2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 6, Number 12

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Dennis Todoruk

Hon. J. Reid

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

St. George's Day

M. Hunter

Prevention of violence against women

K. Manhas

P. Sahota

Oral Questions

Review of Workers Compensation Board

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Bruce

Vancouver Community College programs

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Principles for treaty negotiations

W. Cobb

Hon. G. Plant

Chevron refinery and pollution issue

R. Lee

Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill

27) (continued)

J. Kwan

J. Bray

S. Brice

I. Chong

V. Anderson

B. Locke

S. Orr

J. MacPhail

[ Page 2951 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan:

Joining us in the gallery today are a group of very special individuals,

people who are here to educate all MLAs in this House with regards to

occupational health and safety and also to teach us about the experiences of

injured workers and their families. Would the House please welcome Mona Sykes,

Jackie White, Janet Cambrey, Jean Smith, Stuart Schon, Jack Harper, Sarah

O'Leary, Bill Hawkins, Hugh Chamberlain and Reynold Sokolik. I hope I pronounced

that correctly. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: Mr.

Speaker, from the great riding of Chilliwack-Sumas I'd like to welcome to the

House today Mr. Eldon Unger, a great friend and supporter. Would the House

please make him welcome.

MacPhail: Joining with my colleague to welcome even more people here

advocating on behalf of safe workplaces are Sharon Popik, Lisa Paine, Ana

Rahmat, Jackie Adams, Wayne Roberts, Carol Riviere, Tim Baillie, Dave Thompson,

Jim Parker, Mike Odarich, Patti MacAhonic, Lee Loftus, Larry Stoffman, Betty

Stevens, Brian Gleason and Bob McDiarmid. Please make those people welcome.

Thank you very much.

[1405]

P. Wong:

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to introduce in the gallery 70 students from Sir

Charles Tupper School, led by their respectable teachers Mr. R. Ferguson, Mr.

David Walton, Mr. Richard Harris and Ms. Leslie Bryce.

Together

with the 83 students that came from the same school yesterday, we have had

altogether a total of 153 students from grade 11 and grade 12 history and social

studies classes visiting this chamber. Among them, there are many bright

students who are interested in pursuing careers in nursing, teaching, medicine

and health care, computer science and many other trades and professions. These

young people are willing to contribute and help rebuild British Columbia for the

well-being of everyone in a new era. Among them is a student who is also a

member of the seventy-third British Columbia Youth Parliament, Edward Wang.

Will the

House please make them most welcome.

H. Long:

Today in the House I have three people with me who are ardent supporters, in

fact, all my life — most of their life, I mean. I have my daughter-in-law,

Cheryl; my son Phil and my partner, Mary-Lynn, today in the proceedings. I'd

like you all to make them very welcome.

Tributes

DENNIS TODORUK

Hon. J.

Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a sad note with regard to a tragic

accident on the Trans-Canada Highway near Revelstoke last Sunday.

Dennis

Todoruk of Revelstoke was a senior roads foreman with VSA Highway Maintenance

Ltd. Last Sunday the Trans-Canada Highway was closed because of a mudslide in

the evening. A crew from VSA Highway Maintenance was on the scene clearing

debris from the slide when a second slide occurred. During the second slide

Dennis and the loader he was operating were washed into Summit Lake by the

slide.

Dennis

began with the ministry in 1975. He joined the private sector in 1988 and

continued to work on the roads. He performed a vital public service for the

safety of motorists. He felt that the condition of the highway was his

responsibility and did his utmost to keep it in a safe driving condition. He was

a dedicated, hard-working professional who had a reputation for doing what was

needed to get the job done.

I ask that

our thoughts and prayers would be with his family.

Introductions by Members

Belsey: Earlier this session I had the opportunity to share an experience in

my travels to a community on the Nass River, Kincolith. Well, today a number of

the community councillors and the chief councillor have joined us in the

gallery. I'd like to introduce them: Nelson Clayton, chief councillor; George

Moore, village administrator; Peter Stevens Jr., deputy chief; Raymond Stewart

Sr., councillor; Henry Stephens, councillor; Floyde Stevens, councillor; John

Stevens, councillor; and Neil Okabe, band adviser.

I would

like the House to join me in making them welc ome .

T'ooyaksim Nisim .

J. Bray:

Visiting us today in the gallery is Lorna Popham, who is a registered

psychologist in my riding and also the most patient wife of our legislative

comptroller. Her granddaughter Heidi Steinbach is along with her today, visiting

Victoria from her home in Olalla, Washington.

I ask the

House to make them very welcome.

Hon. L.

Reid: In the precincts today are Mr. and Mrs. Lorne Nesbitt. Lorne and I

were working in the Richmond school district for many, many years. He is

currently retired, and he was one of those administrators — principals now —

who indeed knew the name of every single child in his school and would welcome

them by name as they entered the school in the mornings.

[1410]

I'd like

the House to please make them very, very welcome.

[ Page 2952 ]

Chong: Today I have a friend visiting whom I met some 20 years ago when we

were both studying to become certified general accountants. Her mother had also

taught me and actually became president of the CGA Association of B.C. She's

actually a constituent of the Minister of Provincial Revenue in the Penticton

area. We've long been friends, and she's here visiting and watching question

period. I would ask the House to please welcome Maria Pattison.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ST. GEORGE'S DAY

Hunter: A number of members have asked why the member for Alberni-Qualicum

and I are wearing white roses today. The reason is that we won't be sitting next

week on Tuesday, which is St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of

England, and it's an important day in our multicultural calendar.

As an

immigrant to Canada from England, I think it's appropriate on this occasion to

benefit us all today. Leading the culture category I submit the most ubiquitous

playwright of all time, William Shakespeare, whose birthday is also on April 23.

I offer for your musical enjoyment the Rolling Stones, Elton John and the

Beatles. If you want a good read, try C.S. Forester's tales of Captain

Hornblower or Charles Dickens's portraits of Victorian squalor. Or you can look

at the serene and fabulous paintings of people like Turner and Constable.

You can

game of cricket or association or rugby football, where you might want to remind

yourself that the concept of fair play was born on the sports fields of England.

If your mind needs more thoughtful stuff, ponder the philosophy of John Stuart

Mill or the colourful history of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. When

you get hungry, don't worry; be happy, because you can indulge in England's

famed contributions to the culinary arts. What's more appetizing than real

down by warm beer?

What of St.

George himself? According to legend, a pagan town in Libya was being terrorized

by a dragon. The locals kept throwing sheep to it to placate it, and when it

still remained unsatisfied, they started sacrificing some of the citizenry.

Finally, the local princess was also to be thrown to the beast, but good St.

George came along, slaughtered the dragon and rescued the fair princess. At

this, the townsfolk converted to Christianity.

St. George

is the patron of soldiers, cavalry and chivalry, of farmers and fieldworkers,

Boy Scouts and butchers, of horses, riders and saddlers, and of sufferers from

leprosy, plague and syphilis. He is particularly the patron saint of archers,

which in this place of sharp barbs gives special point when members relate these

famous lines from Henry V next Tuesday.

I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

Manhas: I rise today to mark Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. As

my community and many around the province live with a constant reminder of the

dangers many women face in society, I think it is of the utmost importance that

we acknowledge and pay tribute to all the people and groups who dedicate their

lives to wiping out violence against women.

It is

unfortunate that communities should need such a week to reflect on violence

against women, but the reality is that we need to. Too many women are faced with

daily abuse in their relationships, their home, their community and at work. We

must work to find solutions to this issue. We must effect change by changing our

attitudes and behaviours. This cannot and will not happen unless everyone makes

a choice to change.

I'm glad to

have the opportunity to stand up in this House and give my support to the

Minister of State for Women's Equality for all the work she has done and

continues to do to stamp out violence against women by directing resources

towards essential services so that women who face violence have a safe place to

go. Safe homes, transition houses and second-stage housing provide valuable and

necessary services for abused women who are rebuilding their lives.

We have

also recognized that abuse is not just physical but emotional and mental, as

well, and continue to provide the funds for counselling. Moreover, we recognize

that children caught in these relationships also face emotional challenges and

difficulties, and counselling for them has also been protected.

[1415]

Every

single person needs to continue to work towards ending violence against women.

Every person needs to know that this violence is wrong. We need to encourage and

support women to speak out. We must work together to end violence against women,

and I ask all members of this House and all British Columbians to join me in

making this a reality.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

Sahota: I also join with my colleague to mark the eighth annual Prevention

of Violence Against Women Week. This year also marks the twentieth anniversary

of the federal government's first Report on Violence in the Family: Wife

Battering , which looked at the abuse many women faced in their homes. This

is an important week for all of us to acknowledge and fight against abuse that

women face, but it's also about the recogni-

[ Page 2953 ]

tion of the tremendous steps women have made in our community to overcome

obstacles.

Let us also

take this time to thank the hard-working people, men and women, who are helping

women leave violent situations and raise awareness. I would like to take this

opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the B.C. and Yukon Society of

Transition Houses, which is working diligently to stop domestic violence against

women in our province. This society offers important services in providing women

and children safe refuge from violence. In B.C. and the Yukon there are 63

transition houses, 15 safe home networks and six second-stage shelters that

provide long-term housing.

Each year

over 90,000 Canadian women and children are admitted to shelters. In the year

2000 over 13,000 women and children in B.C. entered a shelter for battered

women. We all know that the impacts of domestic violence are far-reaching, with

statistics reporting that one-quarter of abused women admitted to shelters

required medical attention. Statistics Canada's Homicide in Canada —

2000 reported that women were the victims in three out of four spousal

murders.

This year

the Society of Transition Houses is sponsoring the second annual Creating a

Legacy of Hope Walk, taking place on April 28. The aim of the walk is to raise

awareness of the issues of domestic violence and promote prevention of violence

against women. Mr. Speaker, freedom from violence and abuse is fundamental to

the well-being of our society, and I encourage all members to participate in

this very important event.

I would

like to thank the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses for their

continued advocacy on behalf of all women who do or may face abuse in their

homes. We must all work together to end violence against women.

Oral Questions

REVIEW OF

WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD

MacPhail: There isn't an MLA in this House who hasn't had their heart broken

by the story of an injured worker. The Minister of Transportation and Highways

eloquently recounted such a tragedy just a few moments ago, but what every MLA

needs to know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is planning changes to

workplace health, safety and compensation that will make things much worse for

workers in B.C.

Joining us

in the gallery today is Jackie Adams. Jackie is a single mom from Vancouver who

is suffering from a very severe work-related back injury. The Minister of State

for Deregulation has pledged to cut life-saving workplace safety rules. He says

employers will be left to work out the rules for themselves, but study after

study shows that clear, consistent, firmly enforced regulations are the only way

to reduce workplace accidents.

To the

Minister of State for Deregulation: can he pledge to Jackie Adams that he has no

plans to cut or eliminate workplace safety regulations that protect B.C. workers

from death, injury and disease?

Hon. G.

Bruce: I, too, am pleased that we have in the gallery today a number of

people who spent some time with members of caucus explaining to them the

concerns, the difficulties and the challenges they face relative to living a

life after some workplace injuries. As the member fully knows and appreciates,

this government is undertaking a review and working hard to bring about changes

to the Workers Compensation Board that will make it responsive to the needs of

the people it's there to serve — something, of course, that we have known for

quite some time needs a great deal more attention that what's received today.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: I'm disappointed that the Minister of State for Deregulation

didn't answer, because I wanted him to explain about his outcome-based

performance measures. The only outcome that matters is that no workplace deaths

or injuries should ever occur.

Also

joining us in the gallery today is Janet Cambrey. Janet's a community health

worker here in Victoria who was injured on the job two years ago. She loved her

job, but she'll never, ever be able to go back to it. Janet and her colleagues

met today with members of the Liberal caucus and with us. They fear that the

minister will cut WCB enforcement and privatize — and is already privatizing

— critical WCB services and is eliminating the programs that make it possible

to recover from injury.

To the

Minister of Labour: can he assure the House, everyone in the House, that he has

no plans to cut Workers Compensation Board programs or to privatize further any

services?

Hon. G.

Bruce: These are very delicate issues. You're dealing with people who are in

difficult circumstances, and things that are easily said and brought up can

cause a lot of fear and uneasiness for people.

The fact of

the matter is: the whole aspect of the WCB needs to be looked at, as the member

opposite fully knows. Not to be political but to be factual, the former

government undertook a royal commission — I think it cost some $7 million —

back in about 1997-98 and then chose to do nothing.

This

government understands the importance of having a WCB that is there for the

people it is meant to serve, a WCB that is viable and effective and informative

and one that will be there for the protection of employees and employers alike.

We understand the need to fix the WCB, and that's what we intend to do.

Mr.

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

[ Page 2954 ]

MacPhail: All the Minister of Labour had to do was give the assurance that

he was not going to cut the programs helping injured workers, and he refused to

do so. In fact, he knows that important services have already been privatized

and that the government is preparing to do for workplace safety what it's doing

to hospitals: shut them down.

Mike

Odarich is an IWA worker from Cranbrook. Mike suffered a terrible injury to his

face while working in the forest. Mike returned to work in the forests. He was

injured again, and Mike is now a paraplegic. Mike depends on WCB benefits to

live, and he's very worried that the government plans to reduce those benefits.

He has reason to be worried.

To the

Minister of Labour: please, why doesn't he stand up and assure Mike and the

thousands of other workers on WCB benefits that he currently has no plans to

reduce the benefits to any injured worker? Just reassure them.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'm almost offended by the question, but I understand the aspect of

question period. The fact of the matter is, as you well know, the WCB needs to

be fixed, and that's what we are working on right at this moment. We are trying

to fix the WCB after ten years of neglect.

I would

love to drop into the political debate with you and go over the years of neglect

that your former government, the NDP government, applied to WCB, but I will

refrain from doing that out of courtesy and respect to the very people that we

intend to help.

VANCOUVER COMMUNITY

COLLEGE PROGRAMS

J. Kwan:

This government has become known as the most mean-spirited one in Canadian

history. The Minister of Human Resources is taking away support from thousands

of disabled British Columbians, but that's not enough for this Liberal

government. The Minister of Advanced Education is forcing the elimination of the

individualized education program for adults at Vancouver Community College. This

program helps students with learning disabilities get the skills, confidence and

tutoring they need to graduate and make it on their own, and has been doing so

for 24 years with an incredible track record. But now, thanks to this

government, it's gone.

[1425]

To the

Minister of Human Resources: will the minister stand up today, now, and explain

how the elimination of the funding to this valuable program would help the

learning disabled to have a better chance to help themselves?

Hon. C.

Clark: You know, I work with the Minister of Advanced Education every day on

adult basic education and making sure that we're providing the training and the

support that people need. As the member was asking the question, I was sitting

down trying to write a list of all the good things that the Minister of Advanced

Education has accomplished in the last eight months since she was appointed to

this office. I didn't get it quite finished because I didn't have enough time.

She's

talking about increasing the number of tech grads. She's talking about

increasing the number of nurses and doctors and health care workers that we

support. She's talking about allowing SFU to go in and clean up the mess that

they created with Tech B.C. She's talking about making sure that we maintain

access to student assistance that is amongst the best in the country, and she's

increasing the number of seats available to students who want to access

post-secondary education in British Columbia. I think that speaks very strongly

to the fact that this government is making education its number one priority,

and we will continue to do just that.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

Too bad the Deputy Premier did not answer the question at all on the issue

around the individualized education program.

It is not

only the program for the learning disabled that is being axed at VCC. The King

Edward campus has one of the best programs in Canada providing access to

post-secondary education for the deaf, access that they have been guaranteed by

the courts. But because of the budget cuts being forced on VCC by the Minister

of Advanced Education, half the interpreters are to be laid off. This means, Mr.

Speaker, that many deaf students will no longer be able to attend classes, and

the hearing students will take their place. Just how heartless and mean-spirited

can this government be?

Will the

minister, then, stand today and commit to funding this program, and will this

minister, with the aid of the closed-captioning this House provides, tell the

students how she doesn't care about their future and their rights? Or will she

do the right thing and reinstate the funding to make sure that they have a

future afforded to them?

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, here's what I can tell her. I can tell her that after a decade

of plundering the public's purse, this government is committed not just to

making sure that we take care of the needs and services that British Columbians

have but to making sure that we protect the education budget in this province.

We have protected the Ministry of Advanced Education budget. We have protected

the Ministry of Education budget despite the fact that British Columbia is

facing some of the toughest economic times that…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …we have faced in a long time…

Interjections.

[ Page 2955 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Deputy Premier has the floor.

Hon. C.

Clark: …as a result of a government that did not care. We are going to put

British Columbia back on track, and making sure that we have a world-class

education system and lots of access for students across this province is going

to be fundamental to making sure that happens.

PRINCIPLES FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

W. Cobb:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.

The many provincial parks and other protected areas are open for the enjoyment

of all British Columbians. In my riding Ts'yl-os Provincial Park, Tweedsmuir

Provincial Park and Cariboo Mountains Provincial Park are admired by many

British Columbians and tourists who come to experience the beauty of this area

each year.

Can the

Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how the referendum will

help to ensure that all British Columbians continue to enjoy these natural

wonders?

[1430]

Hon. G.

Plant: The fourth principle and fourth question in the referendum ballot

asks voters if they agree that the provincial government should adopt the

principle that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and

benefit of all British Columbians. The goal behind asking this question is to

ensure that the province's treaty negotiators are at the table — where parks

and protected area issues are often discussed, where in fact all three parties

often come to the table looking for ways to protect areas — with a principle

that says that we will maintain a system of parks and protected areas for the

benefit of all British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplementary question.

Interjection.

W. Cobb:

No, I've already marked my ballot.

It is

important to all British Columbians, natives and non-natives alike, that we

maintain a strong and thriving natural environment.

Can the

Minister for Treaty Negotiations tell us how a yes or a no to question 5 on the

referendum will affect resource management and environmental issues in B.C.?

Hon. G.

Plant: Yes. Principle 5 engages the issue of provincewide standards of

resource management and environmental protection, and here's why. As first

nations assume control over treaty settlement lands, they'll have the ability to

make land use decisions in relation to those lands. We believe that the province

should be at the table arguing for a set of minimum standards — the standards

that we now have in British Columbia — for resource management and

environmental protection that will apply as the floor across the province.

First

nations may be at the table arguing that they should have tougher standards or

the ability to impose tougher standards in their communities. Voting yes to

question 5 means that the province is at the table saying: "We should have

a set of standards across the province that will benefit all British Columbians,

while at the same time allowing first nations, if they wish, the authority to

impose more rigorous standards on their treaty settlement lands."

CHEVRON REFINERY

AND POLLUTION ISSUE

R. Lee:

My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Maintaining

the quality of the air we breathe is of the utmost importance to my

constituents. However, a Chevron refinery in my riding has expanded its

operations. It will increase the volume of emissions released into the

atmosphere.

Can the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what measures she has in

place to minimize the impact of these pollutants?

Hon. J.

Murray: Clean air is one of the most important environmental issues that we

face. The federal government actually has recently passed regulations to

decrease sulphur in gasoline. As a result, Chevron in Burnaby will have to

change some of their processes. They're saying that they may be requesting a

permit for increased emissions.

Now, the

previous government delegated the authority around those permits to the GVRD, so

the GVRD will be making a decision on that permit. Actually, I think it's very

clear that we would encourage Chevron to take every step that they can to not

increase emissions.

Also, the

reduction in sulphur in gasoline will improve emissions from cars in our airshed

right across the province. We're very strongly in support of that regulation.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R.

Coleman: I call the continuation of second reading of Bill 27.

Second Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(continued)

[1435]

On the

amendment (continued).

Kwan: I'm carrying on debate on the amendment put forward by my colleague

from Vancouver-

[ Page 2956 ]

Hastings regarding the request for the government to bring Bill 27 out to the

community for a period of six months for consultation, discussion, review and

comments before it is brought back to this House for debate.

I would

urge the members in this House to support this amendment. I mentioned earlier

before the lunch break today how important it is for that consultation to be

honoured. It's one that the minister himself committed to, to the people in the

community, to the Coalition of People with Disabilities. They were expecting

that the draft of the definition of disability would be brought to them for

further discussion over the next two weeks before being debated in this House.

To their surprise, shock and dismay, it has been brought to this House this

week, and the government is trying to rush through all the stages of the bill.

Earlier we

were engaging in discussion around the tribunal process. I want to visit that

issue for just one moment, because there are members of the public watching this

debate who are very concerned about the actions of this government. They have

been phoning in to our offices, sending faxes and e-mails with their comments

and thoughts on the changes that the government is proposing.

I have just

received a fax from a person in the broader community — out in Penticton, as a

matter of fact. She has given me permission to use her name in this House. It is

Jeanette Wood in Penticton. I'm going to read her fax into the record:

"It

is with dismay and concern for the individuals within my community that I

write to you today. I sit on tribunals here in my community as a nominee for

either the ministry or the appellant as part of the three-person unbiased

process. Years ago I completed the training in order to participate as

either a chair or a nominee. I had to become fully knowledgable around the

Legislature. I am therefore fully aware of how the present community appeals

process really works and how effective it is.

"Often

it is as a result of the community level appeals process that new

information comes to light. The tribunal is able, with the ministry

representative's direction, to encourage the appellant to pursue and follow

up with information not provided earlier. This allows the claim to be

rectified at the local level — no need for the next appeal level. Far from

being bureaucratic, it is a just and humane process.

am so distressed and concerned for the individuals who are already hurting

by being disadvantaged — no legal aid, no advocacy, no local appeals

process. Where will they find the support they need? Shame on this

government.

"Sincerely,

Jeanette"

She sent this fax in because she was watching the debate in this House.

The member

for Vancouver-Burrard claims that the changes the government is bringing about

with regards to the appeal process are good for the community and that there

will be community representation for the people who are appealing the decisions.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The appeal process is taken

away from the community representation level, because the client — the

appellant, if you will — will no longer be able to appoint their own

representative. For that matter, neither will the ministry.

[1440]

The

difference here is that the minister himself will be bringing forward the

appointments of who will be involved in the appeal process.

The appeal

process that is being brought about by this bill is not one that is supported by

the community at all — quite the contrary. It is shocking in terms of what

this government has done and what they're proposing under Bill 27. The

government members, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, like to claim that there

was intensive consultation, significant consultation. I highlighted earlier how

that wasn't the case.

Here's

another statement made by Tom McGregor on CBC Almanac on April 16, when

they found out about this bill. Here's what they had to say on the question from

the host: "Did the government work with your groups and/or others in

formulating this package?"

The

response from Tom McGregor:

"Not

really. They gave lip service to consultation, but even that was a bit of

underhandedness on their part. We had met with the government a week ago,

where they shared the definition of the proposed draft, the proposed

definition of disabilities. We voiced some of our concerns. They said:

'Okay. We have heard from you now. Let's meet again in two weeks and try to

iron it out, set up a technical table.' In the meantime we found out that

the new bill is being introduced in the House yesterday, April 16. Really,

the consultative process was nothing more than lip service."

That's how

this government, in their open, consultative, transparent new-era agenda,

proceeds with consultation — nothing but lip service. It isn't just me, as a

member of the opposition, who says this. These are the direct words taken from

an interview on CBC on April 16 from Tom McGregor, who is a strong advocate for

people with disabilities.

I mentioned

earlier in the debate on Bill 26, which is another piece of legislation being

brought forward by this Liberal government to attack the poorest of the poor,

those who are on income assistance, the children, the single mothers, the single

parents, the seniors on income assistance…. In that debate I referenced that

there are maps that have been produced by the ministry for the month of January

2002 which showed the highest-density areas in the lower mainland that have

income assistance caseloads and, likewise, the highest density for areas of

disability 1 and disability 2 caseloads. My area, the area of Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant, was mapped as the area with the highest density for people in greatest

need. The second area is Vancouver-Burrard.

[1445]

Since the

bill has been introduced, I have been receiving numerous phone calls in my

office from people who are worried sick about what this government is going to

do to them with the passage of the bills — 20 to 30 calls a day. We get

e-mails, faxes and so on. Some of the information has just come into my office.

[ Page 2957 ]

This

information came in on the 18th, this morning, from one particular individual. I

won't use their names, because I want to safeguard their privacy. I will read

some of their e-mails onto the record to share with the members about how this

bill is impacting them.

have received disability for the last two years and am feeling terrified,

with the slow recovery of my life now threatening to unravel with this cruel

new legislation. I'm feeling hopeless about the future and having the old

suicidal escape feelings again. I can painfully imagine what people with HIV

and other people much sicker than I must feel, with their tentative hold on

life and having to face an additional Mount-Everest–sized challenge that

they may not have the strength to meet.

"You

referred today to the questions you have previously asked the minister

responsible about the specifics on the many changes he's making, and you

quoted the answers you received. They had a lot of 'I don't know' and 'I

don't know yet' and variations on a theme of actually not knowing what he's

doing before he wreaks havoc on an awful lot of real people's lives, on

their relatives and friends and even on society and the economy.

"Anyway,

I thought a suitable name for the hon. minister could well be 'the

I-don't-know minister.' I'm very shocked at the seeming ignorance and

impracticality of the minister's plan. He should look before he leaps. He

hasn't, and the already-downtrodden will be where his failure lands."

That's from one individual in the community who has forwarded this e-mail to

me this morning.

The

individual must be referencing the comments I made yesterday with respect to the

minister's answers during estimates on a variety of areas: the changing of the

eligibility requirements for those who are seeking income assistance, what that

process will be, the appeal process, the training programs and so on. I read

onto the record yesterday the minister's answers, which were variations of

"I don't know." I think this individual is referencing the debate from

last night.

Another

letter has come in.

am one of them. I'm a 50-year-old female on DB-2, disability 2, disabled

with the chronic pain of fibromyalgia and migraines. Sometimes I can go

three days without pain and then have four or more days in constant pain

made worse by two old whiplash injuries. I wish I could plan my pain days so

that I could get a part-time job, but I can't.

"The

pain that is the worst is a burning, searing pain in my neck and shoulders.

I can't do heavy housework, lift or carry heavy things. I can sleep only by

lying on my back. I had to give up bodybuilding and a lot of things I

enjoyed. Now I must pace myself and rest if I get the least bit tired. I

wish I had a limp or a missing limb, because chronic pain stops you dead in

your tracks, and sometimes medication doesn't even help. I'm all stressed

out and in pain.

"God

knows, I can't work. Someday I'd like to be self-supporting with an online

at-home business. Right now, I'm in the third day of pain. Even my eyes

hurt, so this e-mail is an effort. I hope the government doesn't expect me

to work. Chronic pain is debilitating and, sadly, makes one very

unreliable."

[1450]

Another

e-mail from another individual:

"I'm

an advocate and try to help people when I can. I applied for DB-2 and was

given an unlimited DB-1 and so forth. I did not have the energy to get help

to reapply for DB-2, even though it could have meant help for me.

"The

only way I can survive day to day is by being in denial of my reality. I

have several major problems: scoliosis and a broken back — I was in a

major car accident which dislocated my back; arthritis; and migraines. I am

sensitive and allergic to almost everything, including most prescriptions,

as my immune system is severely compromised. I have bad eyes and major foot

problems, and, not the least for sure, I have ME, which is similar to MS but

also affects the brain.

have intermittent dyslexia and most days cannot depend on being able to read

or to write numbers and even words — if I can remember what it was in the

first place, due to several head injuries. My children have gotten used to

being called 'Hey, you.'

"Please

understand that I'm a talented and educated person, but with the ME goes the

IQ, as well as dyslexia and the physical problems."

This person wishes to remain anonymous, but as I said, I'm going to keep all

the names of these individuals off the record.

These

e-mails come in because people want to let members of this House know,

particularly government backbench MLAs and cabinet ministers, what their lives

are like, what pains they're faced with every single day and how they're trying

to cope to the best of their abilities. Now they're under threat with the

redefining of disability in Bill 27, redefining what people are able to be

eligible for, for support and assistance. It puts people into a state of panic,

in some instances — a high state of anxiety, with so much worry.

I don't

know what the answers are for these individuals. The only answer I can think of

is for the government to not proceed with this bill and, at the minimum, for the

government to hold off passage of this bill in this House at this very moment

and support the amendment from my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. Delay the

passage of this bill for six months. Let the information flow out to the

community. Let the analysis be done. Let people's concerns be addressed and be

voiced.

Then come

back to this House and engage in another debate. Maybe by then, the government,

the Minister of Human Resources, might have been affected by the voices of these

people, who seem, in this House, to be faceless but are real human beings that

exist in our community. Maybe their stories and their voices will be heard by

this government, and this government may then change its mind by pulling the

bill altogether and reworking it, bringing it to the next progressive step for

the people faced with disabilities, bringing it forward from the existing bill

now. By existing bill, I mean the former bill on disability but not this bill

that's being tabled in the House and debated today.

[1455]

The person

who wrote this last e-mail is someone who must have enormous strength, because

along with the e-mail she also sent me some poems that she's written. I thought

I'd share a couple of these with members of this House just to show the talent

which people with

[ Page 2958 ]

disabilities do have. Sometimes they're able to share that. Sometimes they're

able to more fully participate in the community, either by working or by

volunteering or by just simply being a legitimate voice within the community.

Other times

they're not able to do that, and that's okay too. We must recognize them and

embrace them, because they're fellow human beings. That's what society calls on

us to do. We as government have that responsibility.

Let me just

share with you a couple of these poems that this individual has e-mailed to me

to give us a better glimpse of the hardships that people with disabilities are

faced with sometimes.

A foot that gives out when you don't expect it,

The gut-wrenching pain of a huge muscle spasm

In the middle of your back

That spreads down and into your legs

And sets your whole body to screaming in despair.

A body-doubling pain

Grabs your lungs and diaphragm

And won't let go

Until you scream,

If you can breathe.

Not again! I can't do this anymore.

I don't want to do this anymore.

Let me out.

This is not where I live.

I want to dance in the sun.

I want to have a picnic at the beach

And build castles in the sand.

People with imaginary beings

Who all live happily ever after

With no pain.

There's

another one that she wrote:

Pretending to be normal.

I spend my days pretending to be normal,

Pretending that I'm not in pain,

That every thought that I have does not get derailed and

carries on as expected,

That I can actually make a commitment and stick to it.

Pretending to be normal,

Like everyone else,

Carrying on as usual.

I pretend, in fact, so well

That most times

I can fool everyone around me

And even,

Most especially,

Myself.

I'll read

this last one. There are pages of it. It's moving; it's touching. I'll read this

last one for the members of this House.

Winter whistles in around the cracks in the windowpanes,

And I fear the cold,

And the dark depresses me

And leaves me without hope

So that by the time that spring arrives

I want to leap for joy

Just in celebration

Of having survived

Yet another winter.

I'm too weary and apathetic

From having carried the weight of winter

On my broken back.

These are the words of an individual who suffers from chronic pain from a

variety of health problems and illnesses. In spite of that, she struggles on.

She even takes the time to watch the debate in this House and send in an e-mail

with her thoughts and a plea to the government to: "Please, please don't do

this to me and to so many others who have disabilities." She takes the time

to do that, in spite of the great sufferings that she must be in every single

day.

I can only

imagine what that must feel like. I can only imagine. I can't pretend to know,

because I haven't suffered as this woman has. I haven't suffered as many people

with disabilities have, who have the courage to come back.

They can't

do this alone. Government has a responsibility, and so, too, does society.

Society expects government to take the leadership role to make sure that people

with disabilities have the full support that they need to maximize their

potential. I believe this very firmly. Every single individual — no matter who

we are, where we come from, what our backgrounds are — has huge potential. It

only takes a moment in time for governments to make a difference so that those

individuals could maximize their potential.

[1500]

That moment

in time has arrived right here in this B.C. Legislature. The government MLAs who

are sitting here have that opportunity to make a difference in people's lives

— a positive difference, one that says: "I'm compassionate, and I'm

responsible socially and financially."

The

government can act on that by supporting the amendment put forward by my

colleague from Vancouver-Hastings to not proceed with this bill, engage in a

true consultative process, invite the people to whom the government has only

paid lip service to date back to the table, sit down with them and genuinely

work through how to change the disability act and how to make it better for the

people in our communities.

This

government, I know, is fond of saying that those individuals who speak against

the government are special interest groups. They're not people who are looking

at the issue with a broad picture. They are special interest groups. They say

that about everybody, save and except for the people who are the big

corporations and who are the wealthiest British Columbians. Save and except for

them, everybody else is a special interest group.

What is

interesting on this issue is that not only people with disabilities and the

advocates of people with disabilities are calling on this government to slow

down, hold back and not come forward with these changes and with the

redefinition of disability, thereby making eligibility very difficult if not

impossible for people who are faced with disabilities now to get assis-

[ Page 2959 ]

tance from government. Others who don't have disabilities are joining the

voices of those who are calling on government to not do this.

Who are

they? I read the Times Colonist editorial of April 17 into the record.

The headline is "Government Showing a Lack of Basic Charity."

"When

is a disability not a disability? When [the Minister of Human Resources]

redefines the term.

"The

Human Resources minister, who wants to cut 38,000 B.C. residents off the

welfare rolls within three years, plans to include some of those with

disabilities. Disability activists estimate as many as 25,000 could lose

their benefits.

"So

far, disability status has been granted anyone with unusual and continuous

expenditures for transportation, special diets 'or other unusual but

essential and continuous needs.'

"The

new law would define a disabled person as someone who needs help performing

daily living tasks, though [the minister] says the definition will be

redefined further.

"Perhaps

[the minister] is right, and the definition was too broad.

"If

so, those 'disabled' citizens who have been receiving welfare will have to

take advantage of opportunities the minister is offering to take training

and find and keep jobs.

"And

those receiving benefits should be subject to periodic reviews to ensure

they qualify.

"[The

minister] himself acknowledges it will be difficult to find work for people

with disabilities, but it's for their own good. If they try and it doesn't

work, he promises they won't have to wait for long for their welfare

benefits to resume.

"The

objective of saving $600 million from government expenditures is sound, but

[his] ministry deals with the most vulnerable of this province's citizens.

"The

alternative to welfare is charity. Sometimes governments should offer

both."

This is the Times Colonist editorial point of view. Maybe that, too,

is a special interest group.

[1505]

I have

another one: Jody Paterson. On April 17 she writes "New Law Punishes

Disabled."

"Not

surprisingly, the first thing to go was the warm and fuzzy

preamble. No more

talk of inclusion, dignity and the importance of the social safety net in

the mean new act that will soon govern the 55,000 British Columbians who

receive disability benefits.

"The

old Disability Benefits Program Act doesn't mention mandatory work

requirements. The new Employment and Assistance for Persons with

Disabilities Act mentions them repeatedly and outlines the many and varied

punishments for breaking them.

"The

old act considered you an eligible disabled adult at age 18. The new act

makes you wait until 19 and adds a disabled youth category that starts at

16. Barring hard evidence of permanent disability based on criteria that

have yet to be developed, those youths will be expected to work too.

"Try

to fight the employment plan that the government develops for you and you

will find out that anything to do with the plan is 'final and conclusive and

not open to review by a court on any ground, or to appeal.' Refuse a job,

quit without cause or get fired, and your benefits will be reduced. Breach

anything in the act more than twice, and you'll be cut off for life.

"The

old act defined disability as any severe mental or physical condition

lasting longer than a year or two that left people either in need of

extensive help in performing daily tasks quickly or facing 'unusual and

continuous' expenditures for transportation or special diets.

"The

new act dumps the diet and transportation clause, requires that the

condition last at least two years and considers people disabled only if

their ability to go about their daily lives is 'directly and significantly'

restricted to the point that they can't manage on their own.

"In

other words, brace yourself for a sea of change. [The] Human Resources

minister calls it 'moving people into jobs and off income assistance.'

Hardly. The new disability benefits act is nothing more than a way to cut

spending at the expense of people too poor and powerless to fight back. The

government doesn't jump when this group hollers.

"Advocates

for the disabled figure that half of those currently on benefits won't be

eligible under the new act. Everyone receiving benefits will have to prove

themselves eligible all over again when the new act takes effect later this

year, and no doubt the 11,000 on level 1 disability — considered temporary

assistance — will be the first to go. The government has already quit

counting that group in its total of those receiving disability benefits.

"Trying

to get people working is a good thing, of course. If the government truly

wants to get people off of income assistance by finding them jobs, that's a

noble and meaningful undertaking.

"But

there's no sense of that in the new disability act. Shake out the spin from

[the minister's] carefully chosen statements, and all that's left is a

mandate to chop $5 million in welfare spending in the next three years.

There's no evidence of employer incentives or of tax breaks for parents

whose disabled adult children will increasingly be forced to live at home.

There's no reason to believe that jobs are out there for the taking.

"'Is

there a vision here?' asks one worried mother of a brain-injured young woman

whose behaviour routinely gets her fired from her part-time jobs. 'If you

want these people back in the workforce, what protections are there to be

built in to keep them there?'

"The

24-year-old's family is frightened for her future. She 'looks normal,' a

curse when the government comes looking for reasons to cut people off. She's

already losing her subsidized bus pass, the result of a previous round of

cuts. Up until now she could keep $200 a month and another 25 percent of

whatever income she earned on top of her benefits, but the government has

changed that to a flat $300.

"Her

family says it's been like stumbling into little disasters at every turn.

But if the new disability act goes ahead as planned, they ain't seen nothing

yet."

"Government Showing a Lack of Basic Charity" — this is a recent

article in the Times Colonist . There's so many letters to the editor and

comments from individuals about what this government is doing, but I want to

touch on this.

We just

received a letter from the office of the information and privacy commissioner.

The letter just came in on April 18, today. It expresses concerns about the

government's actions, on the lack of consultation even with the office of the

information and privacy commissioner with respect to the drafting of this bill.

[ Page 2960 ]

The commissioner lists all the areas on which they have concerns, and then

it's outlined

section by section.

[1510]

Under the

general comments part of it, the commissioner highlights the issue of what the

government must do in terms of consultation and making sure that individual's

privacy is respected and notes that this government must engage in this process

as their predecessors have done before.

The

commissioner is concerned, and he's listed his concerns in his five-page letter.

He concludes with this paragraph in his letter, and I'll quote this onto the

record:

"Last,

as you may be aware, my predecessor established a formal agreement, through

an exchange of letters with the predecessor ministry at the time of the

changes to the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, to ensure that this

office is consulted on the ministry's ISAs before they are signed. I suggest

that this commitment should be renewed in light of the new legislation. I'm

available to answer your questions or to discuss this matter further."

I think

this is a very important point. I know, from having been a minister before, that

what we tried to do every time we had a bill before us — and sometimes the

bills may well have had privacy issues that touched on individuals' lives, and

we wanted to make sure that the privacy of those individuals was fully protected

— was then consult with the privacy commissioner to seek his advice to make

sure that the bill did not violate any privacy rights of individuals. To that

end, the former Ministry of Human Resources actually signed an agreement with

the office of the information and privacy commissioner.

This

government needs to do the same: make sure that they consult with the privacy

commissioner's office and make sure that commitment for consultation with the

office for the protection of individuals' privacy is maintained. They need to

renew that agreement with this government.

Hon.

Speaker, I have much more to say with respect to this bill and the changes to

this bill that this government is trying to rush through in the Legislature,

depriving the public of the full opportunity to review and comment on the matter

and to be fully consulted. As I said before, every member of this House has an

opportunity to act and to make a difference in people's lives and to be

remembered by the people to whom they've made a difference. And don't do it just

because you'll be remembered; but do it because it is the right thing to do.

We have

that opportunity today. It's not too late. Members could support the motion put

forward by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings calling on the government to

delay the passage of this bill for six months so that full consultation could

take place. I would urge every single member to check themselves internally when

they rise in this House and participate in this vote. I hope they will do the

right thing — not by definition from the government Whip, not by the

definition of the Premier's office, but the right thing by the community's

expectations, hopes and dreams — and support the amendment put forward by the

member for Vancouver-Hastings.

[1515]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[1520]

NAYS — 52

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

van Dongen

Nettleton

Roddick

Masi

Lee

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Weisbeck

Chong

Penner

Anderson

Orr

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Cobb

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

[1525]

On the main

motion.

J. Bray:

I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill 27. It's somewhat disheartening

after the rather long debate of the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague

from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Now that they've encouraged other members to

rise, I see they've left the chamber. I'm not sure whether or not they got word

the press gallery has left, but that's a bit disappointing.

In debating

Bill 26, I rose and raised a lot of fairly technical issues, given my experience

as an employee of that ministry in the front lines as well as in the policy

division. Many of the issues I raised in the Bill 26 debate are very much the

same in Bill 27, in part because much of Bill 27 and Bill 26 are identical, so I

will limit my comments to some of the specific things dealing with people with

disabilities.

I guess one

of the issues I want to talk about is the importance of having a distinct bill

for people with disabilities. As others in this House have mentioned, people

with disabilities do have unique needs. The focus of government service does

need to recognize

[ Page 2961 ]

that, and it needs to be somewhat different and more specialized and more

sensitive to the needs of not just the person with disabilities but the family

that may be supporting them and, in fact, the community in which they may live.

It's along that line that I think I want to focus: on some of the supports that

may be available to people with disabilities and my concern that while the act

is only a portion of what will come out…. The regulations will follow. I have

only had an opportunity, of course, to look at the act, so that's where I have

to focus my comments.

When I

spoke on Bill 26, I spoke about the importance of having people with multiple

barriers still on the caseload after the changes from B.C. Benefits and the fact

that those individuals needed more than just one intervention to move them from

welfare or income assistance into the employment market. I think it's a logical

assumption to make that somebody with disabilities certainly requires that and

in fact, one can argue, requires a great deal more.

I note,

first of all, that in the bill there are sections that deal with the funding of

and creation of community supports for training, retraining, employment and

employment support. Having worked with people who have had the disability

designation, I know the difficulties they face. Those are compounded beyond

those just for people with income assistance. I spoke at some length a couple of

days ago in this House about the reality of the 45-year-old who's on income

assistance, may have been on it for ten years, may not have all their teeth and

may not have very good clothes and the prejudice they face when they attempt to

apply for work. No matter what interventions government may provide, no matter

how hard they may work, the reality is that employers will not see them as

desirable for employment, and it will make it very difficult for them to be able

to attach to the workforce.

I know that

is even more true with people who have a visible disability, people who may

have….

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

Point of Order

MacPhail: I know the member is new, but as he well knows, attendance in the

chamber is not for public record. There are duties to be done throughout the

Legislature, and I would ask him to withdraw that comment.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Order, please. Hon. members, comments

about a person's attendance in the House are not to be tolerated. Thanks. I

would ask the member to please withdraw the remarks.

J. Bray:

I certainly will withdraw that remark and accept your guidance on that point,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please proceed.

[1530]

Debate Continued

J. Bray:

I was talking earlier about the fact that people with a physical disability that

is obvious…. It creates an additional difficulty sometimes when they're

entering the workforce, where there are multiple people applying for work. If

they're also dealing with issues of poverty, that just exacerbates that

difficulty like it was for the example I had earlier.

It's really

vital, Mr. Speaker, that government services focus attention on ensuring that

there is a continuum of supports to take that person with a disability right

through from the point at which they enter, where they may be dealing with

getting their education, perhaps getting their GED, perhaps attending adult

basic education — that as they move through, perhaps they're receiving some

additional life-skills training or other training to allow them to participate

in the community, to be able to engage in relationships that ensure that they

can hold secure housing, maintain relationships with family members and others

in the community. Then, as they move into more specific job training where they

are actually in the process of learning a skill, learning how to do résumés,

learning how to conduct themselves in job interviews….

In fact,

they will then need to continue to access additional supports. There may be

physical accommodations that will allow them to be employable, where there may

be the need for assistive devices in the workplace — mobility aids, visual

aids, these types of things.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

Bill 27

implies that those services are there. My work with the minister will be

focusing on ensuring that the services we contract out in the community meet

those needs and the high-acuity needs that people with disabilities have — not

just for those individuals with disabilities to get into the workplace but some

of the supports required to maintain people in the workplace.

One of the

concerns I have is that we make the culture shift out in the community services

with our contracting model. I know that in Victoria we have outstanding

community support providers and community providers, educational providers and

social service providers. They are adaptable; they are flexible. In many cases,

in their meetings with the Minister of Children and Family Development, they are

willing to engage in any shift that's required to achieve government's goals.

My concern

is that we won't make as progressive a change as perhaps is needed for people

with disabilities, many of whom are eager to enter the workforce, are eager to

be full participants not just in the life of their community but also in the

economy of their community. I want to ensure…. I'll be very interested

[ Page 2962 ]

in debates during committee stage to look more into this

section of the act

that deals with those services.

As a

general rule, one of my other areas of concern — which is different from the

opposition, which unfortunately used the debates here to read articles and

engage in some fearmongering; I know they accuse us of accusing them of that —

is that people with disabilities are perhaps the most vulnerable people in our

society. I think most people will consciously realize that.

Well, as my

colleague from Vancouver-Langara pointed out a few days ago in this House,

poverty also makes people exceptionally vulnerable. When you're dealing with a

system that is the payer of last resort for the people most vulnerable, we have

to be very sensitive to that reality. We have to make sure our act, our

regulations, our policy and our service delivery out in the field are aware of

that — that we're dealing with an individual.

[1535]

We're

dealing with individuals who are living with sometimes very horrendous physical

and/or mental impairments that are a challenge just to meet the day, just to get

up out of bed and try and face the day. When you have the added factor of

poverty on top of that, it can be a daunting task. I hope I never find out, with

the grace of God. I sometimes wonder whether I would have the courage that those

disabled clients that I had faced every day. They didn't need the added burden

of a rigid, bureaucratic, policy-driven system that really couldn't meet their

needs to allow them to achieve their goals, which are the same as government's.

I am very

interested in the debates we will have in committee stage, because there are

some sections that I am concerned about. We've had a lot of circular debate by

members of the opposition on the definition of disability. I know the disability

community wants to make sure a definition exists that reflects a person's

disability so that somebody who has a disability that impairs their ability to

participate in the community doesn't get left off because of that. That anxiety

is a legitimate anxiety.

I believe

the minister is working very hard. We will discover further, hopefully, in

committee stage exactly how this definition is going to work. I must confess

that at this point I do have some concerns about that.

I have had

some questions in my constituency office about the reviewability of people

already with disability benefits level 2. The reality, for the sake of our

debate here, is that if basic income assistance is $500 and disability benefits

level 2 is $770, for the average citizen that $270 is a reasonable amount of

money in a month. For somebody who's living in poverty, it is a huge amount of

money.

We also

know that we tend to live to our means. Most people in society, if they're

working and get a raise, do not do what all our financial advisers would

suggest, which is to take that raise and put it in the bank. We usually increase

our consumer spending to that amount. It might be that we buy more clothes; it

might be that we can afford a bigger apartment. We might even be able to

purchase a home. We might purchase a vehicle or a new vehicle. We tend to create

the lifestyle that matches our income.

The reality

is that people currently on disability benefits level 2 are living to the means

of $771 a month. That may well mean that they are spending more than the

allotment of $325 on their shelter, but in part their disability may require a

larger apartment. They may require an apartment located in a more expensive area

of town but closer to their supports, their doctor, their therapists. They've

been able to do that because they've had the security of $771. The fear of

having to return to $500 would mean that almost all of their income would be

going to their rent now. Perhaps it would require a move to a place that would

not be appropriate for their disabilities.

That's the

anxiety that people at disability benefits level 2 and their family members have

expressed. That anxiety is there, and it's real. I believe that we in this

Legislature will need to deal with that.

The other

issue. One of the advantages that I always advocated to my clients for

disability benefits level 2 was the permanency of the status.

One of the

biggest problems with the Canada Pension Plan disability pension is that if you

try to re-enter the workforce and you're successful — I may be incorrect, but

I believe it's for six months — you eliminate yourself from any future

eligibility for a CPP disability should your disability act up or, for that

matter, you arrive at a new disability. It discourages many people from

re-entering the workforce, because the security of that pension is based on them

not working.

The

advantage of the disability benefits level 2 designation was that it was a

permanent designation. That meant that even if somebody on disability benefits

entered the workforce and left income assistance, should their disability recur

or become such that they couldn't remain in the workforce, if they had to return

to the income assistance office, that designation with the higher benefits and

the medical benefits was already there. There was no reapplication for that

status.

I think

that was a great amount of security for people with disabilities, who were

always much more tenuous in their ability to stay permanently attached to the

labour force, especially people suffering from episodic mental illness. They

would have great periods of time with perfect health, but when they did have a

break, especially a psychotic break, it would be severe, and it could be a

couple of years before they were able to recover enough to re-enter the

workforce. So security in disability benefits in areas of disability is very

important.

[1540]

The other

issue is that people with disabilities rely on those around them much more than

the average citizen. We all tend to need people at various points in our lives,

and sometimes we're the ones providing care and nurturing and support for

others. People with disabilities tend to have to rely on others on a more

consistent basis, perhaps even a daily basis, so for family members who are on

income assistance and living with

[ Page 2963 ]

the issues of poverty, the added burden of having to care for their family

member and not having that security is also a strain they have to deal with.

Although I

think Bill 27 provides a better opportunity for people to enter the workforce,

there is some concern that people who are providing support for a disabled

family member may actually have to enter the workforce in order to keep the

family eligible for any benefits. That is an issue I will want to explore

further with the minister during committee stage to ensure that just like the

current regulations, a single parent who is caring for a special needs or

disabled child is not required to look for work — not prevented, but not

required as a factor of ongoing income assistance — and that a family with a

disabled adult will get the same consideration, should they actually be the

primary caregiver for someone who needs that daily assistance.

I'd also

like to speak a bit about Bill 27 from this standpoint. My colleague the member

for Vancouver-Langara spoke very eloquently, I think, on a lot of the emotional

issues around income assistance, and I perhaps focused two days ago on the more

technical. One of the criticisms I saw as a fieldworker in the Ministry of Human

Resources some years ago, when I was in the field, was that it was a

deficit-driven model.

When a

person applied for income assistance, one of the routine things we would do

would be to list all the barriers for somebody to being on income assistance.

We'd say: "What's wrong with you? Why are you here?" That's the point

at which we would start. That's about the only discussion we would have, and we

would move forward on that list of deficits.

One time I

was visiting a community service provider in Abbotsford, and they had taken a

completely different approach. They focused on the assets of the individual.

They focused on the assets of the community. They saw where the two of them

could work together and saw the niche or needs in the community that the person

could then meet. To me, that whole asset-based model was very exciting.

Bill 27

does recognize the capacity of people with disabilities to be full participants,

but I would like to see that we perhaps focus more on individuals as assets in

their community. They are assets in the community not just because they work. I

believe that children are the hugest assets we have, but traditionally, when

people applied for income assistance, we said: "You're a single parent.

You've got children. That's a barrier." I'd like to see us look at the fact

that a single parent must have tremendous assets to be able to raise children

when they're living in poverty.

I believe

that people with disabilities who may not be able to be permanently attached to

the workforce are, in fact, assets to their community. They may bring great

intelligence to the people who meet them. They may have great artistic skill

they can bring to their community. They may have great love and nurturing they

can share with their community. They may be terrific parents themselves. They

may be terrific brothers and sisters themselves and provide great support and

encouragement to their family members. They may not be able to work 40 hours a

week in a general occupation.

I would

like to see that when we talk about people's independence, although employment

is the primary way of being independent, it is not the only way. Bill 27 perhaps

needs to recognize more that the potential we want people to achieve may or may

not include paid employment and recognize that if a person with disabilities is

able to volunteer, perhaps give guidance to others with a similar disability,

that is a valuable contribution to their community.

[1545]

That is

maximizing their potential for independence, but it won't actually make them

leave income assistance. Perhaps their ability to be independent means they can

provide enough self-care to allow a spouse or other family member to enter the

workforce. The person may not make enough for the whole family to leave income

assistance, but the potential that's being maximized is still the important

factor.

My final

point, perhaps, on Bill 27 is a recognition that I spoke to earlier during Bill

26. This act does not stand alone. It can't stand alone when government provides

services. Yes, it's a separate piece of paper. The minister and I have had long

conversations, as I have with the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Government must make sure that we look across the spectrum of the government

services we provide to ensure that a person with disabilities is receiving the

income support they require but is also receiving the community support funded

from government that they require — the home care, the medical attention they

require — that their children are receiving the education they need and that

the array of services is coordinated and focused so that government gets maximum

benefit for the money it spends, but the individual receives services that work

in a coordinated fashion for the promotion of their independence and the

well-being of their family, the health of their family and the health of their

children.

There are

several sections that I will be reviewing very closely during committee stage. I

want to say that I appreciate the minister having been so open to me and other

private members who have gone and seen him a lot. He's answered a lot of the

questions very well for me and for my constituents, and I know that he will

continue to do so.

Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today. Thank you very much.

Brice: I rise to make comments on Bill 27. I'd like to make my observations

in the full knowledge and expectation that everyone in this House looks to

support those with disabilities. The support and the care of those most

vulnerable in our community is not the purview of any party, of any group. It is

embraced by every member of this House.

Government

has come forward with a bill specifically tailored for the needs of the

disabled. This bill is worthy of our consideration.

[ Page 2964 ]

As I

listened to the minister speak, the key words that I heard were assistance,

opportunity and independence. These words are the underpinnings of the support

for persons with disabilities which this bill provides.

There is a

new definition for person with disabilities in this legislation which will

ensure that resources and supports are there for these individuals with

disabilities. This specifically designed legislation will respond to the

distinct needs of this community. The definition will be based upon the

functional limitations that individuals may face in the activities of their

daily living. The execution of this policy will require knowledgable and

sensitive professionals administering well-reasoned regulations. I'm confident

that given the sensitivity of these issues, the minister will ensure that the

regulations are designed to protect and assist these vulnerable persons in our

society. In addition, government has maintained the current funding rate for

persons with disabilities.

understand the minister will also outline how he will provide a comprehensive

framework to assist those who are able to move into employment. That is the key.

Obviously, not all persons with disabilities will be able to consider

employment, because of the nature or severity of their disability. For those who

can transition into some form of volunteer or paid employment, this legislation

provides opportunities.

That is the

aspect of this legislation I would like to focus on. Employment, work — what

does it provide for us? What does work give us? If we are abled or we are

disabled, if we are at the high income or the low income, what does employment

opportunity give us?

[1550]

It gives us

the obvious financial rewards. I mean, that goes without saying. We work because

we need money. We need money to support our families. But work provides so much

more. It provides us with a sense of worth. It puts us out in the mainstream of

society. It puts us out there talking with others who are in the workforce. We

become a significant part of society, because we are one of the producers. It

gives us a sense of value.

Any of us

who know what it's like to be seeking employment when we have previously been

employed know how difficult it is and how, once again, when we have been

recognized, taken in and are part of the workforce, we do feel a part of that

greater society. Things to share, things to talk about, interaction with fellow

workers, a sense of dignity, opportunities to grow and to learn new skills —

many of these are learned at the worksite.

These

rewards, of course, are shared by all able and disabled workers. We've got more

in common than we do not have in common. These rewards apply to entry-level jobs

right through to the highest-trained technicians and professionals. These are

the rewards shared by all of us in society.

Should

people with disabilities be discriminated against in their efforts to be a part

of this shared work experience which enables one to be a full and contributing

member of society? No, of course they shouldn't. Intuitively, we as parents know

that. We look to the future for the opportunity for our children to be a part of

that workforce. We know that there will be some individuals who won't be able to

take

part in that experience, but the more people we can provide that

opportunity for, the fuller their life will be and the richer our society will

be.

Not every

disabled person has the supports they need. As my colleague the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill pointed out, a lot of the programs that will be in place

to assist people enter the workforce will be absolutely critical to fulfil the

thrust of this legislation.

In my

riding I have a father who has come to my constituency office, and we have

talked about his family and his child. He has a child with significant

disabilities, and he knows what he wants for his son. He wants his son at some

point to be a part of the workforce. So this dad, while he's maintaining a

full-time job now himself, has also started up a business that he knows will

have an opportunity for his son, who has considerable disabilities, to be able

to work in. He says, "I know when my boy is in his late teens and coming to

adulthood, he will want to be a part of the workforce," so he has taken on

that incredible responsibility to look to the future for his son.

Not

everyone has these opportunities, but thank goodness, some of the most

enlightened employers in our community have recognized and acted upon the talent

pool of persons with disabilities. We have employers in our community who have

determined that there is a resource in the community that should be tapped,

brought in and made a part of their organization. They know that these workers

are eager to work, that they bring particular skills, and they oftentimes make

very loyal employees. These enlightened employers are already reaping the

benefits of this talent pool.

[1555]

Naturally,

people have questions around this legislation, because we are dealing with the

most vulnerable. An employment strategy is being developed that will support

persons with disabilities in part-time and cyclical employment, in

self-employment with earnings exemptions that will support increased

independence. The ministry will increase the amount, under the earnings

exemptions, that persons with disabilities can earn while on income assistance

from the current $200 up to $300 a month, feeding into what is the natural

incentive that drives all of us: incentives to allow us to fulfil our potential.

These clients will have access to both mainstream job placement and training for

job programs, as well as other programs for persons with disabilities.

Bill 27

sets the stage for assistance, opportunity and independence for those folks who

face incredible challenges because of their disabilities. The minister has

identified opportunities for these British Columbians so that they can achieve

satisfaction and a degree of independence — the degree of independence they

are capable of achieving, recognizing the severity of some of the situations. It

will be essential that this legislation

[ Page 2965 ]

is very carefully and thoughtfully administered. It must add to the quality

of life for persons with disabilities and not add additional stress to an

already challenging life.

Bill 27 has

much to support. This act recognizes that the distinct needs of people with

disabilities are best served by this separate income assistance legislation. The

minister has recognized the particular needs. This act, as well, provides for

continuous assistance for those individuals who are not able to work due to

their disabilities. This act recognizes that many people with disabilities want

to work and are not able to work full-time but possibly part-time, with proper

supports.

Employment

plans for people with disabilities will not include time limitations for

receiving disability assistance. Persons on this plan will continue to receive

disability assistance as they participate in programs, and if they leave

assistance for employment, they will keep their designation and maintain their

medical assistance.

We all know

of cases where people have been concerned that if they do leave assistance and

take on an employment opportunity, should their disability worsen or should they

return to the situation they were in previously, they in fact would be dealt out

and not be able to continue on assistance. This legislation protects them from

that eventuality. They will not have to reapply — for persons with a

disability status — should they be unable to continue working.

It will be

necessary — more than that, vital — that the implementation of these changes

be done carefully and sensitively to ensure that the clients are well served. I

know that the minister has positive expectations for persons with disabilities,

and I know he'll be following its implementation with great care.

I welcome

this opportunity to bring my thoughts to this piece of legislation that we are

considering, and I look forward with anticipation to the detailed discussion at

the next stage.

Chong: Firstly, let me say it was time to combine the four BC Benefits acts

into two pieces of clear legislation that will allow this government to focus

specifically on providing assistance to persons on a temporary basis as well as

to persons in need of continuous assistance.

[1600]

Today I'm

going to speak to one of these bills: Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for

Persons with Disabilities Act. Let me say at the outset that I support this act,

as it will allow this government to provide assistance and opportunity for

British Columbians who are working toward independence and for a more fulfilling

life. In particular, people with disabilities have told the ministry that their

distinct needs would be better served by separate income assistance legislation.

That is what is happening. Our government has listened and our government has

heard those concerns, which is why today we do have Bill 27 to reflect those

distinct needs.

Contrary to

what the opposition may say or may imply about Bill 27, it does provide for

continuous assistance for people who are unable to work due to their

disabilities. Bill 27 does provide a continuum of employment supports for people

with disabilities who are able to work either full- or part-time.

The NDP

would have us all believe that persons with disabilities are not employable.

That is simply not true. There are many people with disabilities who want to

work and are able to work, either full- or part-time, with proper supports. I

believe we must assist all employable persons to reach their goal of sustainable

employment. This government is doing just that.

This act

acknowledges that those with disabilities who cannot work will not be subject to

time limitations for receiving disability assistance. Again, this act

acknowledges that those with disabilities who cannot work will not be subject to

time limitations, contrary to what some of the naysayers may be saying.

The

government and the ministry have a responsibility to ensure that resources go to

those who are truly in need. This legislation ensures that ongoing assistance

will be available for persons who have either a severe mental or physical

impairment that will likely continue for at least two years and that is

considered to be directly or significantly restricting the person's ability to

perform daily activities continuously or for extended periods of time.

Not all

disabilities or impairments are permanent. People's health can improve. An

illness can be cured. With today's new medicines and technological advances, new

treatments are occurring such that it is possible for persons with disabilities

to participate in the economy. For those employable persons with disabilities,

they will be required to work as they are able to — as they are able to and as

their disabilities will allow them to.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to share a few stories with you and with my colleagues

about why I support this legislation. I've seen how the status quo, the NDP way

of solving problems, worked. It just didn't.

About six

years ago there was an organization in greater Victoria that employed many

persons with disabilities. That organization was called the Goodwill Enterprises

for the Handicapped. It was specifically benefiting persons with disabilities by

providing work opportunities and self-worth. Persons with disabilities were able

to work flexible hours. They were able to work flexible shifts as their

disabilities allowed. Some of these persons had learning disabilities. Some had

physical disabilities. Others had mental challenges. It was understood that they

might not work as efficiently as an abled person, but it was important that they

be given an opportunity to work.

[1605]

Well, what

happened to that organization? I'll tell you what happened to that organization.

The NDP began some social engineering, and by way of changes to the Employment

Standards Act, these persons with disabilities were no longer considered

suitable to work under the terms and arrangements that had once pro-

[ Page 2966 ]

vided them with an opportunity. It meant that persons with disabilities lost

an opportunity to work, an opportunity to be trained and an opportunity to have

a more fulfilling life, and that was wrong.

I went to

the Legislative Library and had my staff pull some articles, because I wanted to

be sure. It was in 1996 that all this happened. Strangely enough, the day they

had to close down was September 11. We should all remember September 11, a very

tragic day indeed. For those individuals back in 1996, it was their tragic day,

where they were told that they could no longer work in this particular

enterprise.

It was very

sad. There were some 30 people there, I recall, just shortly after my election,

that I received some letters and phone calls about. They couldn't understand,

particularly some who were representing those with mental challenges. They said:

"How do I tell my son or daughter that she can't go into work anymore, that

she can't share time with these people she's met, and that he or she won't be

able to learn more about how to contribute to society?" These individuals

couldn't understand why a government would have interfered with their lives in

such a way.

I would

like to continue on with this, but I am advised that my colleague would like to

make an introduction, so at this time I'll yield the floor for him to do that.

Introductions by Members

Nettleton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Nettleton: I am delighted today to be able to welcome from my hometown, Fort

St. James, 12 students from Fort St. James Secondary School. Welcome to Victoria

and the Legislature.

I'd also

like to welcome the two teachers accompanying the students from Fort St. James,

Terry van Meer and Gloria Duncan. Please join me in giving these folks a great

big welcome.

Hon. S.

Bond: I, too, seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Hon. S.

Bond: Paul and I…. The member for Prince George–Omineca and I are

excited today, and that's why I did something you're not supposed to do in the

House, which is name a person.

Having said

that, we are thrilled today to have a group of students also here from Prince

George. It is always exciting for us to be able to have students in the

precinct. Accompanying the students are their teachers, Suzanne Sharpe and Mark

Lafleur. We're very pleased to have them in the precinct and, in particular,

someone who is almost a part of my family, Ms. Brandie Peck.

I want to

ask the members to certainly make all of the students and their teachers very

welcome in the precinct today.

Debate Continued

Chong: I would like to continue with the story I had regarding this

organization that was once here in greater Victoria and that offered

opportunities.

It's not

the only organization that provides for that opportunity. You also have a place

like the Garth Homer Centre, which provides opportunities and training for

people who have challenges and disabilities but who have a place to go.

[1610]

I suppose,

in their wisdom, the previous government was trying to level the playing field

to ensure that everybody was entitled to a minimum wage. While we all support

minimum-wage legislation, one-size solutions sometimes don't fit all because

we're not all one-size people. When you take a look at a group in our society

for whom we are all challenged to provide assistance to and help them meet their

potential, we have to take a look at what opportunities we can provide for them.

Where there are non-profit organizations that provide for that, we should be

encouraging them on that opportunity. But that wasn't to be, so all

organizations have to take a look and see if it's time for them to be more

profitable or to stay profitable. If the situation requires that they pay an

able-bodied person the same as they would pay someone with a disability with

minimum-wage requirements, it would mean that an enterprise would more than

likely choose an able-bodied person. In any event, this organization left our

town, and unfortunately those people who were working there had to go back to

their homes, and their parents and families tried their best to console them.

I also

recalled, shortly after my election in 1996, another group of people who came to

my office. Again, they were people with disabilities. They were adult newspaper

carriers. I recall very vividly one lady who indicated to me that she couldn't

walk for long periods of time because of her physical disability, but she

enjoyed the opportunity to get up in the morning, deliver newspapers on a

particular route that could just about meet her potential before she was

physically worn out. Because of changes, again, to employment standards, she was

told that minimum hours of work had to be required, and therefore it was

necessary for an able-bodied person to do her job. She was very saddened by

that, and she came to me for help. Admittedly, the government had a further look

at that legislation and did provide for some exemptions, but it just shows that

government interference sometimes is not the best when you're trying to level

playing field for people for whom there are differences. Those people that we

were attempting to help back then, in fact, were being more restricted.

There are

persons with disabilities who lose their jobs and persons with disabilities who

lose an opportunity to have a more fulfilling life. That is not what I

[ Page 2967 ]

want to see happen in the future. With this legislation I see an opportunity

for us to reach out to those persons with disabilities to say that we are very

interested in knowing that if you wish to participate in a full- or part-time

job as your disabilities allow you to, then come and see us because we're going

to help you. We're going to help you do that, because it will make you feel

better about yourself. It will give you more independence, and it will make you

become less reliant on government.

There's a

councillor in the city of Vancouver. I don't know him very well, but I've met

him on a number of occasions. I imagine we would all look at this person as a

person with a disability. He is to be admired. He is an exemplary role model,

and he represents an employable person with a disability. That person is

Councillor Sam Sullivan. I'm sure members in this chamber know of him — those

from the lower mainland — and I've only had the opportunity to meet with him a

few times.

I did it

because I had heard about him. I had heard that this councillor who was confined

to a wheelchair ran for city council and was elected. Because he represented a

diverse community, he was not only representing his community, but he was even

further trying to represent a diverse community by every day choosing to learn

one phrase in Chinese because, as we all know, in the lower mainland there is a

huge Chinese population.

[1615]

I went up

to him, and I said a few words to him, and he spoke back to me. I was very

surprised because his accent and his linguistics were a bit better than mine. I

applauded him, and I said: "How do you manage this?" He said:

"Every day I try to learn a little bit more and pick up this language

because I still want to represent that community." I think he surprises

people in that community. The reason why I found out was because people in the

Chinese community told me they were very proud that there was this councillor

who cared enough and who, with all his personal situations like his disability,

took the time to learn about their community. I thought that was wonderful —

and as I say, a man to be admired. It just shows that we should not discount

that those who have disabilities want to be employed and want to be employed on

a full-time basis, because some of them can be and some of them want to be.

Last year

and this year again during the estimates debate I questioned the Minister of

Human Resources to look at ways to ensure that self-employed persons with

disabilities would also be considered when his ministry is implementing change

and developing new criteria. I believe there are many persons with disabilities

who may find self-employment a better way for them to be fulfilled and a more

suitable way for them to work than in a business or in an organization.

It was

because I was approached by family members of a person with a disability in my

riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head who was able to — I wouldn't say make a fully

independent living — make a living to some extent by being self-employed.

Because of his disability, some months he did well, and other months his

disability overtook him, and he couldn't do as well as he had wished for. Again,

it shows that we as a government should encourage people with disabilities to

see if they can fulfil their lives — that they can empower themselves and do

more. There is so much to be gained, a self-worth that they feel, when they gain

that measure of independence.

When I

raised it with the Minister of Human Resources last year and again this year, I

wanted to remind him and to let him know that he needed to ensure that however

he was to implement his strategic shifts and his service plans, I do support

that we consider the persons with disabilities who also wish to be self-employed

and treat them with respect and dignity, help them and provide that assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this legislation, because I do believe it is

intending to better the lives of people who need a continuum of assistance.

I also want

to share with members about other persons with disabilities I've known in my

life. I heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I believe, speak of persons

with disabilities, those with multiple sclerosis in particular. This past

weekend there was a Super Cities Walk/Run for MS. It was held in a number of

cities across Canada. Here in greater Victoria, in the Oak Bay area of my

riding, is where this took place. I was able to volunteer some time and help at

the registration desk and see the numbers of people who came out to run or walk

for MS. There was also a group of people who are afflicted with MS who came out

and showed that when given an opportunity, they participate along with everyone

else. They were there in the run or walk.

I have

cousin-in-law, as well, who at a very young age was affected with MS. For a

number of years she needed assistance. She had a young child. But after a time

and because of new treatments and medical advances that are made, I understand

she's working again — full-time, if you can believe it. I'm sure at times she

needs respite and assistance and her home support, but she's been able to move

on — another example of persons with disability who are employable.

When I was

very young, I remember I met another teenager in a Bible study group that I was

at. I was about 15, and she was 18, a very bright young lady. She always asked

the best questions, and those of us who were younger would always learn from her

as she challenged our Bible school teacher on a number of things.

[1620]

I recall

one day I hadn't seen her at church, and then the following week again she

wasn't there. When three weeks had passed, I finally inquired, because I was

wondering if she had found another place to attend. I was told that she had MS.

Up until that time, and I had known her for about eight months, I had never

known that she was afflicted with MS, but when she had a bout of it, it would

incapacitate her for almost an entire month. Up until that time, for those eight

months that I knew her, I never got a glimpse of that. She was as able-bodied as

I was, with a bright

[ Page 2968 ]

mind. All of us in our class respected her because, as I say, she always

asked the best questions, and we learned more from her.

That was my

first exposure at a very young age to people with MS. She would be considered a

person with a disability, but she participated as well as she could at all times

except when her illness caused her to be unable to participate. That is what our

act is implying and intending — that those with disabilities will be able to

contribute as their disability allows them to.

I will,

however, be watching this legislation, because I have heard the concerns of

others in this chamber. Many people have raised a number of issues, and they're

all worthy of being raised. I think it is important that all of us, as MLAs

representing constituents from a variety of backgrounds, listen to those

concerns.

I will be

watching to see how this legislation affects disabled persons in my riding of

Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I have always had an open door where they or their family

members were able to come and see me, and wherever possible we would direct them

to whatever programs and supports were available. I will continue to do that and

to seek out what is available in this legislation to ensure that that occurs.

I will also

be watching how the ministry develops its comprehensive employment strategy for

people with disabilities. I think that will be key: a comprehensive employment

strategy that will include people with disabilities who are able to work.

I will also

be watching as new programs are developed that are designed to benefit persons

with disabilities to work when they are able and to assist them in reaching a

higher degree of independence. In that situation, I would believe, there are

persons with disabilities who wish to be self-employed, and I will be watching

for what new programs can be developed in that area.

I will

continue, as I always have, to speak up for my constituents to ensure that these

new strategic shifts in this ministry are there to help them. I believe this

legislation will help them.

We all know

that change is necessary, but change usually brings resistance. It is never easy

to embrace change. Yet I think we all know it was time for a change from an old

culture of entitlement, the old status quo, to a new culture of employment and

empowerment. That is a good change.

I also know

this Minister of Human Resources. I have worked with him not only for five years

in this Legislature during our time in opposition but, even prior to that, our

time on a municipal council. I know he takes his obligations and

responsibilities very seriously. I know he believes that these changes are about

bettering the lives of British Columbians. I will work with him and his ministry

to ensure that together we do accomplish what I think is a very important goal,

a very important objective.

Anderson: The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act is

what we are discussing today in second reading. For those who are watching us or

reading the Hansard , following the discussion, I would just point out

that second reading is when the bill is discussed in principle. Particular

issues of the bill will be discussed in detail when we go to what we call

Committee of the Whole. At this particular time we're talking about the

principles that may be in the bill or the principles that we might like to have

considered as part of this particular legislation either now or in the future.

[1625]

As I begin,

I would first of all like to thank the minister for the work he has done in

carrying this forth to this stage. He has travelled throughout the province, he

has talked to people in numerous groups, and he has listened intently to what

they have said. He has tried to respond as he can, within the parameters he has

given in the core review, as we work in the new era of our government here.

I must say

that as in all of our legislation, this is the beginning of a process. It's not

the end of a process. It's part of an ongoing structure in which there can be

growth and understanding and change. It's within that context that I discuss

some of the principles I think are important as we look at this particular piece

of legislation.

It does

recognize and the minister has recognized, as has already been mentioned this

afternoon, that the people who have disabilities or those who work and live with

those who have disabilities are concerned that there should be the continuation

of a separate act which deals with this particular group of citizens within our

province. As I thought about this, I went, as I did previously, to my dictionary

to look up the word "disability." In essence it said that it is

somebody who has an incapacity from birth or due to an illness or an injury —

something that has come into their lives without, in most part, an action on

their own part. It's something that they have been given and that they learned

to live with and to struggle with and to adapt to. These persons are living a

daily event which makes them very interesting and challenging. They undertake,

in their daily lives, activities just for survival that demand a concentration,

an effort and a perseverance that most of us will never in our lives have to

experience.

There is a

concern, and it's appropriate that we might think about it this week. It was 20

years ago yesterday that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was

established as part of the constitution of Canada — a very important day for

the rights and opportunities and responsibilities of each of the citizens in

Canada. I can remember 20 years ago and the days which preceded that. One of the

major discussions that took place across Canada — very heated at times — was

a discussion of whether persons with disabilities would be recognized and

responded to in the Charter itself, which was discussing the rights and freedoms

of people within Canada. That was perhaps the first major discussion we had in

Canada of responding to and living with people with disabilities, who are very

much a part of our communities and our families.

[ Page 2969 ]

There was,

in that discussion, a highlighting that there should be equality. But how was

equality to be portrayed, to be displayed, to be shown and to be carried out for

people who have disabilities? We're still struggling with that particular

question and will for many years yet. Probably a significant part of that

question was that we all, at least theoretically, said that everybody should

have equal opportunity.

[1630]

I was

attending an aboriginal conference one day, and they were discussing equality

among persons as it related to the aboriginal community in our country. One of

the aboriginal persons pointed out to me a very important principle: that

equality was one thing and that equity was another.

It seems to

me what we are struggling for is both equality and equity. Equity takes into

account the circumstances in which you live. You can treat everybody equally,

but you are not necessarily treating anybody with equity. My simple illustration

of this — which I've used often and use again, because it's easier for me to

express it — is when our girls were six months old, three years old and six

years old. If I treated them with equality, every one of them got the same

helping of food on their plate. They were advised that they should eat what was

before them. They were treated equally on the amount of food. But equity was to

say they should not have the same amount of food or not even necessarily the

same brand of food at that particular need in their lives.

We have

done many things to deal with this principle of equity with persons who have

disabilities. We have spent a great deal of money redoing our sidewalks: cutting

off the corners and making it possible for persons in wheelchairs and persons

who walk with canes and others to be safe on our streets. We have added to our

streetlights chirps and sounds, so that those who are blind are able to use

their canes and to walk and cross the street, not because they can see the

lights but because they can hear the changes. We have modified our building

codes so that our buildings, all new buildings that are built, must have access

for persons with disabilities. We have washrooms in our new buildings that must

have access for persons with disabilities. In many of our physical changes, we

have responded not only to equality but to equity, to develop an opportunity for

our people.

This has

relevance, I think, to this issue of employment — the Employment and

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. Again, I commend the minister for

building into this act the opportunity for new creative opportunities for those

who have disabilities to be able to get the training, the opportunity and the

possibility to be able to get out into the community — if they wish and are

able to do so — and to get into the normal workforce with their other fellow

citizens. That is a very significant undertaking which for many people has been

undertaken in lip service but not in practical reality.

Hon.

Speaker, I think, as well as doing this, we have to acknowledge that this

particular act is also about something else. That something else is in the words

that persons who are not able to get into the workforce will be assisted with

their living and their daily life undertakings.

[1635]

There are

many countries in the world where people of disabilities are disregarded and are

set aside. There are times in our own country when this has happened to many

people, but I think we generally have acceptance in our communities that those

times are past. We have to ask ourselves: what is it that we are about in this

particular ministry? As I've said before, it's only one of a number of

ministries that has an interactive concern with the persons we're talking about

on this particular day. However, this particular ministry has the important

function within our planning system not to provide all the services that a

person may receive because these are divided amongst ministries but to provide a

basic income by which the person has food, clothing, shelter and the necessities

of life so that they can partake in the other activities in which we might work

with them.

The act for

disabilities that this replaces had in it a very significant

preamble which I

would like to read, because it set a context in which the act was then to be

interpreted. The

preamble of the Disability Benefits Program Act, which was

passed in 1996, was this:

whereas

British Columbians are committed to preserving a social safety net that is

responsive to changing social and economic circumstances;

" and

whereas people with disabilities will be treated with fairness,

dignity and sensitivity to their diverse needs as individuals;

" and

whereas disability benefits programs support the inclusion and

integration of people with disabilities into the mainstream of the community

and the enhancement of their quality of life;

" and

whereas disability benefits program encourage communication and joint

problem solving among people with disabilities, their families, friends,

advocates, ministry staff and service providers;

" and

whereas disability benefits programs should be financially and

administratively accountable, effective, efficient and well coordinated;

" therefore

her majesty , by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative

Assembly" presents this act."

In essence,

these are things that the minister has himself said, in effect, many times as a

background for this particular act. One of the questions out in the community is

that appearance, for people, is reality. We should be very aware of this in our

legislative system, because it used to be that the Conflict of Interest Act was:

if you had been in conflict of interest, then you were in trouble. It was

changed. It was changed so that if you have the appearance of conflict, you're

in trouble. Appearance is important to all of us in our daily life.

When this

was left out of the current act, people simply asked why. Also within that act,

a couple of questions were left out which raised the question of why. In the

definitions, which is the next page of the previous act, "benefit"

means "any form of assistance provided under this act, other than a

disability allow-

[ Page 2970 ]

ance" — which is mentioned later — "and includes (

a) a health

care benefit." The benefit is not in this particular act, listed as such.

It's referred to at later times, but people wonder if it has the same security

as in the previous act.

Another

part was left out, which is why they ask about the implications of it:

"(ii) requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for

transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but

essential…continuous needs." That was in the previous act in the

definition of disability. It's not in the definition, although it may be in

other parts of the act. People ask: why were these separated?

It's often

not what we do or say that's important, but it's why we do it. That's partly

what we're being asked about in the community at large.

[1640]

Also, while

I'm talking about those particular points in the act, let me highlight a couple

of other questions that will come up in our later discussion. One of them the

minister and I have already discussed, and he has indicated he will be reviewing

it. If you have an automobile at the time you come to need Human Resources —

and this applies to people with a disability and to other people — and if it

has a value of more than $5,000, you must get rid of it. That's except if it has

been modified to be made use of by a disability person. Then you don't need to

fit into that particular category. I raised with him the question that some

people may not have their automobile modified, but they may have bought an

automobile with automatic shift and a variety of facilities that would make it

more than the $5,000. I think that should be considered as well.

The other

thing that was mentioned by persons earlier is that the earnings exemption,

which is a very important part of adding to your income, was raised from $200 to

$300, but at the same time, where previously you could earn money and 25 percent

over and above it that you could keep, that part has been taken out.

I think

it's important that of the $771 a month that a person with a disability might

receive, when you take out the $325 for housing — if you're able to get

housing at that price — it leaves you with $14.86 a day for your food,

clothing and every other expense. You have $3 for breakfast, $5 for lunch and $5

for supper, and you have $1.86 a day left for everything else apart from your

rent. These are the realities people need to know if we're talking about them

being able to have independence.

We are

talking about having partnerships in our community, and I think that's extremely

important. We need to work with the larger community, not only the community

that deals with people who have disabilities. We need to establish relationships

as a government with the volunteer non-profit agencies and the churches in the

community so that we are working together with them and working together with

each other. That's fundamentally important.

Another

issue I would like to suggest is that when we are working with persons with

disabilities in the area of employment, which was discussed earlier by my

comrades, we need to think about the kind of training we're going to be able to

supply to those who are doing those programs. I would like to suggest that it's

very important that the kind of person who normally is trained to work with the

regular employee needs to have a different type of training and experience to

work with the culture of those who live with disabilities. It is, for them,

quite different than it is for you or me.

Simply,

even the words used can be important. I highlight this because it brings home to

us that we must rethink ourselves when we're dealing with whatever that group of

people might be. It seems to me extremely important, say, to talk about a person

who has a disability rather than to talk about a disabled person. Those are two

different things.

[1645]

I have a

difficulty in hearing. Sometimes I have a difficulty, a disability, in speaking.

All of us have a disability of one kind or another to one degree or another, but

it's not our disability that should be primary in our thoughts; it is our

personal nature and undertaking.

I can

remember that in my own congregation I was trying to get permission to build a

ramp into the church because we were very high up the stairs. The argument that

I received from many within the congregation, first of all, was that we don't

need a ramp, because there's nobody in our church who uses a wheelchair or comes

to church with a wheelchair. I said: "Well, how can they come to church if

we have no ramp and they can't get in?" "Oh."

Eventually

we got the ramp built, and it was interesting. One of the persons who most

opposed our having that ramp built into the church in between time had had a

change in her life, and she was the first person within that congregation to use

the ramp when it was completed. None of us knows, this afternoon, that we may

not need a wheelchair tonight or be a disabled person or a person with

disability before the day is out.

We need to

work on these ideas and struggle through the values that are behind the

activities which we undertake. If we don't, we may not be necessarily making the

lives of our people better, but we may be hemming them in to regulations and

systems that limit what they are able to do. Choices are very important.

One of the

realities is, as my colleague mentioned earlier, that many of our people with

disabilities are making contributions already to all of us. Their life will not

necessarily be richer in the value sense because they're able to work. Their

life will be richer in the value sense because they're regarded as a person who

makes a contribution to the best of their ability. Whether they ever work or not

in their life is irrelevant. If we don't regard them with the greatest regard

when they're not working, we'll never regard them with the greatest regard when

they are working. We already

[ Page 2971 ]

have, in their opinion, an appearance of neglecting them.

I want to

stress today, in looking at this new legislation, that we're looking not just at

what the legislation does at this particular point but what it will do beyond

this point. What it will do beyond this point is the kind of effort and thought

and perseverance that we put into it.

Mr.

Speaker, I commend the minister for having taken us this far. It's a beginning,

and I look forward to working, with all of us together, for the future which

will go far beyond this.

Locke: Before I start, I want to express my concern for comments made by the

member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, comments that suggest that she and the

member for Vancouver-Hastings hold the only virtue of caring about this

province's most vulnerable. Clearly, that is not true. Every single member of

this Legislature comes to this place with caring, respect and empathy for the

people of British Columbia, especially the most vulnerable, and each of us comes

with an understanding of our own communities. Personal attacks are not useful in

this debate at all.

[1650]

I rise

today to support Bill 27, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with

Disabilities Act. This bill introduces a new way of delivering financial

assistance to individuals with disabilities and their families and works towards

assisting them to become more employable and, if they are able, contributing

members of Surrey–Green Timbers and every other community in our province.

I want to

talk about two such people, two people that are very important to me. The first

one is a young man I know, who is 20 years old. There is no doubt that he is

severely disabled. He has an electric wheelchair and has very limited use of his

hands. But he has a brilliant mind, a mind that is analytical and creative. He

has a talent for writing and for researching.

Just this

year he entered Simon Fraser University. He lives with his mom on a very limited

income. Overcoming many obstacles, he has made a significant personal step in

his life. His desire to become a contributing part of society is very obvious.

I'm so proud of his tenacity and his drive. This bill will give him a hand up

and the encouragement to enhance his life and the life of others around him. He

has much to offer our society, and I want him to be able to do that.

The second

person I want to talk about is a single mom I know with two children. As

sometimes happens, she was left with two children and no support. It was

difficult for her, although she did her very best to provide for her children,

but her self-esteem was low. She has a serious bowel disease that causes her a

great deal of pain, but she wanted to work and needed assistance to get into the

workforce. I can remember her telling me how important it was for her the very

first time she went to the bank with a paycheque, not a government welfare

cheque. Although she has a disability, she is a proud and participating member

of society.

Unlike the

members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings, I know