals, whether born with a cognitive disability or a physical disability, are sort of trapped through the system. They’re working with the system from the time they’re born. They enter the zero- to five-year-old before they go into the public school system, the time in the public school system, and then they leave the public school system. There’s sort of a road map. Though challenging, I will admit, there’s a road map of supports and action going forward.

Then there’s another group — those who never expected to come to the Ministry of Social Development, come to the government of British Columbia and say: “I need help.” These are individuals. Maybe there was a medical condition. Maybe there was an accident. Maybe there was a situation where, perhaps, mental illness came which wasn’t apparent or maybe debilitating in the younger stages or prior stages of life. Then they get to a phase where they need assistance.

When people come forward and they are saying to the government, “We need help,” they’re not always in the best mindset. They are stressed out. They’re panicking. They’re under challenging circumstances. And yes, there is paperwork that needs to be filled out. There is documentation that needs to be there. There needs to be some rigour and some checks and balances.

I know, through my time in this government, that there’s a continual way to look at some of the paperwork, look at some of the opportunities, and say: “How can we be more fair yet make sure we’re saying that those who deserve services get them and that those who are not eligible do not?” If we want to make it so that we have a broader range of individuals eligible, everybody who’s eligible when we expand that horizon will get those services. It’s a challenge — some of the paperwork, some of the medical tests. Yes, there is rigour attached to it, and yes, for some of the people, when they’re going through this phase, it is trying.

As MLAs, all of us have had in our office…. Whether you’ve been an MLA for weeks or 20 years, you’ve seen these individuals come to see us, and they need assistance. Now, sometimes they go straight through the ministry and they ask the right questions, they work properly with the individuals, and they’re successful through the processes. If we don’t like the processes, well, that’s a different question. Sometimes they go through a non-profit, an advocacy group to get those supports. I’m really proud that in communities large and small, there are individuals there to support families and individuals in this incredibly trying time.

Then there’s that other group, the group that I never really knew existed before I became an MLA. When I became an MLA in 2009, I had actually never ever…. Oh, that’s not true — once. In my first 39 years of life, I had actually gone into the MLA’s office once, and I didn’t really know who would go into those offices.

[ Page 11117 ]

Well, now, after seven years, I know that everybody comes into an MLA office, whether you’re in a large community, a small community. I think I might argue that in a smaller community, when your MLA office is on the ground floor, everybody knows where you are, everybody knows how to come and see you, and they’re coming to talk.

But those who come to see us…. I would say, as MLA, one of the things I do notice is that it’s not that the people don’t deserve help and aren’t eligible for help. They just need some help on how to make sure they present themselves to the adjudicator, to the test, to make sure they’re eligible.

I’m so pleased. I know it happens on both sides of the House. Whether it’s the MLA or a constituency assistant, they are there to work with these individuals and make sure that they are presenting themselves in the light that is necessary to make sure that if they are eligible for the supports, they get them.

But remember, I said there are 170,000 people this ministry supports. So when I have individuals on the other side of the House who come forward and say, with these anecdotal evidence pieces, about challenging times, I get it: 170,000 individuals. I know the ministry would love to say: “We’re batting 100 percent. We’re getting everybody who deserves supports. We’re getting them perfectly through.”

[1540]

But it doesn’t work that way. There is a ton of individuals who just need that extra help.

I’m pleased to say, because I know it happened on my side and on that side of the floor, that when MLAs come forward and they help those individuals, there is success, a lot of success. The question might be: “Did we do enough?” That’s another conversation for another time. So when I see Bill 3 come forward, what are they doing in Bill 3? They’re saying: “Let’s make the system just a little bit better.”

I remember when I first became Minister of Social Development, in one of those aforementioned briefing binders, we talked about the lean process. One of the things I was really pleased to see is that the Ministry of Social Development, like other ministries, look around, and they say: “How can we do business just a little bit more efficiently — a little bit more fair, a little bit more streamlined — both for the individual workers, but definitely for the individuals who are coming for help?”

The staff make suggestions about how it can be a little bit better. The management of SDSI — all the way up from a regional manager to an assistant deputy minister, deputy minister to the minister, in the end — recognize that there are some skills and talents and understanding in that ministry and will make those changes. It’s a phenomenal opportunity.

Remember, like I said, some of these individuals work in different kinds of offices. As Social Development Minister, I had the opportunity many times to visit the Downtown Eastside. There are individuals who need many supports from government, not just one ministry’s support. They are not willing to go into an office often. What do the emergency assistance workers do? They go out to the individuals.

Work is done on the corners of streets, not in offices where traditionally, maybe, the average person thinks government work is done. They literally stand on a street corner to make sure those individuals are getting the supports that are necessary, and those are because we have hard-working men and women who are in the ministries who will want to make sure that they are reaching out to those individuals, and if those individuals are deserved of services that they’re getting those services.

The other thing I did notice too in my travels around the province to various social development offices is that oftentimes — I called it, I don’t know whether it’s fair or not, and it’s all purely anecdote — there is this sort of this reverse camel effect in terms of employment time.

There will often be many people who work for the Ministry of Social Development for maybe less than five years. They are relatively new employees to government. They have been there for a short period of time. They’re learning the system. They might have been in another government position prior to, but they’ve come into this one, and after one or two or three years, they’re getting their feet on ground. They’re understanding how to deal with a really complex caseload.

Then you have another group of individuals, which I was really impressed with: people who have been in the Ministry of Social Development for 25, 35, sometimes 40 years. These individuals have incredibly wide-ranging knowledge, incredible experiences, incredible networks of individuals they know how to support.

One of the goals that I think this government had and I know I had as a minister is: how do we make social development a ministry where people want to come and work in it, where they realize that they are valued by government?

I can say from this side of the House that the members in this government value the work. Whether you are an emergency assistance worker, a deputy minister, a regional manager, you are helping the residents of British Columbia, and this chamber could not function without the hard work of those individuals working across the province of British Columbia.

This bill is part of that process. How can we do this job just a little bit better? The first thing we did is — and there’s a culture in the disability community; I believe one of the words of the lines is “Nothing about us without us”

[ Page 11118 ]

— we had to go out and talk to the disability community to see what was working, what wasn’t working, how can we be better. You know what? I will argue from this side of the chamber that we can always be a little bit better.

There is a culture of the ministry, of the minister today: “How do we just take it from here to here to here? Are we ever done our work? Is it ever perfect?” I guarantee you. No minister will ever say that. There’s always something more that can be done. A program can be tweaked. A program can be improved. A program can be added. Maybe there are resources that could be brought in.

We can always do it better, but the question is: are we making steps forward continually? I will argue that we are doing this.

In fact, I’m pleased to see…. One of the individuals who I got to know during my time in the ministry was a lady by the name of Carla Qualtrough, well-known across British Columbia both as a Paralympian and as a legal expert.

[1545]

Now, you might say: “How do you know that name, Carla Qualtrough?” Well, honestly, she’s now the new federal Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities in the federal government. She’s a brand-new minister, a brand-new MP, but this woman comes with an incredible passion, energy, intellect and, I believe, a drive to make the world better.

What’s she doing? Well, the federal government is wanting to do consultations about a federal piece of disability legislation, and they haven’t done this before. Some provinces have gone forward, but the federal government is talking about doing it.

There’s a recognition that B.C. is doing something right. We’re doing something right because we’re revising, improving and getting better for persons with disabilities.

Once more, I look and see some of the things that just happened in the recent past. If I look at just some of the programs, in the last two years, that have come about….

For example, earning exemptions. If you have a child with a disability, we’ve increased it from $300 to $500 a month. Is it going to change the world and make everything better? No, but it’s an example of one more step about how this province and this government recognizes we can make life perhaps, for some, just a little bit better.

We are also doing something called annualized earning exemption. One of the things I heard when I was travelling the province is sometimes you might live in a community where, perhaps, employment is challenging to get 12 months a year, but you might get, maybe, some really targeted employment for a short period of time and have a chance to make some decent money.

A prime example. You live in the Okanagan — fruit season. Cherry growers, believe it or not…. A skilled cherry picker might make $20 to $25 an hour picking cherries, but they’re only going to do it for a limited amount of time.

We also talked about opportunities in the last budget. I know there’s some criticism. I would love the world to be perfect for all. I really would. But it is so pleasing to see 170 million new dollars coming for persons with disabilities in the budget for Social Development and Social Innovation.

Now, I know that people are upset with the bus pass. I get it. But I think the fair complaint is this one. You’ll argue, if you’re a person who was on the special transportation allowance, $11 a month, or approximately $225 a year, is not enough of an increase plus bus pass. It’s fair to argue that $25 a month for the people who were getting a bus pass, which works out to $300 a year plus bus pass, is not enough. But it’s still $300 a year more. And for the 45,000 individuals who were receiving nothing…. You take $77, and you times it by 12 months. Now you’re into the $900 range a year more.

The one commonality between all three of those pieces…. Again, I know prices are going up, and I’m not trying to say this is the magic solution. The argument is, yes, you raise disability rates by a small amount, a medium or a larger amount, but we wanted to keep bus pass. No matter how you argue it, every single individual in the province of British Columbia — those 96,000 individuals — received either a little bit more, a little bit more than that or the $77.

[ Page 11119 ]

If that’s the criticism, fair enough. Those are the facts. But I’ve had individuals in my office and I’ve had individuals on the streets in my community come to say: “Why am I getting less money now because of your choices in government?” I said: “That’s not true.”

[1550]

I said: “How do you get that?” “That’s what I got an email about.” I said: “That’s not right. You can be mad that you got $11. You can be mad that you got $25 a month more. You can be mad that you got $77 a month more. Fair enough.” But not one of them was mad for those reasons.

Now, I’m sure someone is mad. I’m not saying there aren’t. But there wasn’t a single individual who came to me and said that they didn’t get it after we explained it. They just had to get the understanding that there was a little bit more. Fair enough.

If the members opposite want to say, “You know what? That $25 a month more is not enough,” I get it. Because that $20 a month that you guys opposite promised in the last election wasn’t enough either. But you have to make choices about where we invest in health care. Where do we invest in education? Where do we invest in disability payments? How much do we borrow to have our children pay back? Those are all choices you get to make in government. And the only time you know if you did it right is at the end of a four-year term. You go back to your shareholders.

You go back to your voters, and you say: “Did we do okay?” If you did okay, you know you did okay, because you’re sitting back on this side of the chamber. If you didn’t, you’re over there.

The way you get over to this side if you’re over there is you come up with ideas that are progressive. I will challenge that in the last election of 2013, there was a platform that was progressive, that dealt with a lot of individuals, and the voters saw that. I know the members opposite are not happy about that. But the reality is we all put it in there.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on second reading of Bill 3.

D. McRae: By all means, hon. Speaker. I apologize.

Now, we’re talking about Bill 3. The other thing I want to say is that as we expand opportunities for persons with disabilities, one of the things that makes me excited is the number of individuals working in British Columbia. We want to make sure persons with disabilities, through this bill and other actions of government, have the ability to take

part in the workforce. Not every person with a disability, sadly, is going to be able to. Not everyone is going to be able to in a traditional 40-hour-workweek sense.

I remember meeting an individual from southern Ontario, a franchise owner. Nine Tim Hortons. Twenty-five percent of his workforce were persons with disabilities. He says: “I hire persons with disabilities for two reasons. One, it’s the right thing to do. Two, because it’s a good economic thing to do.” I said: “Well, I get the right thing to do, sir. I get that one. Why is it good economics?”

He goes: “In Tim Hortons, the average employee in southern Ontario stays for nine months. Every time they leave, I have to retrain and apply for new staff. I have to make sure we have hiring going out there. Productivity is reduced.” He said “Every time I have to replace someone, that’s $4,000 out of my pocket.” He said, “But persons with disabilities, on average, stay not nine months like average individuals. They’ll stay, on average, five years. They get meaningful employment. They get an opportunity to participate like everybody in society.”

If you meet someone new in society, you don’t usually ask: “What’s your disability?” What do you ask? “What do you do for a living?”

They have employment opportunities. Twenty-five percent of his workforce are persons with disabilities because there are supports for those individuals. They are making sure that government is reaching out to support individuals and employers to make sure that we can pair the two groups. In the end, they are getting an opportunity to earn a wage, get some disability supports along the way and be, like everybody else, active members of our society. It is the right thing to do.

As we go forward, I’m sure it’s been noticed that we are one of the exceptions in all of Canada. Balanced budget. We have the fastest-growing economy. There’s opportunity for work in this province that has never been present anywhere else in the history of this province. As we go forward, every British Columbian needs to take

part in these opportunities, including persons with disabilities.

As we look forward for employees, we look forward for people retiring as they get to that next stage of life, as we have an aging society, all British Columbians…. Whether you live in the north, whether you live in the south, whether you want to work in a university, in a trade or want to work in a restaurant, we need to make sure there are opportunities for all British Columbians. This bill, Bill 3, is just another example of one more thing this government has done — on top of its many, many items in the last several years — about how we are becoming the most progressive jurisdiction in all of Canada for persons with a disability.

[1555]

Hon. Speaker, if I may…. There will be people on the other side who will stand up and have concerns, but let me just leave with this. The Ministry of Social Development has amazing individuals working in towns large and small, making a difference for people’s lives on a daily basis. Constituency assistants on this side of the House and on that side of the House make sure you reach out to

[ Page 11120 ]

individuals and support those people to make sure they are able to present themselves for the programs that they deserve and that they should have because that’s what we have legislated.

Three, make sure that we as this government continue to go forward and that we work hard to make sure we are the most progressive place in Canada for persons with disabilities. It is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do.

I’m a proud member of this party and this government because we have made substantial changes in the last five years, and I thoroughly support Bill 3.

M. Karagianis: I’m very happy to take my place here in the debate on Bill 3. Bill 3 is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, and I’d like to speak a little bit about this bill, about my views on this bill and maybe the origins of some actions that are required here today on it and other topics around this.

It was interesting listening to the previous speaker. I’d like to note for the record that often we hear members of that side of the House refer to the hard-working people on the front lines of ministries. I don’t think anyone in this House would for a moment not want to acknowledge the very hard-working individuals in communities right across British Columbia who provide services, whether it’s for children and families, whether it’s in the Social Development Ministry. They do hard work every day. But we should not confuse good or bad public policy with how hard the people on the front lines work.

I see that there’s often a lot of sort of crossover where we seem to think we can compare or praise or abandon public policy based on how hard-working the staff is, and I think the two are very, very separate issues.

This bill, Bill 3, makes some amendments. Two sections of the Employment and Assistance for People with Disabilities Act are being changed. The government is being directed to designate the classes of persons as defined in regulation, persons with disabilities, without requiring them to fill out the current onerous 28-page application form or requiring additional assessments by medical practitioners. That is one, the first, very clear action in here.

Now, I want to talk a little bit about this because the government very conveniently seems to have forgotten that, in fact, this tinkering with this act is something that is a change to legislation that they themselves put in place in 2001. In 2001, when Gordon Campbell was first elected to run the province, he undertook a very infamous activity called the core review.

The core review had a chilling effect on a very particular group of individuals, and those were the most vulnerable people in this province. The core review went out to try and find ways to examine and cross-examine all of those people who were on some form of income assistance, whether it was persons with disabilities or people on income assistance. The government was testing their legitimacy to be on income assistance.

In particular, the effect that it had on the community, the people with disabilities in this province, I think was particularly nasty. I have a very close affiliation with this community. I’m going to talk about that in a short moment as well.

But the core review itself is the genesis of this heinous form that we are now trying to tinker with here in Bill 3, this 28-page application form. It’s interesting, because the government itself put this huge, onerous, complicated and complex form into place as part of their response to the core review, as if they assumed somehow that all people with disabilities needed to go through such a rigorous screening process. I did hear the previous speaker even talk about sort of rigorous screening processes when dealing with people with disabilities.

[1600]

Very often when people come in for assistance, it’s very obvious that they do have some form of disability. It is uncommon — in fact, I would say fairly rare — for people to not pass the rigour with which this government has tried to enforce examination of their qualifications to be a person with a disability.

Of course, this 28-page form was developed, this incredible piece of red tape, by a government that at the same time was undertaking this whole red-tape reduction that started in 2001. We’ve heard about it endlessly for 16 years. One would think that after 16 years, you would have actually gotten rid of all of the red tape that you needed to reduce. But apparently, no, that’s not the case. We’re still at it.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Of course we’re at it, because the government, on the one hand, is trying to do away with red tape, while on the other hand, they are creating red tape all the time. Nothing speaks more to that th