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)

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Charitable and sporting events in Surrey

D. Hayer

Oak Bay Tea Party

I. Chong

RCMP campaign to preserve the St. Roch

D. MacKay

Oral Questions

Rob Abbott's contract with Water, Land and Air Protection ministry

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Murray

J. MacPhail

Negotiations with physicians and delisting of services

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Ministerial Statements

Draft community charter

Hon. T. Nebbeling

Tabling Documents

Power for Jobs, report, 2000

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

Petitions

Hon. G. Plant

J. Kwan

J. Les

K. Stewart

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2001

Ministry of Labour, annual reports, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

S. Orr

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26)

Third Reading of Bills

Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26)

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

[ Page 3647 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: There is a very special guest today in the gallery from Cologne,

Germany: Christine Meyer. Christine is here, in Vancouver, for the next four

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I actually have two introductions to make today. The first one is

a considerable list of guests that we have with us in the House today, so if

you'll give me the time to do that….

We have

with us Hans Cunningham, who is the president of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. We also have Frank Leonard, who is known as the mayor of Saanich

and is also the president of the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. Richard

Taylor, the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, is also with

us. Don Lidstone, who is the legal counsel to the Community Charter Council, is

known as a top expert on local government legislation. We have Gerry Kingston,

who is the president of the Local Government Management Association of B.C., and

Debbie Comis, who is the Local Government Management Association's

vice-president.

[1405]

We also

have some CAWS staff in the gallery: Bob de Faye, the Deputy Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; Dale Wall, the assistant deputy

minister, local government department; Gary Paget, executive director of

governance and structure division. We have Janet Erasmus and Erin Faulkner, who

both work for the Attorney General's office and who have been very instrumental

in drafting the draft of the community charter. All these members have been

either part of the Community Charter Council or have been advising the Community

Charter Council in creating the document that will be tabled in the House right

after question period. I ask the members to give them a very well deserved

welcome.

The second

introduction is in the short form, Mr. Speaker. We have with us the mayor of

Pemberton, a village in my riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. She is

accompanied by Bryan Kirk, who is the city clerk and treasurer for the village

of Pemberton, and Lori Onyschtschuk, who is the development administrator for

the village of Pemberton. They're here on an important mission, and again, I

hope the House can make them welcome too.

Hon. L.

Reid: I am pleased to welcome to the precinct today and to this chamber Mr.

David Wells. David is leading up the British Columbia Business and Economic

Round Table on Mental Health. I would ask this House to please make him

extremely welcome.

MacPhail: I look around and see the gallery is full of a very good, healthy

bunch of people, but there are two people sitting in this House today that look

like they're the healthiest and the brightest amongst the bunch. They happen to

be the young children of our executive director, Clay Suddaby. Olivia and

Stanley are joining us for the first time, and we're so lucky to have them here.

Please make them welcome.

McMahon: It's a pleasure today to introduce two constituents, Phyllis and

Elliott Pighin, who are proud ranchers from the Fort Steele area of British

Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan:

I see that visiting us in the galleries today is Anne Edwards, a former MLA from

the Kootenay area. I know that she is here busily working on interviewing the

women MLAs particularly, in preparation for her book. Would the House please

make Anne Edwards welcome.

Trumper: I would like to announce to the Legislature that as of 3 o'clock

this morning, there were two more young Trumpers born into the world. Jackson

and Nicholas were born to my daughter-in-law Ronda and son Michael Trumper.

Please welcome them into the country of Canada.

S. Orr:

I notice a person in the House today who is a very special constituent of mine

and who is also a very active member of one of my neighbourhood association

groups, called NAG. Her name is Laurie Macalroy. She is also the mother of one

of our Pages, Nouri, who assists and helps us in the House. I would be remiss if

I didn't also mention my mayor, Frank Leonard, who taught me everything I know.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Hamilton: It's my pleasure to welcome to the House Beth Gibson, mayor of the

beautiful and wonderful community of Colwood. Would the House please make her

welcome.

[1410]

Hon. G.

Bruce: In the House today are two fine young gentlemen from my former high

school — the high school that I graduated from. Yes, I did graduate. They just

recently won the BCAA/BCIT auto skills challenge. They are the B.C. champions.

They can fix your car in an hour and three minutes — not even knowing what's

wrong with it. If any of you have a car that has anything wrong with it, they

know how to fix it. They check the batteries; they make sure there's gas. In

fact, they're on their way to the national championship in Winnipeg. You'll be

happy to know that whenever you drive through the Cowichan Valley, you get your

car fixed lickety-split, because these guys know how to fix a car really, really

fast. They are Ryan Woike and Arthur McKinlay. Would you wish them well in their

endeavours.

[ Page 3648 ]

Mr.

Speaker, I told you that I had ten friends, and I've introduced eight of them to

you. I have here today the ninth one, who's a good friend of mine, their teacher

and a guy that's led my high school to seven B.C. championships, I think, and

three national championships: Mr. Tom Gavaghan, who I know is still proud — I

hope — to be my friend. Tom?

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The House will be pleased to know there's only one left.

[Laughter.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CHARITABLE AND SPORTING

EVENTS IN SURREY

Hayer: Today I would like to bring the House up to date on some very

important functions in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and speak of the importance

of giving.

All these

events are run by volunteers and include the very high profile PGA tournament at

the Northview Golf and Country Club. This event puts British Columbia on the map

of the golf world. It is a grand event, and I urge all golfers in the House to

be sure to attend and sample the hospitality that Surrey has to offer. This

year's tournament runs from August 26 to September 1.

There are a

lot more things to do, and I'd like to mention a few more of them. On June 2 is

the Port Kells annual spring fair sponsored by the Port Kells Community

Association, followed on June 14 by the Fraser Heights fair. On September 7

there is the Fleetwood Festival and fun run organized by the Fleetwood Community

Association, established in 1923.

addition, we have some important charitable events that exemplify the generosity

of the people of my community. There is a big party tomorrow at the B.C. Family

Hearing Resource Centre. I have spoken about this centre before, Mr. Speaker,

and about how important it is to children and families throughout British

Columbia for its assistance to hearing-impaired children.

The final

event I want to mention relates to the B.C. Hospice Palliative Care Association.

Its Hike for Hospice is being held on June 23. The fundraising event in my

riding is organized by the Surrey Hospice Society, but hikes are being held

throughout B.C., and 90 percent of the money raised will go directly to the

hospice organization in each community that hosts a hike. This B.C.-wide

organization does wonderful work. In closing, I urge all members of this House

to participate in the hikes in their communities and support this very

worthwhile cause.

OAK BAY TEA PARTY

Chong: In my riding this weekend, June 1 and 2, an annual event is about to

take place at Willows Park. This year marks the fortieth year running of the Oak

Bay Tea Party, a fun-filled weekend community celebration of entertainment, a

midway, fireworks, bathtub race and usually an air show.

The Oak Bay

Tea Party began as a one-time event in the summer of 1963 when the late Allan

Cox, QC, was the reeve — or mayor, as we now call it — of Oak Bay. It turned

out to be such a success that it became an annual event. Originally, the Oak Bay

Tea Party was run by a group of volunteers, most of whom were members of the Oak

Bay Kiwanis Club, who called themselves the "Oak Bay Bored of Trade."

However, in 1990 a non-profit society was formed — the Oak Bay Tea Party

Society — which is dedicated solely to putting on the tea party on the first

Saturday and Sunday of June at Willows Park.

During its

40-year history the tea party has had three chairmen: the late Fred Usher, the

late Marcel Barsalou and currently Mr. Bill Murphy-Dyson. Volunteers are still

very much a part of contributing to the success of this annual event. In

addition, local service clubs remain involved, such as Oak Bay Lions, Royal Oak

Lions, Oak Bay Rotary and, of course, Oak Bay Kiwanis.

[1415]

Activities

get underway, beginning with the Oak Bay Tea Party parade on Saturday morning at

10:30, when the parade winds through the streets of Oak Bay from Windsor Park to

Willows Park, ending there in about an hour. As with all parades, trophies are

awarded for winning entries in various categories.

Entertainment

is plentiful, from school choirs to a rhythm and blues band, a jazz band and a

big band. Clearly, there is something for everyone. At 10 p.m. at Willows Beach

on Saturday night you can enjoy the magic of their fireworks display.

A new event

has been added this year: the floating teacup race between Oak Bay's mayor,

Christopher Causton, and Victoria's mayor, Alan Lowe, which will take place on

Sunday afternoon. Also on Sunday afternoon, weather permitting, the air show

will take place. That will include skydivers landing on the beach, military

aircraft, aerobatic aircraft and a sea rescue demonstration.

Certainly,

I encourage everyone to find some time this weekend to come down to enjoy

Willows Park and enjoy hospitality in our Oak Bay community.

RCMP CAMPAIGN TO

PRESERVE THE ST. ROCH

MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was proud to serve with the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police for a period of 28 years. One of the least-known but

highest achievements of the RCMP was in the sailing of its vessel, known as the St.

Roch , and its circumnavigation through the Northwest Passage for the first

time. That historic event gave sovereignty of the north to Canada.

Today this

historic vessel is on display in Vancouver and is in dire need of repair. In

response to that problem, six members of the RCMP have recorded a CD in

Nashville. The production of the CD was made

[ Page 3649 ]

possible through a generous contribution from Trendwest Resorts, Inc. The

proceeds of the sale of the CD will go entirely to preserve the St. Roch .

One of the

members of the band is my good friend of 30 years, Staff Sgt. Glen McRae of

Prince George. I can vouch for the excellent music of the RCMP country band. At

one time I have seen over 3,000 people dancing and enjoying themselves to the

band's music. Further, this band's music has also raised money for bone marrow

transplants.

I would ask

all my colleagues in the House and people throughout the province to support

this campaign to preserve the St. Roch . The name of the band is Steele

Heart, named in honour of another famous RCMP member, Sam Steele. The release

date of the CD will be June 6, 2002, at a ceremony to take place at the

Vancouver Maritime Museum. Copies of the CD can be ordered direct online at

cactusjacks@direct.ca.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

ROB ABBOTT'S CONTRACT WITH WATER,

LAND AND AIR PROTECTION MINISTRY

J. Kwan:

In December of last year the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

contracted with Rob Abbott to — and I quote from the contract —

"support the success of the ministry in delivering its core review shifts

and strategic priorities by providing support to the minister and deputy

minister." The contract was for three and a half months. He was paid

$52,900, and he's apparently on the payroll again. The contract stipulated that

Mr. Abbott work a four-day week.

To the

Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: could she please inform this House

just what Mr. Abbott did to earn his $1,000 a day, and just what service is he

providing to the minister?

Hon. J.

Murray: When this government took office, there were serious challenges in

my ministry as well many of the other ministries. We asked Dr. Mark Jaccard,

who's a well-known environmental expert and professor and also a former chair of

the B.C. Utilities Commission under the NDP, who he would recommend to help us

make the kind of changes we needed to make. Dr. Jaccard suggested several

people, including Rob Abbott. The ministry undertook a process to interview the

candidates and selected Mr. Abbott, who was paid according to the consulting

rates of the day.

[1420]

I am very

pleased that we have Mr. Abbott working with us. I'll just let the House know

some of Mr. Abbott's credentials. He was the sustainability adviser to the city

of Seattle. He was a founding associate and director of strategy at the Centre

for Innovation and Management at Simon Fraser University. He's been a sessional

instructor at the school of resource and environmental management at SFU. He was

the director of strategic environmental management services for Golder

Associates, one of the firms most respected….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: He was the principal in charge of environmental services for Coopers

and Lybrand, one of the world's largest and most respected business advisory

firms.

Mr. Abbott

is helping us with a range of the change management, including changing

regulations looking at….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …including the recreation stewardship panel that is reviewing park

and wildlife recreation today. I am very pleased to have Mr. Abbott working with

us.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you very much, hon. minister.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

We're seeing massive cuts to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

While parks are being closed, a former Socred minister has been appointed to

commercialize those parks that are left.

Today we

hear from the environmentalists that the results-based code will lead to less

environmental protection. The conservation service has been cut for the first

time ever. There is no Drinking Water Protection Act. There is no agricultural

regulation. There's no news on the pulp mill effluent. The only thing that we

know for sure…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…is that the minister is spending $1,000 a day on a personal consultant.

To the minister once again….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister think that spending $1,000 a day on a private consultant

is a good use of the taxpayers' money, especially when it's becoming more

[ Page 3650 ]

and more obvious that her ministry simply can't do the job that it is

mandated to do?

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Abbott is assisting all the assistant deputy ministers with a

range of shifts that we're making now, including our product stewardship

programs and P2 planning. What I find particularly astonishing is that the

member opposite would attack Mr. Abbott's credentials…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. J.

Murray: …and the validity of using a consultant to increase effectiveness,

particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Abbott was a consultant to the NDP. I

have a note here that Mr. Abbott had a contract with the green economy

secretariat.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: Obviously, the NDP was very pleased with his work, because he was

contracted again.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Abbott actually also worked for the Ministry of Community

Development, Cooperatives and Volunteers. Of course, the minister of that

ministry…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …was none other than the member opposite. I'm sure that the member

got as much benefit and satisfaction from the increased effectiveness of her

portfolio as I expect to receive from Mr. Abbott's support.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

You know what? The minister of environment — she's supposed to be the minister

of environment — does not understand the point of the question. The point of

the question is: if we're spending $1,000 a day on a personal consultant for the

minister, what results is she getting for the protection of water, land and air

for this province? She has received nothing from this consultation.

I want to

ask the minister this question. The minister is constantly….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: His record is impeccable; hers is a disaster.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

MacPhail: You don't even get the point.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Hon. members….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister this question. The minister

is constantly defending her scientifically based approach to environmental

management, but when it came to grizzly bears, it's shoot first and then look at

the signs later. When it comes to aquaculture, its tough environmental standards

being watered down to keep the multinationals that run the industry and make

them happy. When it comes to logging in sensitive habitats like that of the

spotted owl in the Chilliwack forest district, her scientists are being muzzled

and then relocated so that the industry can have their way.

Why is the

minister so willing…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…to kowtow to industry-first colleagues? Why is she so willing to abandon her

ministry's mandate and her expert staff opinion? Is it because this is just the

kind of advice that she is getting from her $1,000-a-day consulting services?

MacPhail: Or are you ignoring his advice?

An Hon.

Member: Who's asking the questions?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: There are a number of challenges that this government inherited, and

my ministry is no

[ Page 3651 ]

exception. I have a consultant with the highest credentials who is

participating and assisting in a review process for the contaminated-sites

regime, is working on the development of a permanent science advisory panel for

government so that…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …we can increase the use of science in decision-making.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Order. Question period will continue when we

have a little decorum in this place.

Please

continue.

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Abbott is assisting the ministry in developing a business case

for sustainability in government in support of the government's initiative…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …is assisting the ministry in long-term strategic planning and is

working on the establishment of long-term environmental goals and indicators.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a consultant who has a record of having worked with Alcan, B.C.

Buildings Corporation, B.C. Gas…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: …B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, the city of Seattle, Tolko Industries

Ltd., Environment Canada, Crestbrook Forest Industries. This is a person with

the highest….

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. J.

Murray: …who clearly was appointed again and again by the NDP because of

his effectiveness.

MacPhail: We took his advice. Are you? No, you're not.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

Murray: We appreciate having someone of Mr. Abbott's calibre assist us…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. J.

Murray: …in making effective changes and improvements to our regulations

and policies.

MacPhail: Well, let's see, Mr. Speaker. The minister who we just had answers

from was giving the past record of advice taken without saying anything of what

she's doing with that advice.

[1430]

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS

AND DELISTING OF SERVICES

MacPhail: There's also now other advice being given to the Minister of

Health Services. The media is reporting that the Minister of Health Services

said yesterday that he would sweeten the pot if the doctors returned to the

negotiating table. This morning, we understand, negotiations have resumed —

good news for British Columbians.

Now, what

advice is he receiving? Can he tell the House if the government or the doctors

have put forward any plans to settle the dispute by delisting medically

necessary services so that doctors can make extra money by billing British

Columbians for those services directly? What action is he taking in this area?

Hon. C.

Hansen: At no time yesterday did I say that we were sweetening the pot. What

I did say was that we were prepared to show flexibility if the negotiations

could resume. Certainly, there are some discussions involving officials at BCMA

and officials with government today. We're hopeful that we can move this forward

and resolve these issues and get back to providing good patient care. There is

no discussion around any delisting.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Yes, this morning we heard that there was going to be greater

flexibility in return for resuming negotiation. Given the increasing bitterness

of this dispute, one would assume that he meant something more than his

goodwill. One would assume that he has something concrete to offer the doctors.

If it's as the minister insists — that delisting medically necessary services

is not on the table….

An Hon.

Member: Did you not hear the answer?

MacPhail: I just repeated the minister's answer.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Perhaps he might have been spending too much time out in that

hallway; I don't know. Maybe his ears are cauliflowered.

[ Page 3652 ]

If it's as

the minister insists — that there's no delisting of medically necessary

services on the bargaining table….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Can the minister please tell the House — his own colleagues —

if the government or the doctors have put forward in any other venue plans to

delist medically necessary services so that doctors can make extra money

charging directly for those services? If so, can he tell British Columbians how

much those plans would be worth to the doctors?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Certainly, in terms of the discussions with the BCMA to try to

resolve this fee issue, there has been absolutely no discussion around delisting

of services. As to whether or not the BCMA has put forward suggestions around

delisting of services, I am not aware of it, but I would certainly check. I'll

get back to the member if she's interested — but none that I am aware of.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

DRAFT COMMUNITY CHARTER

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: I rise today to make a ministerial statement and to table a White

Paper entitled The Community Charter: A New Legislative Framework for Local

Government . It is indeed an honour for me to present this draft of the

community charter, a new legislative framework for local governments, to the

Legislature and to the people of British Columbia.

The

community charter will change the way the municipal system works by providing

for increased empowerment. Municipal empowerment means more self-determination

and greater self-reliance. Increased empowerment will be balanced by enhanced

citizen accountability and protection of provincewide interests like public

health, environment and economic development. It will set in place a new

approach to the relationship between the province and local governments based on

cooperation and mutual respect.

[1435]

The

community charter is one way in which the government will fulfil its commitment

to developing a stable and predictable business environment for our communities.

The community charter, in its final form, will rewrite and remove hundreds of

sections of the current Local Government Act and replace them with simpler and

more concise legislation.

With the

community charter, British Columbia is moving towards the twenty-first century

model of empowering local government and involving citizens. For cities to

function in a modern way, they need the authority to create the best environment

for economic and social change to occur. The community charter will enable

municipalities to develop the tools they need to do their day-to-day business in

a fairer, more modern and efficient way, and it will enable them to make local

decisions locally.

Under the

community charter, municipalities will have more autonomy and better tools to

reduce property tax pressures and enhance community stability. Mr. Speaker,

there's been a long and hard road to travel to bring the draft of the charter to

the House today, but it was worth every step on the way. The community charter

will be an important tool to improve the quality of life in communities and the

things that really matter in people's lives on a day-to-day basis.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I'd like to table the year 2000 report on Power for Jobs activity.

Reports from Committees

Penner: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select

Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received.

Motion

approved.

Law

Clerk:

"May 28, 2002:

"Hon. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform,

Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as

follows: that the

preamble of Bill Pr402, intituled Sea to Sky University

Act, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed

to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted.

Barry Penner, Chairman."

Penner: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt

the report.

Leave

granted.

Penner: I move that the report be adopted. I note that the member for West

Vancouver–Capilano would like to also address this issue.

Sultan: I move the Sea to Sky University bill be considered for the second

time now.

Mr.

Speaker: We must adopt the report first. The motion has been made by the

member for Chilliwack-Kent — adoption of the report.

Motion

approved.

Sultan: Is it appropriate that I move the Sea to Sky University bill be

considered for the second time now?

[ Page 3653 ]

Mr.

Speaker: That will have to happen tomorrow.

Bill Pr402

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

of the House after today.

Petitions

Hon. G.

Plant: I table a petition addressed to the Victoria Legislature, signed by

566 residents of British Columbia advocating family law and justice reform.

J. Kwan:

I rise to table two petitions, one containing 181 signatures asking the B.C.

government to include chiropractic doctors in the B.C. Medical Services Plan.

The second petition is a petition with 51 signatures from the Philippine Diamond

Society of B.C., calling on the government to keep its hands off of medicare and

to say no to privatizing health care.

J. Les:

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 10,717 residents of the Chilliwack

area opposed to the closure of Parkholm Lodge.

[1440]

Stewart: I rise today to present two petitions. The first is a petition to

the B.C. government to include chiropractic doctors in B.C.'s medicare plan on a

basis equal to medical doctors, signed by 130 people. The second is petitioning

both the provincial and federal governments to take immediate action to support

the employees and companies of the independent lumber remanufacturers who are

being adversely affected by the unreasonable U.S. trade actions.

MacPhail: I rise to seek advice from you as Speaker about events that have

occurred this week.

I am aware

that Erskine May provides that select committees may consider and report to the

House resolutions recommending an outlay of public money for a specified

purpose, "without the previous signification of the Queen's

recommendation." I am not, however, aware of the authority granted anywhere

in the parliamentary jurisprudence for a select committee to unilaterally take

action on its own resolution without first reporting to the House. I therefore

seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, regarding the events and the actions taken by

the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process.

We know

that discussions took place between the Chair and the former police complaint

commissioner regarding his resignation and severance provisions. I'm seeking the

advice from the Speaker to provide recommended reading regarding the authority

of the committee to actively engage in this kind of negotiation. The matter of

expending public funds and from what budget — in this case, approximately

$100,000 — should have been reported to the House, where the recommendation

would have been considered and voted on.

As I

understand it, the sum has been taken from vote 1, even though neither the

Legislative Assembly Management Committee nor the Legislature has considered

that expenditure.

I seek your

advice, Mr. Speaker. I know you'll rule on this at a later date on how to

proceed in examining this matter.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The Chair appreciates your question and will respond in

due course.

Hon. G.

Collins: If I could perhaps provide some input or suggestions on this issue

and some comment.

The

severance and the accommodation that arose from the police complaint

commissioner with his letter to you, the Speaker…. In order to move that

ahead, the financial accommodations — it is my understanding — would come

out of the vote that's already been appropriated by this House to defray the

expenses of the office of the police complaint commissioner. That would be the

normal process, as it would if anyone within that office were to be severed and

require some sort of financial compensation for that.

If at some

time in the future the commission decides that it cannot live within its budget,

then the past practice of this House has been that those officers of the

Legislature would present themselves to Treasury Board and request access to

contingencies. This government has tried to improve upon that process and the

independence of the officers by having them present to a committee of the

Legislature and for that committee to take that up with government if that's

what they chose to do.

understanding is that the commissioner has left. There has been a severance

that's part of that accommodation. The letter was given to the Speaker, and any

costs that are incurred as a result will come out of the previously voted

appropriation for the office of the police complaint commissioner.

I'm also

surprised a little bit by the Leader of the Opposition's comments and her lack

of certainty around this issue, given that the member for…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Please continue.

Hon. G.

Collins: …Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was a member of the committee and did

not attend one of the meetings. She was kept informed diligently by the Chair,

despite no need for him to do that. He kept the member in the loop and informed

on a regular basis.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Chair appreciates everyone's

comments and will take them into consideration and bring back a ruling in due

course.

Interjections.

[ Page 3654 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Enough, please. We have had quite enough informal discussion.

Please address your remarks through the Chair.

Tabling Documents

[1445]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd like to submit the annual report for the Labour Relations Board

for the year 2001, the annual report for the Ministry of Labour for the fiscal

year 2000-01 and the previously distributed annual reports of the fiscal years

1998-99 and 1999-2000, fulfilling my obligation as the current minister

responsible.

Point of Order

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday, May 27, the Government House Leader rose

under the provisions of standing order 81.1 and advised the House that an

agreement had been reached in relation to time allocation for the conclusion of

government business. The Leader of the Opposition rose on what she characterized

as a point of order, which in essence was a disagreement with the circumstances

as outlined by the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader then

responded to the objections raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and the

Speaker advised that the question would be taken under advisement.

examination of the transcript leads the Chair to conclude that the matter raised

by the Leader of the Opposition does not constitute a valid point of order but

simply a disagreement between two members involved, relating to the

circumstances surrounding the motion made under standing order 81.1.

Accordingly, no further action from the Chair is indicated.

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to

present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, on amounts borrowed by

government for making loans to government bodies as well as the corresponding

report on loans to government bodies, amounts reported in foreign currencies and

amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements. These reports provide an overview

of the province's borrowing activity in the fiscal year 2001-02.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 58.

Second Reading of Bills

CARRIER LUMBER LTD.

FOREST LICENCE COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 58 be read a second time now.

I should

say in my comments today that it is, of course, unfortunate that we would need

to be here and that the House would need to debate a bill of this sort. I think

the circumstances that give rise to the need for this bill and this settlement

with Carrier Lumber Ltd. are fairly well known. The events date back a number of

years. Suffice to say, the Supreme Court of British Columbia rendered a judgment

in 1999 wherein it found in favour of the plaintiff, Carrier Lumber Ltd., and

assigned liability against the Crown for actions and activities that it

described in a very unflattering way — terms like "deceptive

practices" and "bad faith."

We could

spend a lot of time here today assessing and reviewing how that came to pass and

the conduct of the previous government in placing the Crown and, more

particularly, the taxpayers of this province in a vulnerable circumstance that

gives rise today to the expenditure of significant resources from the public

treasury. I'm not sure what we would achieve by doing that. Suffice it to say

that by virtue of introducing Bill 58 today, this government is resolved and is

taking steps to end that long-running dispute, that long-running case with

Carrier Lumber, and bring closure to this matter.

[1450]

The first

thing I'd like to do is just put on the record the specific details of the

settlement and then conclude by emphasizing what this bill does to give effect

to those settlement provisions.

The key

question relates to the cost to the Crown of this agreement. We estimate that to

be just shy of $75 million. It consists of that settlement of $30 million in

cash; two parcels of land transferred from B.C. Rail — that is, the Crown

purchases that land from B.C. Rail and will transfer it to Carrier Lumber; and

also a five-year forest licence to harvest 1.5 million cubic metres of timber,

and significantly, that timber would be harvested free of any stumpage charges.

The

province paid B.C. Rail, with respect to the B.C. Rail lands, $2.6 million to

transfer those lands to Carrier Lumber. Parenthetically, the land — the Tabor

mill site in Prince George, as it is referred to, a neighbouring property….

Previously, Carrier had leased the mill site. They will assume ownership. As

well, B.C. Rail has forgone some rail bed gravel on the property, which the

Crown will replace from another yet-to-be-determined site. We have assigned a

value of approximately $1.1 million to the cost of that gravel replacement.

The Carrier

Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act, which we are debating here today,

will authorize the government to directly award to Carrier Lumber a forest

licence that provides 1.5 million cubic metres of green beetle-attacked timber

in the Prince George timber supply area free of stumpage and rental charges.

Happily, arising out of an obviously unhappy situation, that will allow us, I

think, to bring some additional resources to bear on trying to slow the advance

of the mountain pine beetle infestation. We have calculated — and this is not

a particularly exact science these

[ Page 3655 ]

days — as best we can the value of that timber licence to be in the range

of $41.1 million.

This bill

enables the government, as part of the settlement agreement with Carrier Lumber,

to award this forest licence specifically in replacement for the forest licence

that the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in 1999 the Crown had cancelled illegally. As

was the case with the original licence, as I pointed out, the forest licence

will concentrate on harvesting in the beetle-infested areas.

Bill 58

also contains a number of provisions which allow the government to implement the

settlement agreement with Carrier. I will list them briefly. The bill allows the

Minister of Forests to directly make the award. It also includes some special

not be payable. We will ensure that the licence provides Carrier with a

guaranteed volume of timber. The licence is not subject to any allowable annual

cut reductions that may be imposed on other licence holders located in the same

timber supply area as the Carrier licence. Carrier is not required to pay annual

rent under the licence, and the licence must provide for the identification and

special selection of timber harvested under it. That also assists us in allowing

the licence to be directed at beetle-infested timber, while giving Carrier some

input in the location of timber harvested under the licence. Bill 58 specifies

that this forest licence is to be for a term of five years and is

non-replaceable.

On the

positive side of the ledger, it bears mentioning that according to Carrier

Lumber, they believe the awarding of this timber licence will provide them with

the means to employ an additional 60 jobs — some in the harvesting sector and

some on the processing side.

People will

see that the bill specifies that the law which applies to the licence is the law

in place when the settlement agreement was signed.

[1455]

This

legislation clearly would not have been necessary but for the exercise of

political interference that the court has now ruled on and made decisions

around. Those decisions have visited upon the taxpayer of the province in a very

significant way. We estimate, as I've said, close to $75 million.

We can't

change the past. We can move forward, but as we move forward — I think that is

the intention on the part of Carrier Lumber; it is certainly the intention on

the part of the Crown — it bears repeating that when governments, any

governments, abuse their authority, at the end of the day it is the citizens

that lose and the taxpayers that pay.

This is a

significant settlement. These negotiations were not easy. We think the

settlement that has been arrived at represents a fair and equitable approach to

resolving injustices identified by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, but at

the same time it is a significant award of a lot of money.

Those are

my comments on second reading, and I do move second reading of Bill 58.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 58,

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call Bill 26.

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:59 p.m.

section

2 (continued) .

[1500]

J. Kwan:

Earlier this morning we were engaging in discussions around the eligibility of

family unit,

section 2 of Bill 26. I was asking the minister questions,

particularly related to the issue around refugee claimants. I want to close off

those questions with this letter that was sent to the minister. This is a letter

from an individual who's received support as a refugee claimant. The letter

reads:

"Dear Sir:"

I'm not going to say her name. It says: "My name is…." I'm not

going to put her name on the record, for her privacy protection. It goes on:

came to Canada with two children as a refugee claimant. When I arrived in

Canada and reported to Immigration Canada to make a refugee claim, I did not

have any money for food or rent. I spent all the money and resources I had

to come to Canada and arrived here with only my life.

received some initial financial assistance from the Inland Refugee Society

of B.C. in Vancouver, which helped cover costs of food, photos for

immigration and transit for the first few days. I applied for and received

welfare after a few weeks.

"It

is only with the help of the B.C. government that my life is where it is

today. I've been through the refugee claims process and have been determined

to be a convention refugee. I've been able to live through the past year and

provide for my two children because of the generosity of the B.C.

government.

want to express my thankfulness, but I cannot remain silent. There are many

refugee claimants who will be coming to B.C. in the future, and I must speak

for them. They need your promise of support and help. Please do not make it

difficult for refugee claimants to receive financial support.

want to thank you for helping my family and me. Please help those who are

still coming.

"Sincerely"

It's signed by this individual. The letter was written to the Minister of

Human Resources.

[ Page 3656 ]

The reason

why I want to put this letter on record is this. Prior to the lunch break I

asked the minister, on the

section under eligibility of a family unit, whether

or not refugee claimants will continue to receive assistance from government

under Bills 26 and 27 and with the new regulations that we have not yet seen.

The minister advised that he'll be engaging in discussions with the federal

government trying to seek additional dollars from the federal government. I

replied: "Fair enough, but irrespective of that, it is the government's

responsibility to ensure those who need assistance receive assistance. In this

case, we're talking about refugee claimants." The minister was unable to

give confirmation of that, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations with

the federal government.

The reason

why I want to put this letter on the record is to illustrate the point that

where assistance is provided, it does make a difference in people's lives. This

individual has shared her own personal story on how it made a difference to her.

She's now advocating for the future refugee claimants who may need government

assistance.

I hope the

minister will take this to heart because it is the government's responsibility

to make sure that people who need assistance are provided with assistance. The

regulations that are still to come will spell out who is eligible. The

legislation does not indicate that, but the regulations will. The minister needs

to make sure that when the regulations are before British Columbians for review,

those regulations do not exempt refugee claimants from eligibility for income

assistance.

I now want

to turn to another issue under

section 2 of Bill 26. Under the previous B.C.

Benefits (Income Assistance) Act,

section 2 dealt with the Income Assistance

Advisory Council. The Income Assistance Advisory Council is no longer in the new

Bill 26. Could the minister please advise what's happened to that council?

During times of such extreme changes, wouldn't it be beneficial to keep the

Income Assistance Advisory Council to ensure that changes are not harming

people?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

[1505]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In the gallery just joining us is a grade 10 class from York House

School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. David Kerr. I hope the House will make

them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

Coell: Under the former government the advisory council sat empty for a

number of years, and no one was appointed to this council. But I will take the

member's suggestion under advisement.

J. Kwan:

Actually, when the government was contemplating changes to the former income

assistance act, the advisory council was put together, and a variety of people

were on this council to advise the government in terms of what direction they

should or should not take. So in fact, when changes were being brought about,

that council was actually very active, contrary to what the minister is implying

at this point. I just want to be clear on that.

I want to

add the point of the member for Vancouver-Langara with respect to the need for

an advisory council. Here's what he had to say in 1996:

"Since

the government, in overall perspective, is very conscious that people who

are using the services have a strong input to the services, is there a

principle where a third, a half or a fairly high representation…? To say

there's one or two token people there would not be satisfactory. But is

there a high representation of persons from across the province who would be

able to tell you the urban and the rural and the other settings, who are

recipients and can therefore reflect on how the service actually operates?

It would seem to me important that, on principle and in guidelines, there

should be a certain guaranteed, if you like, representation of those

people."

This was

during the debate in 1996 relative to the income assistance act, and the member

for Vancouver-Langara was arguing that there should be representation,

particularly broad representation, for people across B.C. so that they could

bring forward their perspective on changes to income assistance. I do want to

note that for the minister.

Section 2

also states that the entire family unit on whose account the assistance is

provided must satisfy the initial and continuing conditions of eligibility.

Without knowing the conditions of eligibility, what requirements will this

impose on family members? And how will requiring all family members to submit

information ensure that the applicant is receiving the support they need?

[1510]

Hon. M.

Coell: This is a

definitions section. I'll just try and summarize for the

member. The

section sets out a general rule respecting eligibility applicable to

all sections of the act. It states that the eligibility of a family unit for a

form of assistance is subject not only to the eligibility of each family member

for whom the form of assistance is provided but also to the whole family not

having been declared ineligible for some other reason. In other words, if

assistance is provided for three people, all three people must maintain their

eligibility for that form. If the assistance is provided to one person in a

family of three, that individual must maintain eligibility for that assistance.

I could

give an example, maybe, that would be helpful. Each individual receiving a

benefit must be eligible. As an example, if a person receives a diet allowance

that is individualized, they must continue to

[ Page 3657 ]

be eligible in order to continue to receive that benefit as well.

J. Kwan:

Let me ask the minister questions relating to

section 2 for the issue around

children in the home of a relative. I believe

section 2 may provide the

legislative authority for the Child in the Home of a Relative program. If in

fact it does, I have some questions regarding the proposed changes to that

program.

The

Minister of Children and Family Development made it clear that when a child is

placed in the custody of a family member on an interim basis due to child

protection concerns, that family will be able to access support through the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. However, under the changes to the

Child in the Home of a Relative program, legal guardians or anyone who has

entered into a written agreement with the director as described under

section 8

of the Child, Family and Community Service Act will no longer be eligible for

the Child in the Home of a Relative funding. This will impact families with

little disposable income who have taken on the financial and emotional

responsibilities of caring for that child.

If there is

no concern expressed to the Ministry of Children and Family Development about

the protection of that child, no funding will be available to those people. The

effects of this change in policy directly and negatively impact children.

The

Minister of Children and Family Development also said during the throne speech

debate: "Time and time again, research tells us that the safety and

well-being of children are better secured by promoting family and community

capacity. In our ministry this means we will strive to keep children with their

families where possible, by putting the necessary supports in place."

That's directly from the throne speech debate.

What

alternatives is the Ministry of Human Resources developing to ensure that

low-income working families receive income assistance when they need it? Could

the minister please advise on the progress he's having with discussions with the

Minister of Children and Family Development on the possibility of maintaining

the Child in the Home of a Relative program?

Hon. M.

Coell: I also have the Minister of Children and Family Development with me

at this point.

Children

will still, of course, have access to the services of the Ministry of Children

and Family Development. The Child in the Home of a Relative program is going to

continue. We had proposed to make some changes with regard to legal guardians.

It was pointed out to us that that may be problematic, so we have asked both

ministries to review that decision and to bring back some options for us at the

end of June.

J. Kwan:

At the end of the June period, will the minister make that information available

to the public and to the opposition? The opposition would be happy to work with

the minister on this issue. It is a very important issue. I think we both stand

on the same ground — that children should not be jeopardized to save a small

amount of money. Therefore, the Child in the Home of a Relative program is

essential to ensure that children are not put at risk. I would urge the minister

to keep that program, and the opposition will offer any assistance we can to

work with the ministers in achieving that goal.

Hon. M.

Coell: I was just going to thank the member for that observation. I

appreciate it, and I'll take her up on the offer.

Sections 2

and 3 approved.

On

section

[1515]

J. Kwan:

Section 4 deals with income assistance and supplements. Could the minister

please advise the supplements that would apply for top-up of individuals on

income assistance? What are those supplements?

Hon. M.

Coell: This

section actually sets out a broad authority to provide income

assistance and supplements that are the same as the BC Benefits Act provision.

The supplements are generally provided to families in receipt of assistance.

Examples would be clothing moneys for persons in a care facility, diet

allowances and moving costs.

Some

supplements are not conditional on receipt of assistance. These would include

the bus pass and burial costs.

J. Kwan:

In the regulations that will spell out what those supplements are, given that we

don't have the regulations before us, could the minister please advise: are

there any items that will be deleted from the existing list of supplements being

provided to income assistance recipients? Will the amounts also change and, if

so, in what way?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's similar to the list that I provided for Bill 27. I'll endeavour

to get the list corresponding to this for the member if she wishes.

J. Kwan:

I want to be very specific around these issues, because time is of the essence.

The government has brought in closure. I'm feeling very anxious at this time, to

be frank with you. I have less than three hours to debate Bill 26. There are

many sections and many changes that will impact people's lives very

fundamentally. We're not talking about the lives of people who are endowed with

all kinds of supports. These are individuals who are basically just barely

surviving, given the limited support that they can receive from government.

I want to

be very specific with the minister in terms of what changes British Columbians

are going to be faced with in Bills 26 and 27. In this instance where

supplements are being referred to, I want to know specifically what supplements

will be eliminated, if any; what amounts will be changed, if so. And what are

those changes?

[ Page 3658 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: I will provide that list to the member. The regulations for that list

are still under development.

J. Kwan:

You know, the answers that the minister is providing are not good enough. I have

to say this in this House. Every question that I ask of the minister, he advises

this House: "That work is being developed. Don't worry; everything is

essentially, substantively, the same."

But it's

not going to be the same. Changes are coming. The minister himself has said that

changes are coming. There are substantive changes impacting people's eligibility

and what they're eligible for.

We're

talking about supplements. I want to know what supplement supports will be

eliminated, if any, and what amounts will be reduced, if they will be reduced.

Surely the

minister has some sense of what's coming before him. Or does he not know at all?

If he doesn't know, then this bill should not be in this House for debate, and

he ought to know that. He ought to know that, because he's got his budget, and

in his budget he's made cuts. He's anticipating that those cuts are going to

come from reduction in services and eligibility for people on income assistance.

[1520]

Will he

come clean and tell this House, on the issues around supplements, who will be

cut off, what supplements will be eliminated and if the rates will change or

not?

Hon. M.

Coell: We have tried to be, I think, as transparent as possible in the

three-year service plan and with the changes announced. I gave the member

examples of the supplements — the diet allowance and clothing allowance for

people in care facilities, bus passes, funeral costs. Those sorts of issues are

there now and will be there afterwards. A lot of the detail you're asking is

under development in regulations.

J. Kwan:

Let me ask the minister a specific question. What about seniors who are on

Canada Pension? They're on the Canada Pension Plan, and the money which they

receive does not reach the equivalent amount to those who would otherwise be on

income assistance. Formerly, there would be a top-up under the supplements

category. Would those seniors still be able to receive a top-up from this

ministry?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member is referencing the seniors supplement. There will

be no decrease in the amount that people are receiving over the next three

years, but there will not be an increase either.

J. Kwan:

Would the people who are applying now qualify to receive a supplement?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, it's based on income.

J. Kwan:

With the passage of Bill 26 and Bill 27 and the new regulations that would be in

place, the people who then apply for income assistance on CPP, who require

top-up from the government, would continue to receive that top-up. Is that what

the minister is saying?

Hon. M.

Coell: If the member means on top of the OAS and GIS, the answer is yes.

J. Kwan:

I'll ask the minister this question, then, on the issues around supplements.

There is a letter that has been written to the minister regarding child care

subsidies. I'm going to put the letter on record, because this ties into the

supplement piece:

"I'm

writing to voice my profound concern about the changes to subsidy

eligibilities for low-income families. These changes are especially

disappointing because they were implemented despite evidence of their

detrimental effects.

"Let

me remind you of the impacts of the changes you have prescribed. Reducing

the income threshold for subsidy eligibility by $285 per month means that

parents will implement cost-savings measures that will compromise the care

of their children.

"You

further trivialize the hardships of low-income families by establishing a

rule that abandons a subsidy claim of $50 or less. This amount of money or

less can easily provide nutrient-rich foods such as milk, cheese and bread

that are important for growth and development. Your changes will no doubt

increase the number of hungry children. Let me know why it is that you

believe the above changes will actually improve the well-being of children

in the province of British Columbia.

[1525]

"One

of the barriers to employment for parents of young children is access to

good quality, affordable child care. Their inability to meet child care

needs greatly reduces their opportunity for success, the opportunity for

them to move away from an income assistance–requiring existence. All

children, regardless of their parents' income, have the right to quality

care.

"Quality

includes (1) caregivers who are able to develop healthy working

relationships with parents and caring relationships with children; (2) a

stable and stimulating environment that nurtures emotional, intellectual,

physical and social needs of children; (3) consistent and educated

caregivers; and (4) caregivers who are connected with the professionals and

resources in the community."

Could the

minister advise, then, please: under the supplements category what changes are

being made, particularly in the area of child care subsidies? And what are the

rate reductions? The information I've received indicated that at least we're

looking at a reduction of the threshold for eligibility for subsidies by $285

per month, as has been pointed out by this letter from the Regional Child Care

Council of the capital regional district. Also, in our discussions with the

minister in the estimates, I understood that there would be a reduction in the

threshold for eligibility for child care subsidies.

Hon. M.

Coell: The child care legislation is with the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services. We administer that service. There are no

changes in either Bill 26 or 27 that would affect that legislation, but the

member is correct: there was a change in the

[ Page 3659 ]

criteria that we discussed in estimates of lowering the threshold by $285.

That's already taken place.

J. Kwan:

By lowering the threshold, how many people does the minister anticipate will

be impacted?

Hon. M.

Coell: That really isn't part of this legislative package in front of us.

J. Kwan:

Yes, it is before us right now. Right now we're talking about the income

assistance and supplements and about who is eligible and who is not eligible.

Part of the supplement is for child care subsidies. The minister has brought

about changes in the threshold for eligibility for those who need child care

subsidies; therefore, people would be impacted. Did the minister not know,

before he even brought in legislation, how many people would be impacted and how

they would be impacted?

Hon. M.

Coell: The changes are a separate act. It's the child care subsidy act. The

child care legislation is within the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services.

J. Kwan:

You know, it's funny. When questions were asked of the Minister of State for

Women's Equality on these issues, you know what she said? "It's not my

responsibility. Go and talk to someone else." So here we are asking the

Minister of Human Resources, who is administering this act, who is making people

eligible or not eligible. It's this minister's responsibility to make that

determination, and through his determination he's cutting the threshold of

eligibility for people.

Surely he

must have some sense in terms of how it is impacting people in this regard.

Surely he must. Given that it is this minister's mandate to make sure and work

towards helping people to get off of income assistance and into the workforce,

he must understand that there's a relationship between getting to work and the

availability of child care subsidies to parents who need those child care

subsidies so that they could get to work.

If the

minister has no understanding of that, then how could he say that these acts,

Bills 26 and 27, that he's bringing forward in this House, and cutting

eligibility thresholds for children and parents and families who need the child

care subsidy, would not impact them in terms of their future opportunities of

gaining employment? How could he possibly say that? How can he possibly say that

Bills 26 and 27 and the changes that are being brought about are actually good

for the people who need income assistance and child care subsidies from

government?

Hon. M.

Coell:

Section 4, which we're on, of Bill 26 does not have supplements or

subsidies in it for child care. That is clearly the child care subsidy act. That

legislation is with another ministry.

J. Kwan:

I'm just going to read

section 4 into the record, "Income assistance and

supplements."

[1530]

"Subject

to regulations, the minister may provide income assistance or a supplement to or

for a family unit that is eligible for it." I asked the minister the

questions around what the supplements are. Will there be changes to the existing

supplements that are already available? What changes are in the rates and

eligibility for those who would be eligible or need supplements?

The

minister was not able to give me a full list of what those supplements are, what

those rate changes are and around what those eligibilities are. He says those

are all under development. The only way British Columbians will know or have any

sense of what the intent of this government is, is for him to now say on record

who's eligible and who's not eligible and what those changes are.

For the

minister to suggest that it is not his responsibility under this

section of the

act is absolutely ludicrous. It's ludicrous for the minister to say that, save

and except that the minister has no sense of what his mandate is or how he is

going to achieve that mandate. His only driver, then, is to cut programs, cut

rates and cut eligibility, irrespective of what the impacts are. You know what?

I'm afraid that's what we're seeing right now before us in this Legislature with

this minister.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member fully understands the role of legislation and the

role of regulations. Clearly,

section 4 gives the government or the minister the

authority to provide supplements and income assistance for specific areas. I

outlined the areas. A child care subsidy is not a supplement under this act.

J. Kwan:

You know, the minister says that legislation is before us and that we're guided

by what the legislation says. He says that regulations will accompany the

legislation that will clearly define what falls within the legislation. The

minister said during estimates that he would provide the regulations

accompanying Bills 26 and 27 when they are before the House for debate. Well, to

date we have not seen the regulations before the House when we're engaging in

debate. The opposition asked the minister to stand down the bill and wait until

the regulations are before the House so that we can all know what this bill

means relative to the regulations. You know what? The minister rejected that at

every turn.

It's not

just me who wishes to know the answers to these questions. I see many people

visiting the gallery today who are here seeking these answers from the minister

as well. And those who are not here in the galleries today want to know what the

answers are, because the impacts of these changes are very fundamental to

people's lives. It makes a difference in people's lives.

Here we

have a minister who does not know the answer to the questions, and in spite of

that, he wants to ram through legislation in less than two and a half hours. In

less than two and a half hours the government is going to bring in closure to

shut down debate

[ Page 3660 ]

on Bill 26, impacting hundreds of thousands of people who are on income

assistance.

Hon. M.

Coell: We've had this discussion before. When B.C. Benefits came into

effect, the regulations were not tabled until a year later. I've made a

commitment to timely regulations so that people can see them. We're working on

them, but I can tell you it certainly won't be a year, as the previous

government took for their regulations for B.C. Benefits.

J. Kwan:

You know what? It's not the opposition who want to see the regulations before

this House. Your own members want to see the regulations before the House before

it has been debated. The member for Vancouver-Langara asked for the regulations

and criticized the government for not bringing the regulations before the House

for debate. It's not just the opposition who have these criticisms. The

government members — the government member for Vancouver-Langara — have

criticisms.

[1535]

The

minister can defend all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that before this

House, the minister himself does not know the answers to the questions. I want

to ask the minister how he can pass a piece of legislation when he himself

doesn't know what the ramifications of it are.

Section 4

approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

Section 5 deals with hardship assistance. Hardship assistance is provided,

subject to regulations, to families who are eligible for it and who are not

eligible for income assistance.

Could the

minister please advise how eligibility for hardship assistance will be

determined?

Hon. M.

Coell: In short, the regulation will set out the circumstances in which

persons who are ineligible for income assistance for specific reasons may be

considered for hardship assistance. For example, a person ineligible for income

assistance because he or she cannot supply a social insurance number may receive

hardship assistance as it is today.

The issuing

of hardship assistance is and always has been discretionary. Hardship assistance

is typically provided, as I said, where authorized by regulation when a person

has no other resources and is taking steps to rectify the problem that made the

person ineligible for income assistance.

J. Kwan:

Would the person applying for hardship assistance have to wait three weeks

before they're eligible?

Hon. M.

Coell: As the member has noted, hardship assistance is for those ineligible

for income assistance. There is a separate process, which is an emergency needs

assessment, which is done when someone shows up at one of our offices. Again,

it's for people who are ineligible, and there's an emergency needs assessment

done.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister then saying that there is no waiting time for someone who is in

need of hardship assistance, and they would therefore be able to get hardship

assistance immediately?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think I understand the question. If someone comes into an office,

they would apply. If they were, in their conversations, looking for hardship

assistance, they would have that emergency needs assessment done that day.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

Eligibility for hardship assistance. Is the minister then saying that the

eligibility for hardship assistance under Bill 26 and the regulations that we

have yet to see will not further limit people who are seeking hardship

assistance from the ministry? That is to say, the criteria for eligibility. It

would not be harder than what it already is right now for people to qualify for

hardship assistance. Is that what the minister is saying? He's giving the

commitment that the regulations, when they come into place, will not make it

harder for people to get hardship assistance from the ministry?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the answer is that if there is an emergency need, they would

receive hardship assistance that day. To give an example, if a refugee claimant

comes into the office today and there is an emergency needs assessment done,

that would be the same in the future as well.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister giving me the assurance that there will be no changes then to

the eligibility criteria for hardship under Bills 26 and 27 and the new

regulations that will be brought before the House at a later date?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member knows that I'm not able to make hard-and-fast

commitments on regulations that are under development.

J. Kwan:

Well, that's why we're in this process — for me to try and get answers from

the minister. The minister has not been able to give me any answers to the

questions that I've posed to him. He wants to make it sound as though everything

is the same, so don't worry because people will still be eligible for income

assistance, and people would be eligible in this instance for hardship

assistance — this when, in fact, things are going to change. What I'm trying

to get at is this: what changes are forthcoming? The minister needs to give

these answers to British Columbians. He needs to give answers to the people who

are sitting in the gallery, watching the minister for the answers. The minister

needs to give answers…

[ Page 3661 ]

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Excuse

me.

J. Kwan:

…even to his own members.

The

Chair: Member, would you be seated, please. I have to remind the gallery

that there's no interaction between the gallery and the House. In future, would

you please keep your comments to yourself? Thank you.

Member,

proceed.

J. Kwan:

The minister needs to give the answers to his own members. I've got the member

for Victoria-Hillside whispering to me, saying that things are the same and

there's no changes. So I want to know if there are changes forthcoming. If so,

what are they? The member behind me, for Cariboo South, is saying that there are

no changes and that people are able to get hardship assistance. Well, that is

the case now, but with Bills 26 and 27 and new regulations coming forward, I

want to know who's going to be impacted. Is it going to be harder for people to

receive hardship assistance? If so, what is it? The minister needs to come clean

and tell us in this House now.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think during second reading debate on both Bills 26 and 27, I was

very clear as to the direction the government is moving.

We want to

have a bill that provides assistance for those in need and opportunity through

job placement and training programs. It provides independence. It develops the

human potential. I understand the member's consistent desire for regulations

that aren't developed. We're dealing with legislation here. We're dealing with

the principles of moving forward with assistance, opportunity, independence for

people and developing the human potential. I understand where the member is

coming from, but I think she has to realize that the direction of this bill, and

the direction of Bill 27, is to enhance people's ability to be independent and

to have the opportunities there for them.

We're going

to spend $300 million on job training programs over the next three years. As a

matter of fact, in our mandate over the four years we'll spend $6.6 billion on

income assistance. There are many people on income assistance who want to work.

We're going to, I think, add to the programs that the member and her former

government started. We hope to see people being able to access jobs through the

training and placement programs that we have.

[1545]

J. Kwan:

It's clear; it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that the minister doesn't

have the answers. He does not know what the answers are. If he does, he doesn't

want to tell the public. He keeps on trying to imply that there are no changes

— so don't worry; be happy — when we know the difference. We know what Bills

26 and 27 are going to do. A lot of people are going to be cut off income

assistance. Their rates are going to be reduced. Eligibility is going to be

harder. There's no way of getting around it.

All we want

to know in this House as we engage in this debate is how people are going to be

impacted. What's becoming clearer and clearer is that the minister has no idea

whatsoever what the answers are. This is not good enough, minister.

I have to

say, because every time I look over…. I'm watching the clock. It's now a

quarter to four, and I'm feeling increasingly anxious because I have so many

questions. I have binders and binders full of questions to ask the minister, and

by 6 o'clock there will be closure in this House, and those questions will not

be asked in this House. British Columbians will not have an opportunity to find

out what the intent of the government is under Bill 26. I'm becoming

increasingly anxious with that.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly that I do have a lot of questions

around income assistance relative to

section 5 on the hardship assistance

eligibility, but I feel that I'm under much duress and that I'm not able to ask

all of these questions because of time limitations.

I also want

to say thank you very much to the people who have taken time out of their lives

to come to the gallery today to witness this undemocratic process that the

government has put before us, bringing forward closure and impacting people's

lives. I very much appreciate them taking the time out of their lives to do

that.

I also want

to say that we respect the rules that accord to this House. Thank you for

guidance from the Chair that the gallery is not to participate in the debate by

comments and the like. We appreciate that, and we will respect the rules of this

House. But you know what? We also expect the minister to provide answers to the

questions in this House.

Sections 5

to 7 inclusive approved.

On

section

Hon. M.

Coell: I move the amendment to

section 8 standing in my name on the orders

of the day.

[SECTION 8, by deleting the proposed

section 8 (1) and

substituting the following:

(1) For a family unit to be eligible for income

assistance, at least one applicant in the family unit must have

(

a) been

employed for remuneration for at least the prescribed number of hours in

each of two consecutive years,

(

b) earned

remuneration for employment in at least the prescribed amount in each of two

consecutive years, or

(

c) been

employed for remuneration for a portion of two consecutive years and for the

balance of those years either

(

i) served a waiting period in respect of, or received

benefits under, a claim under the Employment Insurance Act (Canada), or

(ii) received

income under a public or private income replacement program or plan.]

[ Page 3662 ]

Stewart: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: It is my pleasure today to introduce some visiting students from my

riding: Mr. Shong, their teacher, and 40 grade 5 students from R.C. MacDonald

Elementary School, just a few blocks from my home in Coquitlam. I just had a

tremendously interesting barrage of questions from these students, and I would

ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise: what is the difference with the amendment and

what is outlined in the bill?

Hon. M.

Coell: The former was too strict, and the amendment makes it easier for

people to qualify.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister be specific?

Hon. M.

Coell: Simply, it allows an annual total rather than a number of hours per

month.

J. Kwan:

Let me ask the minister this question. Formerly, under

section 8 the requirement

was for two years of employment. Is the minister now saying that that two-year

requirement is being reduced? If so, could he please advise what the length of

time is now?

[1550]

Hon. M.

Coell: There is still a requirement for two years, but the way you count up

to the two years has been broadened.

J. Kwan:

In what way?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's the annual total of hours instead of a monthly total of hours.

Amendment

approved.

section

8 as amended.

J. Kwan:

This issue has been brought up to the opposition by one community group in terms

of concern around the changes. Here's what they have to say on the proposed

years of continuing employment or EI eligibility prior to applying for income

assistance. They say that this is outrageous and clearly discriminates against

women so that now when a battered woman who has been doing unpaid work in her

home tries to leave, there'll be nothing for her. They'd like to have the

minister explain how this is not going to cost women their lives.

Hon. M.

Coell: There are a number of exemptions, and I will go through them for the

member. Exempt would be a person fleeing abuse, families with children, children

in care at age 19, a pregnant person, persons with a two-year diploma or

bachelor's degree, a person with a medical condition that prevented them from

working, a person leaving prison after at least six months and a homemaker

supported for at least the last two years.

J. Kwan:

How many individuals or families does this minister expect this change will

impact?

Hon. M.

Coell: It is hard to say. The purpose of the

section is to reduce the

likelihood of young people transitioning from home to welfare without having any

employment attachment and, as a result, becoming dependent on welfare.

J. Kwan:

The minister says that it's hard to know. Surely the ministry must have done

some projections in terms of what the impacts might be before changes are being

brought about. They must have some projections and some sense of who's going to

be impacted and how many people would be impacted in the community.

Hon. M.

Coell: That's really speculative. I think what we were looking at was

getting young people into the job training and placement programs rather than

leaving home and going on income assistance. It will more than likely affect

that age group, but the idea is for us to help them find employment through

government programs.

J. Kwan:

The people who I anticipate will be impacted by this are the applicants aged 19

and over, who will now be required to be independent for two years after leaving

their parents' home to be eligible for income assistance. Is that the intent of

this bill — targeting that age group?

[1555]

Hon. M.

Coell: The intent is not to target that age group in the bill. It is to give

some incentive for that age group to take

part in job-training or placement

programs or go back to school, if they have left school.

J. Kwan:

I just want to say on record that what the minister calls incentive, others

would call coercion. The minister would like to say that it is a way to help

people to get off income assistance. Others would say that what the minister is

doing is creating further hardship for individuals who need income assistance,

particularly in the group we're talking about. Those who are 19 years old who

may not have lived independently for two years may not be eligible to qualify

for income assistance. This actually restricts their eligibility. That's what

this clause is all about.

You know

what? I disagree with the minister when he says it is an incentive to help

people to stay off in-

[ Page 3663 ]

come assistance. There are situations out there in the broader community

where I have to say: "Thank goodness that I have never had to experience

that." There may well be people who are experiencing tremendous hardships,

perhaps traumas, in the home, and other situations may be occurring to them. As

a result of that, they may have to leave the family home. They may not be able

to have employment. They may not be able to find work and maintain work for two

years before they can apply for income assistance.

For the

government to now put in legislation to say that those people will not be

eligible for income assistance unless they've been employed for a consecutive

period of 24 months is wrong. It is not an incentive at all. It is actually

assisting people to live in hardship. That's what the government is doing. Let's

just be clear about that.

The

opposition will not support the government's attempt to cause more hardship for

the people who are in need of income assistance from government.

Hon. M.

Coell: I just want to go over again the list of exemptions, because I think

they go a long way to satisfying the comments that the member made. People would

be exempt from that two-year requirement who are fleeing abuse, whether they be

male or female; families with children; children in care at age 19; a pregnant

person; persons with a two-year diploma or a bachelor's degree; persons with a

medical condition that prevents them from working; persons leaving a prison from

at least six months; and homemakers who have been supported in the home for the

past two years.

J. Kwan:

It's fine for the minister to say that he has a list that exempts certain

categories of people, but what he hasn't put in place, of course, are the people

who don't fall into that list. That those people don't fall into that list

doesn't mean that they won't face hardships. It does not mean that at all.

For the

minister to pretend, just because he's got a list…. He says, "Here's the

list of people who won't be impacted," but over here there's another,

greater list of the people who will be impacted. The minister is just closing

his eyes, and he can't even see that. Somehow he thinks that is okay.

You know

what? For the opposition, it isn't okay. Income assistance is supposed to be

there for the people who need it the most, irrespective of whether or not they

are pregnant or otherwise. There is no justification to say only some people

will qualify and others will not. If they are faced with the same kinds of

financial challenges, they ought to qualify. It's as simple as that.

I ask the

minister to simply understand this principle, a principle that's widespread.

That is to say: for a country as rich as ours, there is no acceptable reason

whatsoever for us to find anybody sleeping under a bridge. It is a basic

principle, and that basic principle applies to the people who need income

assistance.

For that,

the opposition will be voting against this

section of the bill.

[1600-1605]

Section 8

as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 56

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Hawkins

Whittred

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Orr

Harris

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Hayer

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Hunter

NAYS — 4

Anderson

MacPhail

Kwan

Christensen

[1610]

[H. Long in the chair.]

Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Penner: It's my privilege to introduce to the House a class from the riding

of Chilliwack-Kent from the Mount Cheam Christian School. Mr. Adrian

Stoutjesdyk, at one time a teacher of mine, is here today along with 15 grade 12

students as well as some grade 4 advanced students, if I'm not mistaken. They're

here for a tour, and I look forward to speaking to them in a few minutes. Would

the House please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

On

section

[ Page 3664 ]

S. Orr:

I just want to say a couple of things. I want to talk about

section 9, which is

the employment plan, but I also want to say that I appreciate and understand the

changes that are being made in this bill. I also recognize that in a lot of the

sections that we just went through, there are great similarities to what we had

previously. The issue is that I took the time to go ahead and meet with the

minister and his staff. That was open to everybody and not just to me. That was

a very worthwhile thing that I did, and I did it over a long period of time. It

answered a lot of questions. I think in the essence of saying that there's no

time, I find that quite frustrating because, in fact, there was a lot of time to

get a lot of answers.

What I want

to get to now is the employment plan. I've read this very carefully, so my

questions are quite succinct, and I don't need to go through each

section

because I've looked over the whole plan. Where I'm having trouble is…. I'm

assuming, Mr. Chair, it's okay for me to go to No. 7.

The

concerns that I've been getting from my constituents are twofold. One is the

concern of the employment plan not being appealable. I'll explain to you why the

concern about the employment plan not being appealable. This is not a perfect

world, and clients don't necessarily always have a good relationship with their

worker. I realize that they try, but it's life, and that happens. My concern is

that somebody goes to set up an employment plan with the worker, they have a bad

relationship, and the worker basically, after so many attempts, says: "You

will take this employment plan, and if you don't take this employment plan, then

you are cut off." That is my concern, because that person has nowhere else

to go — unless I'm wrong and the minister can explain to me for my

constituents that there is some process if that situation happens.

[1615]

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll try to explain this in a couple of ways. The employment plan

isn't appealable to the tribunal, but within the ministry we have a whole

service quality process. In addition, the decision can go through a

reconsideration which is in this act at the stage and the ministry will outline

in administrative procedures. That shouldn't take place.

Just to

expand a bit on the new provision for income assistance, the Youth Works

referral used to be formalized into an employment plan and extended to income

assistance. It's similar to the Youth Works act, where a referral could not be

appealed.

MacPhail: I'm making a request to the House and to the committee Chair to

consider this. Given time allocation and the closure that's being brought

forward on this bill, there is an incredible number of very important sections

on which we wish to register our vote. The fact of the matter is that if we did

that, all of our time would disappear.

I propose

this: that we name the sections upon which we wish to vote by division, that all

be called together at a time where we may conclude a certain part of our debate

on this before third reading and that division be called once we waive our time

limits, but that each vote on each

section be held separately.

The

Chair: Is the committee in agreement on the request?

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

The

Chair: Then we will proceed.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Government House Leader?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: What's the problem?

The

Chair: There has been a request by the opposition that we not have a

division on each and every

section of this bill, that we wait until the end of

the bill and vote on each

section at one time in this House without calling

everyone back — with one division.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: That's fine.

MacPhail: I want to clarify that it's one time for division, but we name the

sections — I can give you the sections right now — and call a separate vote

on each one, but all at once without…. Waiving the time limits….

The

Chair: I was well aware of your request, and now I think the minister is.

Minister?

Hon. B.

Barisoff: That's fine.

The

Chair: There is agreement.

MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan:

section 9, which deals with the employment plan, under

section 9(1) not only

must the applicant in the family enter into an employment plan, but every

applicant and recipient must do so at the request of the minister.

How many

people will now be required to enter into an employment plan? What problems may

arise because of inadequate time and expertise of the government worker to

properly assess eligibility? This may well result in an employment plan that

contains unhelpful conditions or conditions that are impossible for a person to

meet.

Could the

minister please address the question of problems that could arise from this

requirement? How many people will be required to enter into an employment plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: One or both adults would be required to enter into an employment

plan. It does not include children.

[ Page 3665 ]

J. Kwan:

The minister may also require dependent youths to enter into employment plans. A

dependent youth means a dependent child who reaches the age of 16. In what

circumstances will a dependent youth be required to enter into an employment

plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: Simply if the child is not in school.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

It's irrespective of age, then. It is just whether or not the child is in

school. I'd have thought that if it's a school-age child who is supposed to be

going to school but is not, in that instance that child would have to enter into

an employment plan. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M.

Coell: A child who is under 16 comes under the School Act, so there is a

separate set of regulations and legislation. This is specifically for people 16,

17 and 18. If they've left school, then we would want them to have an employment

plan. That employment plan could have an educational side to it as well as a

training side to it.

J. Kwan:

If the dependent youth does not comply with the requirements of the employment

plan, the amount of income assistance provided to the entire family will be

reduced by the prescribed amount of the prescribed period. Could the minister

please explain, then, how that reduction would take place? We canvassed this

briefly in estimates. The minister had advised that when the legislation was

tabled, he'd be able to provide the answer to the House. The legislation is now

tabled. Could the minister please, then, provide the answer to the House? What

kind of reductions would the family be faced with, and how would that work?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's a discretionary application. If the person was non-compliant,

that could mean a reduction of $100 a month until they were compliant. The issue

here is to hopefully have 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds either in school or in some

sort of training or education program that would be part of the employment plan.

There are a

couple of issues that I would like to touch on with regard to families, and

that's with regard to rates. We talked about this earlier. Let me give you an

example. An employable single parent with four children in British Columbia has

a monthly net income of $1,980. They also have the Healthy Kids dental and

optical program, and they also would not pay MSP costs. That's the employable

single person with four children, at $1,980. An employable single parent with

three children would have a monthly income of $1,695 and would not pay MSP and

would have the Healthy Kids dental and optical program.

The option

here is with people with children. If they're 16 to 18, we want to see them have

some sort of planning for their future or remain in school and finish grade 12.

As I think the member knows, there is a very high percentage of children on

income assistance who aren't finishing school. We want to make sure we can

somehow correct that.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer the question, though, on people who would be reduced.

In terms of the rates that would be reduced, how would that work? Let's say you

were in a family of five, four of which are children. As the minister knows, the

rate with each of the children varies. With the number of children, the rates

increase differently, and there's a different differential. If one of those

children of the family of five is not complying with the act as per the

employment plan requirements, there is a reduction in that family unit's rate.

How much money would be reduced in that particular family unit, as an example?

How would that rate reduction take place?

[1625]

Hon. M.

Coell: Using the member's example of a family of five where four are

children — so you'd have a single parent with four children…. As I say, it's

a discretionary application, but we are looking at $100 per child. I think it's

very unlikely you would have a family with a 16-, 17- and 18-year-old on income

assistance. But they would be looking at a $100-per-child reduction if they did

not comply with the employment plan. That would only last as long as the child

was out of compliance with either re-entering school or being part of the

employment plan process.

J. Kwan:

Will people on income assistance under

section 9(7) of the act be able to

appeal internally to the district supervisor? As we understand it, all decisions

made under this

section are final and conclusive. They're not open to review by

a court on any grounds or appeal under

section 17(3). So will people be able to

appeal internally to the district supervisor, or what recourse will be available

for people for appeal?

Hon. M.

Coell: You would be able to have reconsideration and also appeal to the

district supervisor. What we want to have is a whole quality service process,

where a decision can go to reconsideration within the ministry. That is outlined

in the act.

J. Kwan:

What happens when an individual is unable to meet the conditions of the

employment plan, if those conditions are impossible for the individual to

achieve? Would they be able to alter those conditions with the ministry —

appeal those conditions? What due process will be afforded to them?

Hon. M.

Coell: The provision we're discussing here is only if someone is unwilling

to take

part in an employment plan. I think what we're looking for is that

conditions could be revised and, I'm sure, will be revised. The

section really

deals with people who are unwilling to be part of an employment plan.

[ Page 3666 ]

J. Kwan:

The question is not for people who are unwilling. The question is for people

who are unable to meet the conditions of the employment plan. What provisions

would be available to them to alter that employment plan so that they're able to

meet those conditions so that they would not be penalized because of this

ridiculous requirement of the government?

Hon. M.

Coell: I guess the simple answer is that if someone was unable to meet the

conditions, those conditions could be revised. If it's not appropriate, it

wouldn't be imposed.

J. Kwan:

Well, in the real world there are lots of situations where people are

imposing conditions which people cannot meet. In Bill 27 we're going to talk

about that — how people with disabilities would not be able to meet some of

the eligibility criteria that the minister has brought forward under Bill 27.

Nonetheless, those things are being imposed on the people.

We're going

to face the same situation here with the employment plan, so the question is not

about whether people are unwilling to meet the employment plan requirements. The

question is going to be about their inability to achieve the plan. What process

would be afforded to those individuals to alter that plan accordingly so that

they would not be penalized?

[1630]

Hon. M.

Coell: I would think they would start off by talking with their financial

aid worker to look at revisions that they felt were appropriate. I think the

important thing here is that this plan is designed for someone to succeed —

for someone to either get more training or more education or get a job. It's

designed to help 16-, 17-, 18-year-olds not become dependent on income

assistance.

J. Kwan:

Clearly, the minister is either unable or unwilling to understand the point.

He's failed to address the point that I've raised.

I am very

conscious of the time, as I'm becoming increasingly anxious. We have so many

sections of the bill yet to debate, and it's 4:30 p.m. already. The time limit

is going to be imposed on us in an hour and a half, and closure of the debate

will then take place.

I don't

agree with the minister's approach with the employment plan. It's not that I

don't agree with the notion of trying to assist and provide support to people

who are on income assistance to get gainful employment. I don't oppose that at

all. What I oppose is the government's approach in bringing forward employment

plans that lack complete understanding of the person's circumstances. Even if

the person is working hard to develop an employment plan to gain employment, but

they're unable to meet the plan, under this bill that particular individual and

family unit may be penalized by the government with a reduction in rates,

irrespective of their circumstances. That I oppose — the government's agenda

and approach to helping people get off income assistance.

To that

end, my colleague and I will be voting against

section 9 by division, which will

be called at a later time when all of the votes are being called.

As well, I

have a piece of correspondence here that has been submitted to the opposition

with concerns around the employment plan. It's actually very detailed and

outlines many of the different aspects under

section 9. I'm not going to take

the time, unfortunately, to read this letter into the record. We haven't got

time to do that at this point, but I will be tabling this document to the Chair,

so that it will be registered on Hansard , verbatim, as being put forward

by this individual.

I also wish

to put on record that this individual's letter remain anonymous, so the writer

of the letter is not going to be on record, but the content of the letter would

be on record for the public and the minister to review at a later time.

The

Chair: Shall

section 9 pass?

J. Kwan:

Division.

The

Chair: Division deferred until the end of the bill.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 10 deals with the information and verification.

Section 10 of the

Employment and Assistance Act will provide the requirements for the three-week

waiting period prior to receiving assistance.

The

Minister of Human Resources has said that the three-week job search is meant to

provide time for people to find employment. What emergency support will be

available to people who are in emergency situations and cannot last three weeks

without financial support?

Hon. M.

Coell: The question doesn't specifically relate to this section, but we did

cover it earlier in that there's an emergency needs assessment that is done when

someone appears the first time in the office.

J. Kwan:

That's for hardship. That's what we were talking about earlier. In emergency

situations the minister said that the people would be eligible for hardship

assistance, although we don't exactly understand who would be eligible for

hardship assistance.

[1635]

Here we

have a situation now where the minister is going to require income assistance

recipients to wait three weeks before they're eligible to actually get the

assistance that they need. During that three-week period…. It's already

happening, by the way. There are people who have come into my office right now

who are saying that they're not able to get income assistance from the

government. They've been told they have to wait for the three-week period to

pass. Already it's a

[ Page 3667 ]

problem. No matter what emergency situation people are posing, they are not

able to get past the government to get the assistance.

I want the

minister to be very specific and very clear about what those emergency

situations are and how a person would be able to access income assistance

support, overriding the three-week wait period. I want a specific answer from

the minister. It is now 4:35, and we have less and less time to debate this

bill. The government and the minister are responsible for this act. He must tell

British Columbians who can bypass the three-week wait period and in what

circumstances.

Hon. M.

Coell: We did talk about emergency needs assessment for hardship. It is also

available for income assistance, especially with reference to the three-week

period. I think it's the same today as it was a few months ago, if a person had

no money for food or rent or had been given an eviction notice.

J. Kwan:

An internal ministry document states that "only 15 to 20 percent of

inquirers are expected to require emergency needs assessment."

This

clearly indicates that the safety valve to provide for emergency situations will

be limited by money and not by the actual needs of the applicants. Some regions

have even advised their front-line staff that they are not obligated to tell

inquirers about the availability of emergency resources when they inquire about

how they are supposed to make ends meet over the three-week waiting period.

The

minister says: "Don't worry; people who need the assistance will be able to

get it." The reality, the real world outside of this chamber, tells you

otherwise. As I said, it is already happening that people are not able to get

income assistance because of the three-week requirement. I've been advised by

constituents that when they go to the office asking for assistance, people just

laugh in their face because of this requirement.

Will the

minister please advise, and will he instruct his staff out there on the front

lines? It's not because they don't want to provide assistance, but because the

regulations and the act before them require them to do such. Those staff need to

make sure that the people who qualify to receive income assistance but cannot

wait the three-week period are receiving income assistance now. The minister

needs to advise the staff accordingly and change the impression and practice

that is now already taking place in the front-line offices.

Hon. M.

Coell: The member's comments about our staff don't reflect policy are not my

experience in dealing with our staff. I have had the privilege to travel to many

of our offices and meet with our staff. I find them to be very professional.

We're going through changes of acts which I know are challenging for staff, and

I think they're doing it in a very professional and very good way.

All our

policies are on the Internet. They're all public documents. The emergency

services policy is there for people to see as well.

J. Kwan:

The issue is not with staff. The issue is with the policies and the regulations

and the intentions of this government. The intention of this government is to

make income assistance less available for the people who are in need. That's

what Bill 26 does; that's what this

section of the act does. It precludes people

from getting income assistance when they need it for at least three weeks, and

there are no alternatives.

You know

what? Advocates in the community have provided information sheets to the

applicants to go to the office with. When they show them the information asking

the office to bypass the three-week requirement because they are in a dire

situation, an emergency situation, the staff there are not accepting that

request. That is the reality of what's going on right now in the community. I

know it because constituents have phoned my office and advised us that that is

the situation they are in right now. For the minister to say otherwise is simply

untrue.

[1640]

The

minister needs to be clear about what the regulations are that would apply to

emergency situations in which people are able to receive income assistance and

instruct staff accordingly as well. If the minister is saying that there are two

criteria that would apply — (

a) if you have no money and (

b) if you're faced

with an eviction notice, then you would be able to bypass the three-week wait

period — then I would expect the minister to send that out in memo form to all

of the staff and post it on the website so that everybody understands what the

intentions are under this

section of the act.

Hon. M.

Coell: We have a policy manual, and it has a

section on emergency needs

assessment with instructions to our staff. It's available at our offices, or

it's available on the MHR website.

J. Kwan:

The website does not say that clearly, and the minister knows it. I actually

have a copy of the website somewhere here, but I'm not going to bother reading

that into the record and wasting time in the debate in the House. What I'm

asking the minister to do, then, is put his answer to my question about who is

qualified, under emergency purposes, to be able to bypass the three-week wait

period. His answers contained two areas: (

a) if you're faced with an eviction

notice and (

b) if you have no money. That's what the minister said, and I would

expect that to be posted on the website.

I'm not

going to spend any more time on this

section — again, because I'm very anxious

with the time, the clock that's ticking. Closure is being brought to the House

on this bill, and we're running out of time to debate many of the important

sections that will dramatically impact people's lives.

[ Page 3668 ]

I'd like to

just close with this, to the minister. It was actually reported on April 25 in Monday

Magazine , about a particular person's situation.

"Cheryl,

a single mother faced with homelessness, is horrified to be considering a

return to prostitution, which she left when her child was born five years

ago. She had received income assistance before, but when she recently

reapplied, she was told to come back in three weeks, after doing a job

search. 'When they said that they have made a change, yeah, you can see it.

It was just so cold, so unfeeling, so unconcerned. My pimp showed me more

compassion. They actually asked: "Is there anyone who can help

you?'"

This is an

article that was recent, as a result of the changes this

government, this minister, is bringing about, impacting people's lives right

now, today.

Hon. M.

Coell: I just want to, for the member…. A single parent with one child in

British Columbia would be eligible for $1,132. They wouldn't pay MSP. They would

have the Healthy Kids dental and optical program.

J. Kwan:

The minister has just demonstrated an absolute lack of understanding of what it

is he is to do as the Minister of Human Resources and what the ramifications of

his own bill are for British Columbians. It is absolutely shocking. The

opposition is going to vote against this

section of the bill. It is disgusting,

and there is just absolutely no way anybody in this House who has a conscience

and who says that they care about British Columbians and the people who need

support and help from government would support this

section of the bill.

The

Chair: Shall

section 10 pass?

J. Kwan:

Division.

The

Chair: Division will be deferred.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 11 deals with the reporting obligations. Could the minister please

tell…? As a condition of eligibility of a family, they must submit a report to

the minister. What must this report contain?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's the monthly reporting form that is currently in use. There'll be

no change.

Section 11

approved.

section

[1645]

J. Kwan:

Section 12 deals with the registration in land title office. The assistance

provided to a recipient or a dependent child in prescribed circumstances will be

considered a debt if they own a family residence and if they have been receiving

income assistance for six months in any of the 12-month period. The minister can

collect on a debt by registering a certificate of lien against the family home.

Will the

minister go so far as to take away a family's home? How many people currently

receiving income assistance will see a lien placed on their home? What have been

the results of this policy in other jurisdictions? Do these results warrant all

the extra legal administrative work that a policy like this one will create?

Hon. M.

Coell: The purpose is not to take the individual's home away. There's no

provision to have them sell their home. This is consistent with what Manitoba

has been doing, and also Ontario. We want people to move off income assistance

and to work. This is one of the ways the ministry will have as an ability to

recoup payments if they have made payments for a number of years, if and when

that person sells the house.

J. Kwan:

The Vernon and District Women's Centre Society has commented on the introduction

of liens. They ask how this is any different from government expropriation of

land or assets. "The philosophy this is based on is extremely frightening.

It gives government broad sweeping powers that are, in our view, an abuse of

power. One woman said to me yesterday she would rather live on the streets and

dumpster-dive than let the government have that much control and power over

their lives." A letter from the Vernon and District Women's Centre Society

addressed to the MLA for Okanagan-Vernon.

Mr. Chair,

I have a lot of questions and concerns on this

section of the bill. I am highly

conscious of the time and the lack of time that we have in debating this bill

because of closure that's been brought in by government. The opposition will be

voting against

section 12 by division.

The

Chair: Shall

section 12 pass? Division will be deferred.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 13 deals with the consequences of not meeting the employment-related

obligations.

Section

13(1): the family unit who "(

a) fails to accept suitable employment, (

b) voluntarily leaves employment without just cause, (

c) is dismissed from

employment for just cause, (

d) fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to search

for employment…." These families will see their disability or hardship

assistance reduced if they have dependent children or eliminated if they do not.

Section

13(3): certain categories of family units may not face the above noted

consequences for failing to meet employment requirements. Could the minister

please advise very quickly what categories of family units will be exempted?

Hon. M.

Coell: With the member's permission, there is an amendment for this section.

If we could do that first?

[ Page 3669 ]

Hon. Chair,

I move the amendment to

section 13(1) standing in my name on the orders of the

day.

[SECTION 13, in the proposed

section 13 (1) by deleting

"terms" and substituting "conditions".]

the amendment.

J. Kwan:

Just a quick question on the amendment. What's the significance of this

amendment?

Hon. M.

Coell: Consistency with

section 9.

J. Kwan:

Sorry, not on the amendment. Go ahead with the amendment.

Amendment

approved.

section

13 as amended.

[1650]

J. Kwan:

The question to the minister on

section 13: what categories of family units will

be exempted?

Hon. M.

Coell: I can give some examples. They would be single parents with children

under three, those who have temporary medical conditions, people 65-plus, a

child in the home of a relative, persons with persistent multiple barriers and

persons in care facilities.

J. Kwan:

The opposition will be voting against this section. I believe the provisions

that are stipulated in this

section of the act make it very difficult for

individuals who may lose their employment for one reason or another. Sometimes

individuals who have lost their employment may not be able to identify just

cause. It may be that they have quit their job because of harassment in the

workplace. It may be that they've quit their job because the workplace

environment is unsafe for that individual. Because the person's quit their job,

they will be cut off from the ability to qualify for income assistance.

This is

just one example that I'm going to use of how this could place hardship on

people without thinking about what the ramifications are and how the definition

of eligibility creates hardships for people. To that end, the opposition will be

voting against

section 13 by division.

The

Chair: Shall

section 13 as amended pass?

MacPhail: Division.

The

Chair: Division will be deferred.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 14 deals with the consequences of not accepting or of disposing of

property. Will any recipients currently receiving income assistance no longer be

eligible because of the extension to two years? Why was this change necessary?

Hon. M.

Coell: We've extended the window from one year to two, and it really applies

to new applicants. The members may remember that in the GAIN Act it was a period

of five years and then went to one year in B.C. Benefits. The two-year increase

is to prevent transfers of property to avoid liens. As I said, it's really a

one-to-two-year window applying to new applicants.

J. Kwan:

According to

part 7,

section 9 of the B.C. Benefits manual,

section 10 of the BC

Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, entitled "Consequences of Not Accepting

or of Disposing of Property," is the

section that provides the authority to

change earning exemptions and asset levels. Therefore, it would seem that

section 14 of Bill 26 would provide the same authority. Earnings exemptions are

an important component in assisting income assistance recipients off of income

assistance.

The

government's making that change now, impacting many British Columbians on that

front — not just the people who are receiving income assistance but also the

organizations who receive the support of those who are on income assistance

doing, perhaps, work in those non-profit organizations that would otherwise not

be able to get it were it not for the people on income assistance providing that

support to those organizations.

section

14 the opposition will also be voting against this

section of the bill.

The

Chair: Shall

section 14 pass?

[1655]

MacPhail: Division.

The

Chair: Division will be deferred.

section

J. Kwan:

Section 15 of the act deals with the consequences for conviction, acknowledgment

or judgment in relation to the act.

If a person

in a family unit is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code in relation

to obtaining money under this act, then the whole family unit either sees their

assistance reduced for the time that the person is a member of that family unit,

or they will see their assistance eliminated for the period of that person's

lifetime. If a person in a family unit is convicted of an offence under this act

or the Employment and Assistance Act, then this will see the assistance reduced

or eliminated for a period of 12 consecutive months for the first conviction, 24

consecutive months for the second conviction and lifetime for the third

conviction.

I just want

to take a moment to highlight this issue. The Kimberly Rogers case in Ontario

questioned the constitutional validity of imposing a ban on a recipient of

social assistance. The concern is that this law is

[ Page 3670 ]

criminal law and therefore violates the divisions of power and violates

sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Charter.

Will the

minister remove this

section on the basis that it will cause great hardship? If

the minister will not remove this

section altogether, will he amend the

section

to allow government workers discretion in disqualifying people from much-needed

assistance? Allowing government workers discretion when disqualifying recipients

will ensure that no one — no one — will live in a situation like that of

Kimberly Rogers.

Hon. M.

Coell: We're not planning to make a change here. The sanctions are intended

to discourage people from committing fraud and to prevent those who have

previously committed fraud from reoffending.

J. Kwan:

I should just give up asking questions of the minister. He simply has no

understanding whatsoever of his own act and the ramifications of this bill.

The

opposition will be voting against

section 15. As I've highlighted, the Kimberly

Rogers situation could very well occur here in British Columbia. The minister

seems oblivious to that possibility. He just simply doesn't care. The opposition

will not be supporting such a crass approach to grabbing money from people who

need income assistance in British Columbia.

The

Chair: Shall

section 15 pass?

MacPhail: Nay.

The

Chair: Division will be deferred.

Section 16

approved.