British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, March 3, 2016

20160303pm-Hansard-v34n3

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, March 3, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Volume 34, Number 3

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Bernier Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Thomson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacific Strategy and Multiculturalism ...........................................................................................Hon.

T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................................................. Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ......................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ...........................Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon.

Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) .....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North ..............................................................................

Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .......................................................Jodie Wickens Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Thompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Thomson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ....................................................Hon. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers ..................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ...................................................................Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................................

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 35; Independent 2

CONTENTS Thursday, March 3, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) ....................................................................................................................................... 11025 Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 11025 Bill 18 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. S. Anton L.

Krog Bill 3 — Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016 Hon. Michelle Stilwell M. Mungall L. Reimer L. Krog Hon. P . Fassbender S. Chandra Herbert D. Barnett S. Hammell M. Hunt D. Eby S. Gibson S. Robinson C. James J. Shin B. Ralston Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 11059 Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued) H. Bains Hon. S. Thomson J. Rice D. Donaldson B.

Routley V . Huntington

THURSDAY , MARCH 3, 2016 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Point of Order (Speaker’s Ruling) Madame Speaker: Members, pursuant to a point of or- der raised before the lunch hour, I would draw all mem- bers’ attention to a memo from this Chair dated February 17, 2014, which says: “Unless otherwise permitted, elec - tronic devices must not be used by a member who is in possession of the floor. ” I would draw all members’ atten- tion to that item, and should copies be required, please see the Speaker’s office. Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: In this House,

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

section A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Second Reading of Bills BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (MINOR CORRECTIONS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, now be read a second time. Bill 18 makes minor corrections and housekeeping amendments to various statutes. They’re all straight - forward, non-controversial corrections and all minor in nature. The contents of the bill, when read, reflect that. [R.

Lee in the chair.] The office of legislative counsel gathers minor correc- tions as part of the routine statute revision process. The result of that work is what we have in this bill. The office of legislative counsel takes great pride in the work they do and serves this House very well. The changes in the bill are presented before the Legislature so that this Legislature can approve all changes to stat - utes, no matter how small or minor they may appear. In other words, there’s a very important principle here that people cannot go in and change statutes.

They have to have the approval of the Legislature before any changes may be made. The changes need to be done with the authority of this House to ensure B.C. statutes are orderly and correct. L. Krog: This is almost becoming a joyful ritual. It’s like a rite of spring almost, that we bring forth another Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act.

I’m delighted to rise and say a few words. [1335] I don’t think any legislation should pass through this chamber without at least some comment, if nothing else to say thank you to the drafters who spent so much time preparing the legislation; and, I suppose, a small thank you to caucus and to cabinet — although more cabinet than caucus, of course; having been on the government side, I understand how the system works — for their work in approving this legislation; and the Legs and Regs committee, as we used to call it, who likewise would have carefully perused this to ensure that when it arrives on the floor of the chamber, it’s an accurate reflection of the wishes of the people through the elected government.

Of course, I suppose on one level, if you think of a school system, the bill in and of itself is an admission of a mistake or two or three or four — or indeed, in this case, mistakes running to 19 pages, actually, all told. Now, I’ve admitted in this chamber once before, as I admitted to a guest at lunch today, that there was a time in my very important educational career when I used to get 19 and 20 wrong on of a phonics test with 20 points. That hardly represents a glowing academic record.

Nevertheless, it does prove that even people of limited ability can arrive in this chamber and get elect - ed, and I think it’s very important that people of limited ability are represented in this place, although not dispro- portionately so. Having said that, I do want to reflect on some of the changes, because for those who are listening at home and haven’t taken the opportunity to peruse the legisla- tive website, this is a pretty fascinating piece of legislation. Firstly, we’re going to strike out “extra-provincial” in the Adoption Act, under

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

Now, there are others that are quite interesting, strik- ing out various sections, substituting another section, obviously correcting “Local Government Act” and sub - stituting the “Municipal Replotting Act. ” There’s one I hadn’t looked up. 11025

British Columbia Debates11026 Thursday, March 3, 2016 I thought, if I had more time, I would have taken the opportunity to reflect and look up the Municipal Replotting Act. I’m not sure. Is that perhaps where a mu- nicipal government buries its mistakes, much like the doctors are reputed to do? Exactly how do we arrive at this Municipal Replotting Act? It has nothing to do with plants, I’m sure, even though it’s springtime and the earth is renewing itself, as it always does.

Again, I just think the listening audience of British Columbia will be fascinated to know that we have a Municipal Replotting Act in British Columbia now, as opposed to the Local Government Act. Then, of course, there are the important changes in the Forest Act and the Foresters Act, where we’re going to substitute “fulfillment” with two l’s in “fillment, ” as op- posed to one “l. ” Who would have known? All these years we’ve been suffering along in British Columbia with one “l” in “fulfilment” in the Forest Act and the Foresters Act, and now we’re moving to two l’s.

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

So on another level, I feel almost compelled to say bravo to the government for finding these mistakes and then wishing to correct them. That’s what is called positive reinforcement, I believe they used to call it, way back when my wife taught briefly, for four years. This is positive reinforcement. So I want to say to the government: “Here’s to positive reinforcement. We are in fact recognizing our mistakes and correcting them. ” [1340] By the way, if we’re adding an “l” to “fulfilment, ” here’s a really shocking thing. Guess what.

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

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

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

section refers to, and I’m sorry to see the replotting act being shrunk. Perhaps that will be part of the Red Tape Reduction Day approach — and another notch on the gun belt of the gun-toting minister blasting away those regulations, making British Columbia a better place for everybody. We are all also making a significant…. I suspect that this is a real boo-boo. This one is worthy of specific com- ment. In

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

The trick is, not having the time and research and budget available to me, I can’t determine whether these mistakes have been made during the course of the Liberal regime or whether in fact they date back to the decade of the ’90s or back to the time of Bill Vander Zalm or Bill Bennett or Dave Barrett or even Wacky Bennett. Who knows how long some of these errors have been plaguing the statutes of British Columbia? But it is a de- light to see the government acknowledging these errors, seeking positive reinforcement from the opposition, and stepping forward and correcting these mistakes.

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

schedule of statutes, under

section 47, “willful” with two l’s and reducing it to wilful with one “l. ” I suppose this may be the government’s new assault on obesity in our society. It’s all about reduction, reduction, reduction — slimming down the statutes one letter at a time. I do want to point out a couple of things, though. When it comes to vulnerabilities around this legislation — and in pursuit of ensuring we don’t have to spend too much time on next year’s rite of passage, the rite of spring when we bring forth this legislation — I want to point out that there’s a terrible, I think, error by adding a question mark to

section 23 of the MDA act where it says: “What if there is insufficient money in the fund?” with a ques - tion mark. I just want to alert the government to that. They’re welcome to contact the opposition, but I think putting a question mark in the context of a bill in a statute may, in fact, be a grievous error that will require again legislative remedy and much debate. It’s just very odd to me that we would be so lax as to be creating an error that even I could pick up with my limited abilities.

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

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11027 Why didn’t it find all of the instances of “willful” or “willfully” in the fall in order to convert them to the prop- er Canadian equivalent of wilful and wilfully? Where were those diligent people combing through the statutes when you needed them last fall? Were they asleep at the switch?

Here we are in the springtime having to engage in this process one more time. [1345] I can safely tell the minister — who I know is excited by this legislation, who can barely contain her glee at reforming British Columbia’s legal system through the correction of various statutes — that we, in fact, in the opposition will indeed be voting, I suspect, unanimously to support the government in this admission of its errors. Hon. S. Anton: It’s tempting to add some really pro- found remarks, but I think I will not and simply say thank you to the member for Nanaimo. I move second reading of Bill 18. Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today. Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: I call a recess for five minutes. The House recessed from 1:46 p.m. to 1:48 p.m. [R.

Lee in the chair.] BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016 Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that the bill now be read for a second time. The proposed amendment to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will simpli - fy the application and adjudication process for designa - tion as a person with disabilities under the act for many people. The bill supports individuals with disabilities and their families and makes their access to support a little bit easier.

Amendments to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will simplify and improve the application and adjudication process for designation as a person with disabilities under the act. Currently, in order to receive disability assistance, you must have the persons with disabilities designation from the ministry. That can, actually, often involve quite an extensive ap - plication process along with many medical assessments. The process is very thorough, given the criteria that have to be met and the need for confirmation from the health care professionals to diagnose the disability.

It can also be, very often, stressful for families who are already dealing with a number of challenges that come when a child with a disability transitions into adulthood or when a family member acquires a disability later in life and is receiving palliative care. While everyone, I think, here in the House and around the province understands there’s a need for these require- ments, people have also asked us to make it a little bit easier where we can.

It has become very clear, quickly, that there are provincial and federal programs that have an assess- ment that is very similar to the one on disability assistance. [1350] With this amendment, people who have already been approved for services through the approved programs will now be able to receive their person with disabilities designation without having to complete that usual process. Those programs and organizations include the Ministry for Children and Family Development’s At Home pro - gram, which helps parents with some of the costs that they have when caring for a child with a very severe dis- ability.

Also included is Community Living B.C., which provides supports and services for adults around our province with developmental disabilities; PharmaCare plan P , which is for people in palliative care; and, as well, the federal Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. Up to 1,000 people with disabilities will benefit from these changes each year. The majority of them will be young people who are transitioning into adult services.

While that may not seem like a lot to many people, it means a lot to the families and the individuals who will not have to go through second, maybe third or even fourth assessments sometimes in order to receive the services. It means that there will be less stress and fast - er access to disability assistance for hundreds of people every year. This amendment is in response to Accessibility 2024 consultation, when people asked us to make the applica- tion process simpler and easier where we could.

It also addresses the government’s commitment to red-tape re- duction, it eliminates the duplication process that we see, and it helps streamline access to government services for those who truly rely on government for assistance. It’s a change that makes sense, and I look forward to hearing the comments from members on both sides of this House on this second reading.

British Columbia Debates11028 Thursday, March 3, 2016 M. Mungall: I am joining the debate today on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. As the minister stated and I’ll just restate now, this act is making some significant changes for 1,000 people who currently and in the future will receive persons-with-disabilities social assistance in this province.

Namely, the press release reads: “When the legisla - tion comes into force, people in the following provin - cial and federal programs will complete a much simpler PWD application process. ” That’s for people who are in Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care program and the Canada Pension Plan for people with disabilities. There’s no doubt at all that the current application process for people with disabilities is quite cumber - some.

There are not only plenty of stories out there from the 100,000 people in British Columbia who have to go through that application process — what that application process is like for them — but also there have been many reports over the years about the application process and how difficult it is. That said, of course, we on this side of the House are very pleased to see this legislation come forward and make things easier for about 1,000 people who are receiv- ing PWD assistance.

The minister said that she’s heard from people who are saying they would like to see things made a little bit easier for them by this government. When I talk to people around the province who rely on income supports like income assistance and disability, I wouldn’t say that “a little bit” is how I characterize what they’re looking for from this government. They’re look- ing for things to be a lot easier. They experience an incredible amount of difficulty that is associated with the poverty they are forced to live in. We know that this is the case.

We know that rates in British Columbia are well below any conservative meas- ure of poverty. [1355] The Fraser Institute, which is a well-known right-wing conservative think tank not known for its small-l liberal policies or programs…. When they have a poverty meas - ure that is based on the costs of living at a very, very basic level and our rates don’t even meet that level, it says a lot about what’s going on in British Columbia and the pov- erty that people with disabilities are living in.

So when I hear the minister say “a little bit easier, ” I have to take issue with that on behalf of the many thou - sands of people that I hear from on a regular basis who rely on income assistance, who rely on PWD, who say they need things to be a lot easier when you consider the struggles they have to go through because of the rates. I recognize that Bill 3 is not about income assistance rates, that Bill 3 is specifically about the application pro- cess. On that score, the words I hear from people are that they also want to see that a lot easier — not a little bit, but a lot.

Currently there is a 28-page application process that requires people to have a family health practitioner, whether it’s a general practitioner or a nurse practition- er. As you know, I would be remiss to not mention nurse practitioners and the great work that they do in this prov- ince because my husband’s a nurse practitioner, and he reminds me every day. He also tells me, on a regular basis, the work that he has to do to help people fill out the current PWD forms.

This is not something that he can well integrate into his day-to-day practice, but it’s something that he has to do on top of it because it’s so cumbersome, and it’s so de - manding. As a nurse practitioner, he is paid in salary. He’s not on a fee-for-service basis, so he’s able to fit this in during his lunch hour, in the morning before his prac- tice starts or in the late afternoon after his practice starts.

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

I’m very pleased to see that there will be 1,000 people less with this struggle, but I can’t help but remark on the 90,000 people who will still have to go through this bur- den, go through this struggle. I hope the government op- posite recognizes the struggle, that difficulty that 90,000 people are going through, and are going to take that into consideration in moving forward. Now, I’m by far not the first person to ask them to do that. In fact, that request has been going on for 14 years now. [1400] In 2002, at the early stages of the B.C.

Liberal govern- ment, drastic changes were made to income assistance supports in this province. It created a lot of red tape in people’s lives. Not only did we see at that time a 30 per- cent cut in the income assistance rates…. That’s right. We saw a cut to the rates. Today, right now, somebody receiving PWD gets $906 a month — just a little over $10,000 a year. Well, if we compare that to what people were receiving in 1994 — we’re using the same dollars, comparing apples to apples here — $12,755 was the annual income for a single per - son with a disability. So people, as costs have gone up….

Obviously, 22 years later, since 1994, costs have risen. We all know this. Rent goes up. Hydro goes up. This govern- ment has increased hydro by 28 percent already, another 4 percent this year. If you’re a person with a disability that requires a car, your insurance has gone up. If you live in Victoria and

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11029 you need to visit family in the Lower Mainland, ferry fares have gone up. The list goes on. Bus fares have gone up, and they’re certainly going up under this government again for people with disabilities. If you want to take a little bit of time and enjoy Mother Nature and go camping, you’re paying more too. Food costs. Well, that’s all gone up, and we all know it. We hear about it every day. The cost of milk and bread keeps going up. We’re not talking about cake. We’re talk- ing about the basics, milk and bread, and that’s gone up.

In the meantime, for people with disabilities, their rates have gone down. Their ability to afford those costs of living has become less — hundreds of dollars less. That’s the reality they’re facing. That was one of the first measures that was taken back in 2002. But alongside cutting the rates, there were drastic changes to eligibility regulations as well as the applica - tion process. In fact, it was so bad back then…. One of the things that the government of the day did was con - duct a review of 20,000 people living with disabilities.

They were forced to fill out a lengthy questionnaire just to justify their benefits. That’s what happened in 2002. So 20,000 people with disabilities were targeted, told that to be able to get their cheque they had to fill out an ex - tremely long questionnaire, and if they filled it out cor - rectly, they could keep their benefits. Now, how much did this cost taxpayers? Five million dollars. Incredible hardship was created with this, for 20,000 people with disabilities, many of whom had de - velopmental disabilities — 20,000 people having to fill out this form. It cost the taxpayers $5 million.

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

At the same time, the review created increased anxiety for many of the min - istry’s disabled clients. ” [1405] So $5 million of taxpayers’ money to target people with disabilities, create undue hardship, undue anxiety, create further difficulties for them, to put their source of income into question, to create that instability in their lives — and $5 million was not saved to taxpayers as a re- sult. It was a mean and cruel fishing expedition that was absolutely unnecessary, but that’s the kind of stuff that was going on in 2002. Also going on in 2002, as I mentioned, was the change to the application process.

That application process be - came quite lengthy in nature. It’s pretty much what we see today. To the best of my knowledge, not much has changed since 2002, if anything. That process also cre - ated new rules that resulted in many people who used to be able to get help now being ineligible for that help. As a result…. We look at some news articles of the day. When you create a more difficult process for people to apply, a process that is at a grade reading level above what they’re able to access, that is lengthy…. They can’t get a GP , perhaps, and so on and so forth.

Well, the news arti- cles of the day were reporting that there was a direct cor- relation between the new rules that were implemented in 2002 and an increasing number of people who were homeless and living on the streets. They weren’t able to get the supports they needed to get a roof over their head, so they found roofs in door - ways, in alleys, in the streets of our communities. Many of them didn’t have a mental illness before, but they ended up developing a mental illness not long after living the harsh life that is life on the streets. They started to self- medicate. Addictions resulted.

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

But there were a few other changes back in 2002 that contributed to the problems that the Liberals are now trying to fix, starting with this bill. What we saw back in 2002 was the complete elimina - tion of earnings exemptions for income assistance as well as PWD and persons-with-multiple-barriers recipients. We saw complete earnings exemptions eliminations for them. I’m glad to report that the government has since rectified that draconian measure. That has never, ever, in any jurisdiction, proven to be a best practice to support people to move out of poverty.

The government has seen the light on that and recog - nized that that was the wrong way to do it. I mean, they could have known that back in 2002. Most people did. There were protests. There were demonstrations. There were letters. There were petitions. [1410] If there had been Facebook and Twitter, there would have been campaigns on social media too. People were speaking out at that time, trying to convince the govern- ment to not do that. It took a few years. In fact, it took another ten years before the government acknowledged the error of its ways on the earnings exemptions.

In 2002, they also eliminated the exemption for child support. They started to claw back child support pay - ments from single parents. Well, we’ve had some success since 2003. By 2015, we saw single parents being able to keep 100 percent of their child support. That was, again, no small task. That was a major cam- paign, with single parents coming forward and sharing

British Columbia Debates11030 Thursday, March 3, 2016 their stories. We brought those stories right to the floor of this Legislature, and we saw a change. That was also a step in the right direction, just like this bill is a step in the right direction finally — more than ten years later, after the red tape was created by this government. Another thing that happened in 2002 that makes this application process difficult today is that the government implemented a three-week waiting period. You go to apply for income assistance, and before they’ll even look at your application, you have to wait three weeks.

They call it the work search period. This work search period — the ideal is that you go find a job. Well, that doesn’t happen very often, but never mind. The government has recently decided to increase the work search period to five weeks. It’s five weeks now. The last time I had a discussion with the minister about this in the budget estimates process, we confirmed it was five weeks. I asked many questions. Well, what happens? Rent is due at the beginning of the month. Months are normally four weeks. Y ou make your application. Y ou have to go search for a job. Y ou don’t find a job.

What happens the next month when you don’t have sufficient funds for rent? Well, I talked about the news - paper articles from 2002. Y ou can imagine that same story is happening now. People end up on the streets, and they end up in worse situations than they did be - forehand. Back in 2002, clients of the ministry were directed to apply through a 1-800 number. Now it’s on line. Hon. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell you the stress and diffi - culty this has caused for the last 14 years and continues to cause people. The 1-800 line is really a disaster. There is plenty of evidence.

Y ou don’t have to take my word for it. Y ou can talk to anybody who is a client who receives PWD, who receives income assistance. They can tell you about their nightmare stories of call- ing and waiting on hold, chewing up their talk time on their phone, or of having to get a callback, but they don’t have a phone and are actually at the employment office and have to sit at the employment office for an hour or however long to get a callback, so they can’t go out and do their job search and so on. The chaos this 1-800 num- ber has caused in their lives. You can imagine.

If that’s just the point of contact people need once they get to be clients of the ministry, it was just as difficult just to become that client, to be able to get the supports that they need. Being able to get a face-to-face conversation with someone in the ministry is extremely difficult. I look at Accessibility 2024, which is the govern - ment’s plan to become the most accessible jurisdiction in Canada by 2024.

If I look at this document on accessible service delivery — and I would consider any application to be a part of that component — it says: “What we can do now, commit to accessible service delivery — phone, on line and face to face. ” Now, I’m not going to deny that having a 1-800 number and having on-line service is helpful. It’s helpful for many people. [1415] It’s not very good right now. It can be better. There needs to be improvement. There’s a lot of room for improvement for the phone and on-line service.

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

We’ve got people who are simply not getting the face time they need to be able to apply or to be able to address the needs they have and to get the supports they need. That’s what’s happening right now in service delivery. Some of the other changes that took place in 2002 im- pact today. There was a two-year time limit. This new rule applied to those in the expected-to-work category. So cli- ents without children would see their benefits terminated for three years after requiring those supports for two years.

What’s interesting about this is that no other juris - diction had done something like this prior to British Columbia, to the best of my recollection and reading through all the stacks of paper that we have on this issue of application and the current government’s records around supports for people with disabilities. This two-year time limit. What it meant is that within a five-year period, after two years, you would be kicked off the supports you need and you’ d be left to fend for yourself, often ending up on the streets.

Now, perhaps that person just needed to get more supports for a little while longer to get a job. Perhaps no jobs were available. Whatever it was, when you kick somebody off income assistance and they end up on the streets, as I mentioned earlier, what can happen in that harsh lifestyle is that somebody might develop a mental illness and use illegal drugs to self-medicate, and addiction ensues. Disability can ensue, particularly from the mental illness, and you’re back and applying for PWD now. Y ou’re going through that difficult, cumbersome application process that wasn’t necessary in the first place.

For 1,000 people, again, Bill 3 has stopped that and is making it easier for them — as the minister said, just a little bit easier for them. But there are 90,000 others who also need better access to the supports that they require. I mentioned earlier that I am by no means the first person to say we need better access for everybody, the full 100,000 people who receive PWD. I mentioned what was happening in 2002 and the changes that took place, the changes that created the red tape in the first place.

I mentioned that the Auditor General had a good look at what was happening at that time and didn’t have many nice things to say.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11031 Well, in 2014, the Auditor General took a look again. The audit of that day — it was titled An Audit of Program Access, Integrity and Results — looked at the accessibility of PWD, persons with disabilities, assistance. [1420] Here are some of the main findings. That report found that the disability assistance program is not easy to ac - cess for clients. I’m just going to stop for a second, hon. Speaker, be - cause I saw the green light go on. It just reminded me that I will be the designated speaker for our side of the House.

The white light’s back on, so I will continue on with my remarks. It’s always amazing how those 30 minutes fly by. Y ou always feel like you’re not going to have enough to say for 30 minutes, and then the green light goes on and: “My goodness. This was a bigger problem than I thought. ” Interjection. M. Mungall: I don’t think voicing the people’s con- cerns about what’s going on in the Ministry of Social Development is a waste of time at all, contrary to what I just heard. As I was saying, this audit by the Auditor General in May 2014 found that the disability assistance program is not easy to access for clients.

That’s all 100,000 clients, not just the 1,000 that the government has identified with this legislation but all of them. It also found that the level of assistance provided is not enough to meet the basic needs of clients. I’ve dis - cussed that already. In 1994, clients were receiving more than they are today. It also found that the ministry has not defined clear ob- jectives and measurable targets that define what it means to meet the basic needs of clients. So of course the min - istry can’t provide decent rates.

It doesn’t even know what the basic needs of clients are and how to meet those needs and how to measure those needs. It’s just not doing its due diligence when it comes to monitoring and evalua - tion. That’s what this report found. Specific to the disability assistance program and ac - cessing supports, which is what we’re dealing with here today in Bill 3, is…. I’m going to quote from the Auditor General: “We found a number of barriers that are cur - rently reducing the accessibility of the system. ” A num- ber of barriers are currently reducing the accessibility of the system.

I mentioned earlier the 1-800 number. It’s not work - ing. It could work; it’s not working very well right now. The on-line system is not working well right now either. It could work; it’s not working very well right now. We all understand that the application process should require people with disabilities to interact and have a relationship with a GP . Of course, when we have so many orphan patients in the province, not enough phys- icians…. I’m not going to say that’s entirely this govern- ment’s fault. It’s a North American issue right now. But there’s a lot more the government could be doing on that front.

When we have that situation, we have to recognize that getting these forms filled out is going to be more difficult. There are going to be more barriers in place, just as the Auditor General has said: a number of barriers currently reducing the accessibility of the system. It goes on to say: “The disability assistance system is administratively complex and difficult to navigate. ” I hear this all the time. All the time I hear that feedback, people telling me that they don’t understand what the form is saying or what it’s asking of them. It reads at a higher grade level than they’re able to.

Being able to just access the Internet can be very difficult for people when they’re living in poverty or if they don’t have the skills to do that. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, I hear from my hus- band all the time, as a nurse practitioner who is filling out many of these forms, that it’s extremely time-consuming for health practitioners. It’s extremely time-consuming. As a result, many of them are not able to fill these forms out in a timely manner for their patients.

They don’t want to be put in that situation, but that’s the situation that they’re in. [1425] That’s the reality, and that’s exactly why we see the Auditor General saying that the disability assistance sys- tem is administratively complex and difficult to navigate. I’ve mentioned the on-line and telephone services. Again, I’ve said don’t take my word for it.

Here’s what the Auditor General had to say: “Both the on-line and tele - phone services are not consistently accessible for clients, and there are challenges with the physical accessibility of a small number of service delivery sites. ” All sites should be fully accessible, first and foremost. That requires a little bit of capital investment, but I think it’s a worthwhile capital investment from this govern - ment. In fact, I do believe that this type of capital invest- ment is found in Accessibility 2024 — a lovely document, only hoping to be fully realized. We look at the on-line and telephone services.

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

The other thing that the Auditor General said in May 2014 was: “While the ministry has done some analysis and consulted with stakeholders, we found that it has not fully assessed the accessibility needs of its clients. ” I only hope that since 2004 the government has taken great, great steps in rectifying this particular issue that

British Columbia Debates11032 Thursday, March 3, 2016 the Auditor General found in 2014. It’s not just a mat - ter of sitting down for an hour with stakeholders. It’s ac- tually taking the results of those meetings, taking action on what came out of those meetings and identifying the full extent of what clients need to make the system more accessible to them. Here, with Bill 3, we do see a step in that right direc - tion, where we’re going to be better supporting 1,000 people in this province to access the supports that they need.

But when we look at the overall total of 100,000, we need to think about the other 99 percent. We need to take that into consideration, and we need to be tak - ing concrete, real steps to ensure that their needs are also being met. All in all, when I look at Bill 3, it’s not a bad bill. It’s a good bill. But we also have to think. We have the respon- sibility to discharge our duties in looking at what might not be in the bill that could have been and what more work needs to be done. For 90,000 other people out there, more work needs to be done. There’s just no denying that.

No one is saying: “Get rid of an application process. ” No one is saying that. I wanted to be clear on that. I know sometimes members on the other side like to take things off into a realm that isn’t quite reflective of what’s ac - tually been said on this side. So I wanted to just be clear about that. What we’re saying is that the current application pro- cess is difficult. It is cumbersome. Government has recog- nized that to be the case, but they’ve only found a solution for 1,000 people. We need a solution for 100,000 people.

When that solution comes forward, they can be assured — if it comes before 2017 — that this side of the House will do our due diligence, will take on our responsibility and provide critical analysis to it. That’s our job. That is the job of the official opposition. [1430] I know that members opposite don’t like that there’s an official opposition who has that responsibility. But it’s part of our democracy. It’s what keeps it strong. It’s what keeps it stable. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] We will most certainly provide that critical analysis. If it’s good legislation, you bet we’ll support it.

If it’s not, we’ll have something to say about it as well. On that note, I’m glad that I got the opportunity to take the time I needed — and the time I know my con - stituents want to see, as this is something that has def - initely impacted their lives quite a lot — to address the history and the long-standing issues that have brought us to today and to Bill 3. V . Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members V . Huntington: In the gallery during question period were 26 French immersion students from South Park elementary in my riding of Delta South.

I didn’t have an opportunity at that moment to introduce these grade 6 students, who were accompanied by six chaperones and by their teacher Ms. Monica Burnett. I’ d like to welcome the South Park students to the Legislature and hope they enjoyed not only the experi - ence of sitting in question period but also the tour of the legislative buildings. We’re certainly proud to know that they care enough about the democratic process to pay us a visit and to learn a little more about how govern - ment works. Will the members please give them a warm welcome to this House. Debate Continued M.

Mungall: I’m always happy to take a water break as well as offer an opportunity for my colleagues to wel- come their guests to the House. I want to just particularly note something that the member for Delta South said now about her guests com- ing to see democracy in action. That’s kind of where I was leaving off. The debates that occur in this House and the critical analysis that an official opposition provides in our Westminster parliamentary system are integral to our democracy, integral to its stability. I committed that we will always provide, us as an opposition….

Until 2017, we’ll always provide that critical opposition. I’m sure that makes several members of the opposite side quite happy, some maybe not so much. In closing my remarks, I’ll just say that we appreciate the work that’s being done for the 1,000 people that will be impacted by Bill 3. We want to encourage — along with the Auditor General, along with clients, along with advocacy organizations and non-profits — the govern - ment to take the serious steps needed to address the needs of the other 90,000 people who are going through that PWD application. I think we can do better in this province.

I know we can do better in this province, and I look forward to us doing better. L. Reimer: I am pleased to rise today and provide my comments on Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act. The primary purpose of this legislation is to reduce barriers for people living with disabilities. Bill 3 is the product of extensive consultation between government, people with disabilities, advocates and social support organizations. It is, in part, a follow-up to our ten-year plan to make B.C. the most inclusive society in the coun- try.

It commenced with a public consultation process on

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11033 December 3, 2013, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. [1435] The consultation process concluded on June 16, 2014, with a final report entitled Accessibility 2024: Making B.C. the Most Progressive Province in Canada for People with Disabilities by 2024. The report sets out a vision for our province where disabilities are no longer a barrier to liv- ing full lives and where no British Columbian is ever told that their goals and their dreams are not realistic because of their disability.

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

British Columbia is committed to upholding and safe- guarding the principles outlined in the UN convention: individual autonomy, including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons; non- discrimination; full and effective participation and inclu- sion in society; respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity; equal opportunity; accessibility; equality be - tween men and women; respect for the evolving capaci - ties of children with disabilities; and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Based on these principles, the government of British Columbia, together with the disability community and the business community, has brought forward concrete measures and actions to increase accessibility and de - crease barriers for persons with disabilities. For example, since that report was issued in 2014, we have delivered on income supports. For those collecting disability assistance, this govern - ment has increased the earnings exemption from $500 to $800 per month. This is important because a person col- lecting disability assistance can earn a significant amount of income without losing their benefits.

As a matter of fact, British Columbia became the first province in Canada to annualize earnings exemptions up to $9,600 a year. As the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has pointed out, earnings exemptions are a valuable path back into the paid workforce. Virtually everyone wants to make a better life for their children. That’s why we brought in the single-parent in- itiative. This program is specially designed to help people make it back into the workforce, with help along the way.

It includes an array of benefits, including the opportunity to get 12 months of training for an in-demand occupation, transportation coverage to a training institution and full coverage of daycare expenses throughout the 12-month training period. In addition, anyone collecting income assistance who moves on to a paid job will continue to receive supplemental health coverage for up to one year. We’ve also made significant changes so that people collecting disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash gifts without losing benefits.

Now a single person collecting disability benefits can hold $100,000 in assets, while continuing to receive disability assist - ance. That means a person will not lose income support just because they’ve received an inheritance or a cash gift. That’s an increase up from $5,000. Referring back to our ten-year plan entitled Accessibility 2024, our government has also delivered on a commit - ment to enact legislation concerning guide dogs and ser- vice dogs. The Guide Dog and Service Dog Act makes it clear that discrimination is unacceptable.

It gives guide or service dog handlers access rights equal to those enjoyed by all members of the public, including expanding ten - ancy rights to include strata properties and certified re - tired dogs residing with their handlers; providing public access rights for certified dogs in training; recogniz - ing service dogs, in addition to guide dogs, and requir - ing a high training standard; establishing a more robust decision-making process for certification; and strength- ening compliance and enforcement. Guide and service dogs are crucial companions for many British Columbians who live with a disability.

For example, they may help individuals who are visually im- paired to navigate city streets. They provide assistance with things such as hearing loss, epilepsy, diabetes or post-traumatic stress disorder. In addition, retired dogs are included in the changes to tenancy rules. Once a dog is no longer certified as a working animal due to age, injury or disease, it will now be able to be certified as retired and remain in a home with its handler. [1440] That was evidenced this morning by the MLA for Delta North’s two-minute speech on a retired dog who happens to live in my riding of Port Moody–Coquitlam.

This is a very important innovation. Furthermore, handlers seeking certification for guide and service dogs that were not trained by an accredited school will now be able to have them tested by a neu - tral third party, the Justice Institute of British Columbia. These are just a few examples of the concrete steps that we are taking to live up to our goal of making British Columbia one of the most inclusive societies in Canada and, indeed, the world. Overall, Bill 3 will reduce barriers for people living with disabilities.

The proposed legislation will allow gov- ernment to prescribe groups of people as persons with disabilities without making them complete a 28-page ap- plication form or chase additional assessments by med - ical practitioners. These proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with disabilities and their

British Columbia Debates11034 Thursday, March 3, 2016 families. It will also cut paperwork for doctors and other health care professionals who need to fill out forms on behalf of their clients. For all of these reasons, I’m proud to support Bill 3 on behalf of my constituents of Port Moody, Anmore, Belcarra and Coquitlam. L. Krog: It’s always interesting how things work in this place. Earlier today, I spoke to a bill relating to cor - rections to a statute, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016, which ran on for 19 pages.

After I’ d finished, I received a note from one wag in the chamber who suggested, after I’ d commented about the l’s, that it didn’t make one “l” of a difference, which I thought was actually extremely amusing. The effect of that legislation is minimal. It satisfies legal requirements. It needed to be done. I don’t question that. Y et the bill we have in front of us consists of three short sections, including the standard commencement

section that says: “This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. ” This legislation, this literally half-page of legislation, has a profound impact on thousands and thousands of British Columbians. It’s not complex. It’s not difficult to understand.

It amends two sections of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act to allow the government to directly designate classes of persons as persons with a disability without them having to fill out a rather onerous 28-page application form that re - quires their input, the input of a physician and the input of the ministry.

I suspect — I think I can almost swear to a moral cer - tainty — that there’s not a member in this chamber who doesn’t have people in their office on a regular basis who are in need of social assistance, people who are already receiving social assistance and people who are desperate and in need in the broadest sense of that term. Many of them suffer from some degree of mental illness. Many of them suffer some degree of addiction. Many of them are from backgrounds that could only be described as abu - sive.

Y ou know, to remember the Hobbes line, their lives are “nasty, brutish and short. ” What we’re finally doing with this is just taking a little dose of reality and acknowledging the stress, the pain and the frustration that has been felt by thousands of British Columbians when, for whatever reason, they have had to make that decision or have been forced to apply for so - cial assistance. Contrary to the beliefs and views of some around the deserving and the undeserving poor, when you apply for social assistance…. The vast majority of folks — for them it is the final straw.

Y ou can use any cli- ché in the book you want. [1445] They’ve, in large measure, most often, sold off what assets they have. They have begged and borrowed from their friends, and in some cases, they’ve stolen. There’s no great desire or interest or ambition to get onto social assistance. There might be for a few folks, just as there’s a desire for many of us to win the lottery and not have to worry about the stressors of work anymore. But it’s not the same thing.

The vast majority of British Columbians don’t want to end up on social assistance, but the reality of their lives and their circumstances is such that they do.

Imagine the surprise when they apply for social assist- ance — and they’re clearly people who are in desperate need and who would qualify and do qualify for persons- with-disabilities status —and they’re told that first they have to apply for regular social assistance, and then they have to go through this other process to satisfy the gov - ernment that they’re entitled to that munificent sum of about $300 more per month than a person receiving “regular social assistance. ” Why would we make the lives of those who are apply- ing for disability status so much more difficult? In fair - ness….

The government doesn’t get a lot of compliments from me. I don’t think that’s my job. They sing their own praises so readily in this chamber and off the song sheet and talk about what a good job they’ve done. There’s no need for me to compliment them or say thank you, particularly. But today I do want to pay them a compli - ment: small as this bill may be, it is absolutely the right thing to do. Now, I appreciate that the government may wish to take credit for this reduction in red tape, arguably.

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

By making it a little easier for people who have already, by circumstance or the decision forced on them by cir - cumstance, because of a lack of ability to support them - selves, whatever the case may be…. For those people who have finally come to apply for social assistance, in order for them to get persons-with-disabilities status, the gov- ernment has actually done a really good thing by making it that much easier. It is to be commended. But at the same time, it’s like sweet-and-sour candies. Hon. T. Lake: Don’t ruin it. L.

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

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11035 J. Darcy: No, that’s their line. L. Krog: Oh, is that their line? Interesting. The mem- ber for New Westminster says that’s their line: better half a loaf than none.

Well, that’s a very interesting suppos - ition, because as we all know: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread. ” But that aside, I would hope that now we’re moving down the road a little, maybe the government could ac - tually reflect for a moment on what it attempted to do — if it was entirely pure-hearted, congratulations — with the bus pass issue and the $77 increase. I understand the logic behind trying to equalize treat- ment across the province. I get it.

Y ou know, if you live in an area where a bus pass is of no use to you because there’s no bus service, I get that. So you get the $77. That’s an improvement. Minuscule as it is, you get the improvement. But for those folks who have access to a bus pass, you’ve given the $77, and suddenly you claw back some of it. [1450] No matter how you regard it, no matter how many arguments you make…. The Minister for Advanced Education understands this, because I know he prides himself on mentioning from time to time who the law - yers are in the chamber.

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

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

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

Fresh produce, I can assure the mem - bers, in Stewart, where my sister-in-law first taught, are far more expensive and were far more expensive than they are if you go to any ordinary shopping centre and food store in the Lower Mainland. So one could argue that paying an equal amount of social assistance across the board every place in the province is not particularly fair, based on the reality of expenses.

In the same way this bill recognizes that people on social assistance shouldn’t be forced to work through onerous applications, when this government brought in its policy to increase by $77 and then claw away, it again, I would argue, isn’t recognizing the disparities that al - ready exist. Let’s take it one step further. In the province of Alberta, and I confirmed this with a former social worker from that province just a couple of weeks ago, a person with dis- ability would receive approximately $1,500 a month.

Now, that change and some of those changes were brought in by no less a right-wing, gun-toting, “shoot, shovelling, shut-up” cowboy Premier than Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein recognized that the citizens of his province who were disabled, who had disability status, should in fact receive something more akin to their real costs of living. After nine years since the last increase, surely this government should be able to recognize that it’s time for a real and substantial increase.

When you’re brag - ging about your third projected surplus budget and you have citizens who are living on $610 a month and you’ve got a surplus and indeed enough of a surplus to fill in a fund that you couldn’t fill in with your liquid natural gas revenue because — poof! — that doesn’t exist….

When you’ve got enough money to set up that fund, surely you could find some more money to give to those whose lives are circumscribed by illness mental or physical, by addic- tion, by lack of skills, ability, by all the things in life that can hold you back. [1455] For people who live in prisons — some may argue of their own making; I don’t think so, but some do — cre - ated by the circumstances in which they live and the dif- ficulties that they face every day, would it be so hard to provide an increase?

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

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

British Columbia Debates11036 Thursday, March 3, 2016 might get some fresh fruit. They might even be able to afford a better class of secondhand pair of shoes. But that money will go back into the economy. It’s not going into a savings account. It’s not going to be spent on winter holidays that many of us in this chamber can afford to happily take. It’s not going to be spent on a new car. It’s not going to be spent on gifts for your family, probably. It’s going to be spent on the most basic neces- sities of life.

Surely, it is the collective responsibility of us, through government, to ensure that the most vulnerable have some access to some reasonable quality of life. Today with this bill the government takes a tiny step, for which I am sincerely grateful, in that it makes it a tiny bit easier for people who are eligible to apply for and obtain disability status and, therefore, the increase that comes with that. But sometimes you have to step back and acknowledge that this doesn’t require tinkering. This isn’t about tinkering.

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

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

All I’m asking is that the gov - ernment open themselves up to the possibility that no one, not even their own supporters, will criticize them if they exercise some genuine compassion in the way that they’ve exercised some compassion and understanding of the issues in this legislation. I’m certainly going to support this bill. That’s without question, and I would think I wouldn’t even have to state that. That’s pretty obvious.

But at the same time, I have to ask, as I say thank you: why not more? [1500] If you’re going to brag that you have the fiscal capacity to create a prosperity fund with surplus money, if you’re going to brag about your forecast allowance and your forecast surplus and how you’re going to give a bene - fit to public servants because the economy performed well enough that they’ll see a small benefit themselves…. When you can brag about all those things and, at the very same time, the best you can do is give $77 a month to people on disability status…. Surely we can do better.

I’m simply asking the government, as we consider this bill, as we take this tiny step forward, to actually, rea - sonably, look at this and say: “Y ou know what? We can. We should. It’s the right thing to do. ” No one is going to criticize you. Indeed, I undertake to be one of the first members on this side of the House to thank the govern- ment if they do. If the Minister of Health wants a little more sweet, then I’m just going to suggest that perhaps the mem - bers on the government side work a little harder, take a little sharper pencil to the budget and find the money. It is the right thing to do.

Everyone knows it’s the right thing to do. Y ou’ d be popular for doing it. Y ou’ d receive gratitude for doing it. Y our heads might hit the pillow at night feeling a little cleared in your conscience, better than they were when you woke up. So why not? There’s, ultimately, no excuse. The lives of people who receive persons-with-disabil - ities status are not going to improve unless the govern - ment is prepared to improve their lives by increasing the allowance appropriately.

I could talk all day about those who receive ordinary social assistance, an amount so appallingly low, I can’t imagine how government can continue to hold the line on that one. Just talking today and reflecting on the substance of this bill…. Please, it’s not that hard. I’m not going to do a C.D. Howe moment, as much as I am tempted to. He is reputed to have said: “What’s a million?” In fact, I’m not even sure he said that, and it doesn’t really matter. In the context of the budget that we have in British Columbia, is it that hard?

Is it that hard to throw what amounts to, literally, pennies out of that budget total? Throw a few pennies in the way of the poor — not an unreasonable thing to request. I’ d like to think the government members are actually listening. I believe, in my heart, that they’re good people. They care. They want to see life better for people. For people receiving disability payments, short of a miracle, it’s not going to get better unless the folks on that side of the chamber decide to do so. Or, alternatively, they let the folks on this side of the chamber do their jobs. Hon. P .

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

Well, in this budget that was just recently tabled in this House, there was an increase of $170 million into the ministry’s budget to do the very

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11037 thing that the member talked about — that is, to provide more support and assistance for the very people that he is concerned about. To me, that’s not pennies.

That is a sig- nificant investment as a result of fiscal policies that have allowed us to put that money and invest it in the future of British Columbians who need that support. [1505] I know that the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation and the team in her ministry have worked extremely hard to find some innovative and pro- gressive programs that will meet the needs of the people on disabilities and people with disabilities. I know that these steps…. The minister has said it publicly and in this House on a number of occasions. We all wish we could do more.

When you see that this ministry has received an increase of $170 million, it is a clear indication that the work that has gone on to find the areas where support is needed is being done. I know that the minister, her team in the ministry and every member on the government side is committed to helping people with disabilities by making it easier for them to have access to the programs and services they need. That is at the heart of the proposed legislative changes.

It will allow us to help those groups, such as people with dis- abilities, without having them be forced to go through an arduous and long application process. W e understand that, and that’s what these proposed changes do. It will not only reduce red tape; it will also cut the paperwork for the professionals. I might add that as part of what has happened in the ministry and some of the progressive steps they’ve taken, they’ve added other pro- fessionals who can help with that application process.

That is going to provide more access for people with disabilities to get that appropriate application and sign- off done. They will help them to fill out those forms, and that is going to be a significant move in the right direc - tion. This bill will help to cut the paperwork, and that re- spects the work of the professionals that work with these individuals in our province. When this legislation comes into force, the people in the following provincial and federal programs will com- plete a much simpler PWD application process.

That includes organizations like Community Living B.C., the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program, the B.C. PharmaCare plan P palliative care program and the Canada Pension Plan disability program. That has been done to ensure, again, that we help individuals get the support they need when they need it and in a timely fashion. This bill, this legislation, is just one of the many ways that the government has been working to streamline the disability assistance application process.

The ministry has also reduced the amount of time it takes to process an application for persons with disabilities designation and created the simplified form for youth transitioning to the CLBC services. Our government remains committed to working with people with disabilities in order to make their lives easier. Again, the hon. member for Nanaimo and, prior to him, the member for Nelson-Creston talked about the poli - cies of this government that have made it more difficult. I think history lessons often come up in this House, and there is one.

The pure fact is that the only time the rates were cut for people in this category was under the NDP government, not by this government. We’ve con - tinued to increase it, and we will continue to work with them and provide them with the supports that they need. Interjections. Hon. P . Fassbender: The only cuts that were made…. I hear the members opposite. They’re talking about cuts. The cuts that were made were for single employables, not PWD individuals, and we created programs that would help them to get work. [1510] Here’s a bit of news for the members opposite: the pro- gram has been extremely successful.

People who needed jobs and who wanted jobs now have those jobs and are self-sustaining and have the dignity that we, on this side of the House, want to ensure we help them receive. We will continue to do that. It looks, for most of us…. We look at the feedback we’ve received. The ministry has been working closely with the disability community and the organizations, and we’ve worked to develop the Accessibility 2024 plan.

That ten-year action plan identifies what society can do to reduce barriers for people with disabilities and cre- ate more accessible, inclusive communities where people are respected no matter what their circumstance may be. That is seen across this country as being innovative and progressive, recognizing that we need to respect the people who, because of issues perhaps not even of their own making, because of circumstances beyond their control, have been perhaps not honoured the way they should be in communities. We are committed to ensur - ing that we work to do that change that needs to happen.

The proposed legislation does reflect the feedback we’ve received from people with disabilities and the or - ganizations, and we know that it is the right step in the right direction and will make their lives that much easier. Our comprehensive social safety net in this province is in place to provide temporary support to help people find meaningful work.

Many times on this side of the House we’ve talked about the fact that our goal is to pro- vide an economy that has access to meaningful jobs and for people to be lifted out of poverty, not by subsidies and handouts but by being given the opportunity to work, and to have the respect that they deserve for who they are and what they bring to our communities. We continue to refine our income assistance policies in ways that help people increase their household income

British Columbia Debates11038 Thursday, March 3, 2016 and create better independence. Just a couple of examples. The child support payments are now fully exempt, pro - viding an additional $32 million over the next three years for 3,200 families. Earning exemptions doubled from $200 to $400 per month for all families with children and increased from $300 to $500 per month for families who have a child with a disability. We’ve also, for people on disability assistance, in - creased earning exemptions from $500 to $800 a month.

In January of 2015, B.C. became the first province to an- nualize those earning exemptions up to $9,600 a year. Again, I remind the Member for Nanaimo that those are not pennies. Those are real dollars that are making a real difference in those families’ lives, and they are ap- preciative of that work. They can now keep their basic health supplement coverage for a full year when they leave income assistance for employment, so we help them as they transition into the meaningful jobs that I spoke about.

We’ve also made significant changes so that people on disability assistance can hold more assets and receive cash gifts, making our policies the most generous in all of Canada. In the last while, we’ve talked about the bus pass. We’ve heard the opposition trying to suggest that this govern - ment has cut, and that is not true. They’ve used words like “clawback. ” That is also not correct.

What we’ve ac- tually done, as the minister has said every day in this House, is made it fairer, provided more equitability across the province. [1515] They now, today, have more than they had before that was brought in — not less, but more. The people in the community, in the disability community, are beginning to see that when they see the facts, not the misrepresenta- tion of the facts that we hear from the members opposite.

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

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

Well, this bill is looking to make it so that — I’ve heard approximately 1,000 — people don’t have to fill out as many application forms, one of which is 28 pages long, so that they can get the assistance they need to live. Well, where did that 28-page application come from? What is the history of this bill, of this need? What is the history of how we treat people with disabilities in this province? I’ve got to say it’s not that good. Now, I know the hon. minister, the minister across the way, said: “We’re the most generous in Canada. ” I think these were his words. Generosity, the idea of: “Well, I’ll be kind.

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

We should all be treated equally. Equity. But in that, I’ve also been brought up to understand that some people start off on third base and think they’ve hit a tri- ple. Some people start out at home plate and think they hit a home run. Some people can’t even get to the batting cage. Some people can’t even swing the bat. We don’t treat all of them equally and assume that, well, everybody can do exactly the same thing and everybody has the same abilities. Y et many people in this House do. Many people don’t recognize their privileges.

When people talk about B.C. — “the greatest place on earth” used to be the catchphrase of the government of the day — what they don’t reflect on is that, for many people, it’s a pretty hard place to live. I think it’s our duty as legislators, when we represent people, to do our best to try and represent them all. Now, I understand there’s no way that I can speak for every - body, in the sense that I can never understand every - thing they’ve gone through, to be able to understand the challenges that they’re living every day, but I try my best. I don’t try to pretend that I know what’s best for them.

People generally know what’s best for themselves or for their families. I also don’t try and talk down to them and tell them, “Well, we’re being generous, so you should be happy, ” when they can’t afford to eat. But that’s what we hear from this government. There’s no humility in this. This is the people’s money, not their money. This is British Columbia’s money we’re talking about. [1520] I know governments are never humble. I know gov - ernments want credit for everything under the sun that’s good and none of the credit for things that go bad. We get it. That’s politics. That’s often humanity’s way of being.

We’re all fragile in one point or another. We all have egos. We all believe we’re trying to do the best we can. But hu-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11039 mility, I think, requires us to understand that we’re not doing the best we can for people living with disabilities. Bringing in a law that is going to make it easier for a small number is a good thing. To be fair, it’s a good thing, and I will give the government credit for doing that good thing. But there are over 90,000 other people who still have to deal with 28-page forms.

There could be any number of us who become dis - abled, although to be fair, because of the provisions we’ve given ourselves with benefits and salaries, etc., many of us probably wouldn’t have to go through this process at all. But it could be. It could be a family member, a constitu- ent. Indeed, many constituents have to face this. We’re not doing anything for those people who we know, as rents increase and costs increase, are still strug- gling at food banks, if they’re able to get there.

They’re still struggling to even fill out a 28-page web-based appli- cation form, if they even know how to fill out on a com- puter or if they can find an advocate who can do it for them — if they’re even able to communicate that. Let’s go back to how this began. In January 2002, the B.C. Liberals decided to launch one of the most regres - sive attacks — I would argue a mean-spirited attack — on people with disabilities. They brought in massive applica- tion forms. I remember those days.

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

It was unbelievable to me that a government would act that way, but they did, and that led to a spike in homeless- ness, a spike in health care costs and legal costs, a spike in personal pain and community conflict as people liv - ing with disability, often struggling, were forced onto the streets by this government through their attack, their lack of care, their lack of willingness. This one piece of legislation is going to allow approxi- mately 1,000 people — maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less — not to have to fill out this 28-page application form. But it’s still required for about 90,000, give or take.

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

I’ve met disabled people who’ve been forced, they argue, into sex work and other things to try and pay the bills and be able to feed themselves. This legislation is not the most generous. This B.C. gov- ernment is not the most generous. This B.C. government, as the minister said before me: “We all wish we could do more. ” That’s what the minister said. Well, they can. They just don’t.

Wish — as if somehow the government was unable to decide what went into a budget. “We all wish we could do more, ” says the minister, as if somebody else made up the budget and they had no ability to change it. [1525] In fact, they did have an ability to change it, and they do. If we think back in terms of this legislation and its impact on disabilities but also, really, the impact of the lack of care for people living with disabilities….

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

No, they were not unable to help the richest 2 percent, but they were unable to make a real difference in the lives of people struggling to eat, living on disability; struggling to pay their rent, living on disability. That’s not the most generous. That’s gross. That’s uncaring. That’s making a choice to benefit the wealthiest while making things no better for people who are struggling on disability. That’s not what I was brought up to accept. My family values, which I was brought up to accept and to be ex - pected to follow, are that if I had a little bit more than the next guy, I tried to make it even.

I tried to make sure that that person coming along, who was living a life without anything…. Friends of mine, as I was raised, who lived in a single room, multiple kids sometimes, people who had little resources, maybe a single family — it was our job to try to make things better for them, too, not to say: “Well, sorry, you can’t eat, and I can’t give you anything.

Y ou can’t come over to my house for dinner, because I’m going around the world on the Concorde. ” No, that’s not how I was brought up, but that seems to be what we’re seeing here from this government, that kind of approach to dealing with the most vulnerable, and that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable. The minister is bringing forward a bill which will help some people, and I give her credit for that.

I thank her for looking out for that small number of people who don’t have to fill out now, once this bill is passed, more and more paperwork — and have the social workers have to deal with paperwork and the doctors and so on, in that small subset of the population.

British Columbia Debates11040 Thursday, March 3, 2016 But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that we are doing the most we can, that this government is doing the most they can for people living with disabilities. They clearly are not. They clearly decided to prioritize the wealthy, the richest of the rich, over those who, through no fault of their own, are struggling on disability, struggling to live the life that most of us in this chamber — all of us in this chamber — get to enjoy, that many British Columbians get to enjoy. British Columbians, I think, believe in fairness.

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

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

No. [1530] They’re going to invest it right into their own commun- ities, buying food, buying clothes, paying their bills, do - nating to charities, just like we all would want to be able to do. Going to a show, perhaps. Trying to live a good life. That’s, I think, what British Columbians would want us to do, to recognize that we’re all in it together, or we should be. I believe we are all in it together, but our society and our government don’t act that way.

When we don’t act that way, when we don’t recognize that we are all in it together, whether we like it or not — pain, turmoil, stress, disease, illness — the costs to the person who is strug - gling in poverty and, indeed, the costs to all of us increase, much more so than if we prepared and supported a good life for people living on disability. I know the Finance Minister earlier said he’s just mak- ing it a little bit less hard, as if somebody living in pov - erty on a disability payment needed to be stuck in a life of hardness. That doesn’t sound the most generous to me. That sounds like: “Y eah.

Life’s really hard for you. We’re going to keep it that way. We’re going to use some sand- paper to try and soften the hard edges that you’re having to deal with that are beating you down. Maybe it’ll be slightly less sharp. Maybe instead of having…. ” Anyway, hon. Speaker, you get my point. Y ou understand. I will support this bill. But I will support it because I think it’s one small step, not because it changes every - thing. Clearly, it doesn’t. I will support it, and I will en - courage the minister and this government to do better, us all to do better. We’re all here. We all have an ability to do it.

We all have an ability to make the change that we desire, but you actually have to want that change. It’s not wishing for change and doing nothing. It’s making that change. D. Barnett: Our government is committed to help - ing people with disabilities by making it easier for them to access the services they need. British Columbia has a wide-ranging system of disability assistance supports for individuals who can’t work or have difficulty working full-time.

That support system includes total disability rates and other supports such as earnings exemptions, discounted bus passes, medical supplies, fuel tax rebates and ICBC discounts. We are investing $170 million over three years to in - crease disability assistance rates for more than 100,000 people. The increase provides fairness in the system and more choice for people on disability assistance. And 45,000 people who do not currently receive transporta - tion supports will receive a $77 increase to their monthly cheque.

People on disability assistance who choose to ac- cess the subsidized annual bus pass will receive the bus pass and an increase of $25 per month. Furthermore, a $1,000 home-renovation tax credit is now available to people with disabilities to help increase accessibility at home. We have introduced significant changes that allow people on disability assistance to live more independent lives while building a more secure financial future and giving their families more peace of mind.

For example, a single person with a person-with-disabilities designa - tion can now hold $100,000 in assets while continuing to receive disability assistance, up from $5,000. For a family where two people have persons-with-disabilities designa- tions, the asset limit is $200,000, up from $10,000. [1535] Persons with disabilities can now receive recurring gifts of cash without losing their eligibility for assistance, and people receiving disability assistance will be able to receive more financial help from friends, families or other supporters.

We are simplifying the application process to make it easier for some people applying for disability assistance. Under proposed legislation, people who are already ap - proved for eligible provincial and federal programs will no longer have to complete an application for the per - sons-with-disabilities designation in order to access as - sistance. We have also made important changes to our policies to ensure we’re providing the supports people need to get back into the workforce, while helping to improve the financial picture for B.C. ’s most vulnerable people.

For example, we have increased earnings exemptions, for individuals receiving disability assistance, to $800 a

British Columbia DebatesThursday, March 3, 2016 11041 month so those who are able to work are supported and encouraged to find employment without compromising their benefits. B.C. is the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce a way that these earnings exemptions can be calculated annually, rather than monthly, to provide flexibility for people on disability assistance who can work occasion - ally during the year. For those who are able to work, the employment pro- gram of B.C. has helped nearly 18,000 people with dis - abilities reach their employment goals since 2012.

The proposed legislation will allow government to pre- scribe groups of people as persons with disabilities with- out them completing a 28-page application or additional assessments by medical practitioners. These proposed changes will not only reduce red tape for people with dis- abilities and their families; they will also cut paperwork for doctors and other health care professionals who need to fill out forms on behalf of clients. This bill does two important things. It is making life easier for individuals and their families, and it reduces red tape.

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

Of course, we have a no-red-tape or fewer-red-tapes day or some kind of day that celebrates less red tape, which everyone is keen to hear about. But it is particu - larly comforting to know that the government is look - ing at people with disabilities and trying, in their way, to make life a little bit easier. The two changes that are coming along are that some people with disabilities — not all but some — will not be required to fill out the 28 pages that the current form requires. Think about it — 28 pages.

I think most people would be absolutely delighted to see the back end of 28 pages of anything in terms of a form. I don’t think you fill out 28 pages to get your passport. I don’t think you fill out 28 pages to do many things in life. But of course, if you’re disabled — and particularly some types of dis - ability — to fill out 28 pages would, I think, be nigh on impossible. Though some people…. I find it really interesting to try to contemplate the people that are now being told that they do not have to fill out this form. They are people living in Community Living B.C.

I would assume that, to be engaged or al - lowed into that program, there is plenty of assessment that people have gone through. [1540] Now to not force them to do 28 pages to prove they’re dis- abled, after they’ve already been accepted into Community Living B.C., just makes common sense. Another pro - gram that the government runs…. Community Living B.C. is funded by the provincial government. To connect Community Living B.C. with not having to fill out a 28- page form is certainly good news. Another program is the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s At Home program.

Here we have another ministry program that, again, does not have to fill out a 28-page form dictated by another part of the ministry or another ministry. That is good news, and I think it is absolutely fabulous that this government is bringing

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160303pm-Hansard-v34n3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160303pm Hansard v34n3
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bfd3faba6f172cf2134a379d88e4998e6f41ca7d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).