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, OCTOBER 22, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Louise Anne Marcoux Stewart

R. Stewart

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Victoria's assets

J. Bray

Small business in B.C.

K. Johnston

Seven Oaks psychiatric facility

S. Brice

Oral Questions

Minister's dinner meeting with Liberal Party contributors

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

Kyoto accord

B. Lekstrom

Hon. R. Neufeld

Minister's dinner meeting with Liberal Party contributors

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill

62) (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. M. Coell

V. Anderson

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Hon. G. Plant

Hon. J. Reid

[ Page 3951 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the buildings with us today is a class of 40 grade 10 students

from Mark R. Isfeld Senior Secondary School in Courtenay in the beautiful Comox

Valley, one of the greatest places in British Columbia to live. They're

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Fussell. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. M.

Coell: I hope the House will please make Jeff Paleczny, from the Sierra Club

and a member of my Saanich North and the Islands constituency, welcome today.

B. Kerr:

I'd like to introduce a guest that's well known to the province. She's a

conservation chair of the Sierra Club. She's also a recipient of the Order of

Canada and the Order of British Columbia. Would the House please make Vicky

Husband welcome.

[1405]

S. Orr:

Today in the precinct we have a group of wonderful students from my riding from

the Montessori School. We also have one of our hard-working UVic Young Liberals,

Trisha Girard. Also, she is a member of the executive of the B.C. Young

Liberals. Would the House please make her welcome.

Bennett: I'd like to introduce one of my housemates, one of my roommates

from Victoria, and den mother. Would the House please help me make welcome Lonie

Belsey.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Fourteen years ago a tradition was started in this House that has

come to exemplify the greatness of those that sit here in this House. We do

battle with the press at a tennis tournament in the spring on an annual basis.

It's been 14 years, and the MLAs have won that tournament all but one year. That

was the year that none of us showed up. This year, of course, the press, in all

their splendour — and they're there today…. It's good that that member of

the press is here, because I think he was the vice-captain of the team. The

other captain was Les Leyne.

You know,

you would think that in sporting events it would be the young, the vigorous, the

muscular and those that are in full shape and condition in their youth who would

be able to look after a group such as us, the MLAs of this province, but I have

to say that after 72 games…. The wind and the sun were burning. It was, I

think, a clear 95 degrees that day. Seventy-two games, and the MLAs again proved

that the press are able from time to time to bring forward stories, but they're

never able to get it right, and they didn't get it right again.

It would be

appropriate to acknowledge the fact that the MLAs have a cunning…. They are a

team that has a coach who is extremely, extremely beneficial in how he can put

his team together. Of course, that would be the Clerk of the House, who's done

such an admirable job over these 14 years. So, Mr. Speaker, as much as I would

love to go on at great length, and I would love to bring forward your trophy, I

think it's only appropriate that we give ourselves a wondrous, thunderous

applause for once again putting the press where they ought to be — in second

place.

Mr.

Speaker: I might add that it's the Speaker's tournament, and they won't let

me play.

Tributes

LOUISE ANNE MARCOUX STEWART

Stewart: I rise today to mark the passing of a person who influenced me

greatly, a person who never stopped encouraging me and supporting me, her other

two children and, more recently, her nine grandchildren. I rise today to honour

this woman in a way she would have wanted — with few words. She would have

been here telling me: "Keep it short, Richard. Nobody wants to hear a long

speech." I rise today, on her birthday, to honour my mother, Louise Anne

Marcoux Stewart, who passed away on October 12. I ask the House to recognize her

life.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) VICTORIA'S ASSETS

J. Bray:

Two weeks ago I stood in this House and relayed some exciting news about the

Victoria economy — about the lowest unemployment rate in British Columbia and

one of the lowest in Canada; that housing starts were up; that housing sales

were up, retail sales were robust and tourism was rebounding well from 9/11.

[1410]

I also

talked about the incredible assets we have here in Victoria. First and foremost

is the tremendous sense of community we enjoy in the capital. I pointed out that

we have three world-class post-secondary institutions graduating world-class

students. We have excellent infrastructure in travel, telecommunications,

commercial and residential development. I also made a slightly provocative

statement that Victoria needs to maintain its sense of community and develop a

Calgary sense of attitude.

I am glad

that people here in the capital took notice and have been asking me why I made

that statement. Well, many in my community are also looking for B.C. to

diversify its economy, to become less reliant on the natural resource sector.

That's an aim I support, but it is my firm belief that it is we here in Victoria

who must lead the change and lead the province toward that diversification.

[ Page 3952 ]

We have all

the assets here in Victoria, and we want clean, green and sustainable economic

growth for our region. The new knowledge economy is what will allow Victoria to

grow economically without changing our number one asset, our sense of community,

but unlike competing with other jurisdictions in the natural resource sector,

where we compete only against other areas that have lumber and minerals, we must

compete in the new knowledge economy against every city in every province, in

every state, in every country in the world.

All we lack

to be the economic leader for the province and help lead the diversification is

that outward pride. We need to tell the world of our assets. It's not a sell

job, just a willingness to go off and show our region's pride — pride in our

community, pride in our people, pride in our economy, pride in our young people

and our graduates, pride in our teachers and our professors, pride in our small

and medium businesses, pride in ourselves. Victoria should be a leader, and I

believe we're ready to be.

SMALL BUSINESS IN B.C.

Johnston: October 20 to 26 is Small Business Week in Canada. It's a week

dedicated to recognizing the hard-working men and women who are small business.

Small business is considered any operation having fewer than 50 employees, and

in British Columbia that's 98 percent of all business. Small business people are

the folks with the ideas and the vision to create the jobs, the jobs that

support our economy.

These are

the people who put their assets on the line to finance their dreams. These are

the folks that must battle the banks, the competition and the local and global

economies at every turn. These are the entrepreneurs that usually work more than

50 hours a week, often without any possibility of holidays and certainly no

gold-plated benefit plans. Small business people are the ones that drag

themselves out of bed in the middle of the night to answer an alarm or go and

help get an employee out of a jam. Small business people in almost all cases are

good employers — in fact, treating their employees like a second family and

sharing in their successes.

This

government understands the challenges faced by small business and, over the past

17 months, has supported small business through strong action, action that

includes tax relief, flexibility in employment standards, reduction in red tape

and an extensive consultation process throughout the province with the Premier's

small business round table. Small Business Week is recognition of the

entrepreneurial spirit alive and well in over 400,000 British Columbia small

business operators. On behalf of all members of this House, I'm sure, I say to

those entrepreneurs: thank you for your spirit.

SEVEN OAKS PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY

Brice: Over the years, the stigma of mental illness has driven many

sufferers to try to hide their condition. Now people suffering with a mental

illness are finally getting the respect and support they deserve in this

province. The Minister of State for Mental Health is a fierce champion for

ensuring the implementation of the mental health plan and for raising public

awareness of the need to deal with this illness in the same direct and open way

in which other health issues are treated.

The

official opening last week of Seven Oaks in my riding of Saanich South was a

positive reminder of just how far we have come in support of the mentally ill.

Nestled in the beautiful Blenkinsop Valley, the cottages clustered in a peaceful

rural setting are the new homes for 38 people with highly complex care needs.

Previously, these folks would have been transferred to Riverview Hospital on the

lower mainland. In that type of situation, maintaining contact and loving

support from their families and friends was very difficult.

[1415]

Now these

people who have a mental illness can maintain a close bond with their support

network, as they are living closer to the homes they have known. Roy, a young

man I had the pleasure of meeting at the opening of Seven Oaks, now lives in

comfort and dignity while he receives help in learning to manage his illness.

The professionals who work at Seven Oaks provide excellent care and

compassionate support to him and the other residents. It was with immense pride

that Roy showed me his new home and talked about the activities at Seven Oaks.

It's comforting to know that this wonderful new facility is available to meet

the needs of my constituents in Saanich South and other families living on

Vancouver Island.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

MINISTER'S DINNER MEETING

WITH LIBERAL PARTY CONTRIBUTORS

MacPhail: In July the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management was caught

shaking down business leaders for minimum $2,000 donations to join him for a

private drink and dinner. In a letter on his behalf, well-known Liberal

fundraiser Lyall Knott wrote that the dinner would be limited to 20 people to

ensure a good discussion and an exchange of ideas. When the minister was accused

of selling access, he said the dinner was cancelled. Would the minister now

confirm that he did, indeed, have a dinner on the advertised night with Mr.

Knott and some very generous Liberal Party benefactors?

Hon. S.

Hagen: You know, it's really great to be able to say that we have a lot of

dinners with a lot of people throughout the year. One of the things we do,

because we're proud of the political party we belong to, is actually participate

in raising money so that political party can continue to do the things it needs

to do. I am pleased to say, also, that I and other members of our caucus will

continue to do fundraising dinners for the

[ Page 3953 ]

party, because it's important that we do the things that need to be done and

so that we can bring this great province of ours back to the positive position

it once was in.

I recall

that back in 1991, when I was in government, we were number one in Canada in

economic growth. In five short years under the previous government we slid to

last place. That's not good enough for the people of British Columbia. I give my

commitment to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of this province that I'll

continue to work for the people of this province to make sure our province comes

back to the top place, where it should be.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: The people that are hurting now are seniors, pensioners, loggers

and people on social assistance, single moms who require day care. The

difference, though, between what the minister tried to do to divert is that when

he was confronted with this fundraising dinner of $2,000, he said it had been

cancelled. The opposition has learned through FOI that despite the minister's

denial, he did have a private fundraising dinner. He just had it with fewer

people at a smaller, more intimate location.

Again to

the minister: can he tell the House who attended the dinner he said never

happened, how much they paid and what was promised?

Hon. S.

Hagen: The one point the member opposite and I can agree on is that there

are people in this province hurting. The reason there are people in this

province hurting and unemployed is that the government she was a member of drove

those people out of their jobs. They drove the economy into the ground. Not to

repeat myself, but I give my commitment to the people of this province, as do

the other members of this House except those two, that we will work hard to

rebuild the economy of this province so those people she talked about can in

fact get their jobs back and have the lives they're entitled to.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm sure those words are reassuring to Howe Street. What the

minister said at the time was that the dinner was cancelled. Perhaps he should

have been a little more upfront, because the fact of the matter is that we don't

have a lobbyists registration act yet. We can only rely on the word of ministers

such as this. But let's say today, again, that he's flatly denying that he did

anything wrong.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1420]

MacPhail: The minister's

schedule for July 24, the night of the advertised

dinner, shows that the minister had a private dinner with Lyall Knott and at

least two big Liberal contributors from the development and drug industries,

Randy Zien and Hassen Khosrowshahi, and they went to a Vancouver restaurant.

Now, these aren't just your average Liberal supporters. Combined, they and the

companies they own gave close to $300,000 to the B.C. Liberal election machines,

so these guys don't just do dinners with ministers for a good time.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Would the

member please put her question now.

MacPhail: Why did the minister not tell the truth last summer, and will he

now use this opportunity to finally come clean and tell us who else was there,

how much they paid and what was promised?

KYOTO ACCORD

Lekstrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Yesterday the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection made it clear that

British Columbia has serious concerns about the Kyoto protocol. However, British

Columbians also recognize that action must be taken on climate change. Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what factors the government believes must

be incorporated into any national strategy on climate change?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: First, let me…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …be clear. The British Columbia government is serious about

climate change. Climate change and Kyoto are two different things, something

that a lot of people don't understand. Our government is concerned about climate

change and has taken some action in British Columbia.

In answer

to the member's question, there are a number of points. B.C. must retain the

benefits of its forest carbon sinks, something that the federal government wants

to take away and apply nationally. We think the forests are in British Columbia,

we manage the forests, and they should be our sinks. We must receive credit for

our clean energy exports, that being our natural gas that we export to the U.S.

every year and also our hydroelectricity that's exported to the U.S. every year

and has been for many years. We should get credit for those two points. Those

are two of the most salient points that we're asking for.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Peace River South has a supplementary question.

Lekstrom: Clearly, this is a major issue to British Columbians. Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines

[ Page 3954 ]

elaborate on any further points that he may take up with the federal

government on the Kyoto protocol for me, please?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: You know, our industry in British Columbia has taken some early

steps around climate change. They have responded to the challenge that's out

there about climate change, and we're saying in British Columbia those

industries should be recognized for that action. We also must get credit for

climate change priorities that B.C. has already identified to the federal

government by a letter from the Premier. B.C. must receive co-funding for

measures that we take as part of our own climate change plan that we are

developing as we speak, which the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and

my ministry are working on.

The Premier

has just written a letter to the Prime Minister laying out those five points.

I'm going to read verbatim from the letter what he has said: "B.C. will not

support an implementation plan that does not fully and adequately address these

concerns. That support is only possible if the federal government produces an

implementation plan that includes a comprehensive assessment of potential

impacts and is subject to adequate consultation with provincial and territorial

governments as well as the public."

[1425]

MINISTER'S DINNER MEETING

WITH LIBERAL PARTY CONTRIBUTORS

J. Kwan:

British Columbians want public policies developed in the open, not at secret

dinners where Liberal insiders pay thousands of dollars to wine and dine with

cabinet ministers.

These

shouldn't be difficult questions for the minister. Why did the Minister of

Sustainable Resource Management say the dinner with Lyall Knott was cancelled

when his own

schedule says otherwise? What did he promise the people who

attended that meeting, and how much did they pay to get a seat next to the

minister to have dinner with him?

Interjections.

Mr.

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

clock in question period ticks on, we will wait for silence.

The minister.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I actually do have a confession to make to the House, and that is

that back in 1990, I did have dinner with the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I realize now that….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I realize now, Mr. Speaker, that….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, members, so that we may hear the answer.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I am pleased to inform both members opposite that at the dinner I

attended, which was referred to, the guests who were there paid no money to

attend that dinner.

Mr.

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

question.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

When the minister was first confronted about it in the summer….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the

question.

J. Kwan:

When the minister was first confronted with this in the summer, he accused a

reporter of "falling off a turnip truck" for daring to say it was

unethical. Mr. Speaker, the minister may believe that British Columbians don't

care about these kinds of ethical lapses, but he's wrong. He's dead wrong. Show

some respect for British Columbians. When he says that there was no money

promised during the dinner or exchanged during the dinner, could the

minister…?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise what came after the dinner — because you know

what…?

Interjections.

Mr.

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

An Hon.

Member: Stand up and testify.

[1430]

J. Kwan:

The government can laugh all they want, but the facts are before us. Donations

were made to the Liberal government. Donations were made after dinners were had

— private, secret dinners which the minister himself denied actually happened.

Donations of $300,000 were contributed to the Liberal campaign coffers. Now the

minister says: "Oh no…

[ Page 3955 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…there were no commitments whatsoever." You know what? When the

minister was caught red-handed, he has to come clean now.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

He has to come clean and admit that those private dinners yield private

donations for the Liberal campaign machine.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

Hon. S.

Hagen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Hon. members,

you may not be anxious to hear the answer, but I am.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I know the press gallery is just glued to this debate today. I'm

tempted to say that what came after the dinner was cheesecake, but I'm not going

to do that. What I am pleased to say, though, to clarify any sort of

misunderstandings that the two members opposite have, is that (

a) it was not a

fundraising dinner, and (

b) there was no money raised.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 62.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 62; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:35 p.m.

section

5 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

We begin debate on

section 5, Bill

Section 5, of course, deals with the

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.

This

section makes substantive changes. It is now bringing forward a 60-day

limitation, as well, to apply to people with disabilities who have either been

dismissed from work for just cause, voluntarily left employment without just

cause or failed to accept suitable employment. If any of those things were

applicable 60 days prior to that, the individual would not qualify for income

assistance.

I want to

ask the minister, first of all, this question. People with disabilities who were

on what was formerly known as DB-2 are now under the Employment and Assistance

for Persons with Disabilities Act, Bill 27. They are people that the ministry

acknowledges are unable to work for the most part, mostly because of health

reasons. Why would the minister bring forward a punitive act that tells people

(

a) you've got to go out and look for work; (

b) if you fail to accept suitable

employment, you'll not qualify for income assistance; and (

c) if you get fired

as a result of your disabilities…? It may well be for just cause. If your

disability impacts you in such a way that you might not be able to complete your

tasks appropriately or show up for work on time, for a variety of reasons, you

may well get fired for cause. Why would the minister subject individuals with

disabilities to this process and with penalties that threaten their livelihood

and their ability to survive?

Hon. M.

Coell: We had a very, I think, exhaustive discussion of

section 12 and a

debate in the spring with regard to this issue.

J. Kwan:

Actually, no, we didn't — to remind the minister's memory. The government

brought in closure on both Bill 26 and Bill 27. There was not an exhaustive

debate. There were a lot of questions still to be answered.

Now before

us there's an amendment — an amendment that brings out these retroactive

penalties for people with disabilities, who will now not be able to get income

assistance when they need it the most.

I want an

answer from the minister. British Columbians want an answer from the minister.

Even just today, as I was going through my mail, I've got correspondence from

people who want answers from the minister. I would expect the minister to answer

that question in this House.

Hon. M.

Coell: The discussion today is the discussion of the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. The reason for the change in

section 5 is that the

use of the present tense is ambiguous to the legislation. The amendment changes

it to the past tense for clarity and limits the time period to 60 days.

Anderson: It seems to me, and I would like clarification, that there were

two acts. One was the employable act, and one was for the disabilities. They

were based on different premises. The options in the one for general employment

were on the assumption that people were qualified to work, and to work on a

full-time basis, in order to become independent.

[ Page 3956 ]

[1440]

It was my

understanding, and perhaps I'm wrong, that the Employment and Assistance for

Persons with Disabilities Act had a different basis and assumption. The

assumption was that many persons with disabilities would be able to and would

desire to work part-time or perhaps full-time, if they had the proper resources

and opportunities to get the additional skills they needed and the additional

help to find employment, which would otherwise be difficult for them to

understand.

It was my

understanding that this was an option that was available to people but not

required of people in the same fashion as the other act. I'd like to clarify

that, because it makes a difference. Therefore, I'm surprised that the two

consequences in these acts are not different to reflect that difference, rather

than being the same. It would seem to me that the consequences in this act,

whatever they might be, would be different from the consequences in the other

act by the very nature of the different clientele, the very nature of the

different expectations and resources. They would encourage the people with

disabilities to begin to work as much as possible, but not with the feeling that

they were required to work by somebody outside's requirement and suggestion. I

need some clarity on whether that distinction is valid or not.

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, if a person is designated as a person with a disability and they

cannot look for employment, they would not be expected to look for work.

Section

12 of the act does not apply to people with a broad range of circumstances, and

we expect there will be relatively few persons with disabilities for whom this

section applies.

The fact is

that persons with disabilities do want to work within the parameters of their

disability. That goes a long way with other comments I've made that there is a

50 percent unemployment rate for people with disabilities. There are also, as

the member knows, some people whose disability does not interfere with their

ability to work, and they would be expected to complete an employment plan and

participate to the extent they're able to.

Anderson: I understand the reasons and the validity of inviting them to have

an employment plan so that they can be supported in moving ahead. But I have

difficulty with the question of why, when they are moving ahead and having

difficulties, this same pressure would be on them as is on other people, knowing

full well their difficulties. Whatever their disability is, if they've been

accepted as a person with a disability, it means they do have a severe

disability that makes it more difficult for them to maintain and get to work.

They put out extra resources in order to get there in the first place. It would

seem to me that there would be a different requirement that would be somewhat

different from the previous one. I'm just surprised that there is not a

distinction of some kind.

Hon. M.

Coell: Again, we're debating an amendment to

an act that has already had

debate in this House, and regulations have been put in place.

In a brief

answer, this would only apply to individuals who are not having difficulties due

to their disability. In the latter case, the individual would be exempted.

Anderson: I have to express concern that there is a suggestion that it is

not the whole act which has been placed before us. It's not just the amendment

but the context of the amendment which makes relevance for the amendment itself.

Even though the previous act, in its previous form, was on the floor and was

discussed — or not discussed, as the case may be — but was passed…. Once

that act is put here on the floor, it's my understanding that the whole context

of what is being put here is on the floor as well. I just wanted to stress that.

[1445]

I still

want to stress that I think it's important that there be a distinction between

the regulations that apply in the one act and the regulations that apply in the

disabilities act. I'm disappointed if they continue to be the same.

J. Kwan:

It's unacceptable for the minister just to sit there and not provide answers.

For the minister to suggest, to say: "You know what? This is a minor

amendment…." The minister would like to pretend it's a minor amendment,

when in reality it isn't. He is bringing back retroactive penalties for people

who are qualified for disability under the income assistance act, who qualify

for disability for whatever reason. If they've been dismissed from employment

for just cause or if they voluntarily left employment without just cause or

failed to accept suitable employment, they will then not be qualified for income

assistance within the parameter of 60 days prior to that application. That's

what is being put before us.

The

rationale of why those people would not be qualified should be a subject of

debate. The 60-day parameter, which also adds to the three-week waiting-training

period, will bring you to a three-month wait for these individuals. The question

is right to the heart of the issue, and the minister must answer this question.

Why are people on disability subject to this requirement to begin with? Even if

the minister says that they're subject to this requirement because we want to

give all kinds of opportunities for people to look for work — if that was the

case — why would you have penalties associated with it when you do recognize

that they have either physical or mental disabilities, or both, with their

condition? That's why they qualify for disability in the first place.

For the

minister to say: "Hey, you know what? That's somehow irrelevant…."

The minister has completely missed the point of what qualifies a person for

disability, and it's not acceptable for the minister to pretend that he doesn't

get it. It's not acceptable. He is the minister responsible — through you, Mr.

Chair, to

[ Page 3957 ]

the minister — and he must get up and answer these questions for British

Columbians and for his own caucus colleagues.

Hon. M.

Coell: I wanted to reinforce this. The amendment limits the time to 60 days

that the ministry can go back into an employment record. It basically limits

that from being limitless, to going back six months or a year or two years.

We've said that 60 days is as far as the ministry will have the ability to go

back into a person's employment record.

Anderson: Perhaps I would like to get a clarification. It seemed to me one

of the important points of the passage of the persons with disabilities act and

one of the things of supporting them in going back to work is that if for any

reason — as I understood it previously, and I think that's out in the

community — they were not able to continue that work, then they would

automatically go back without qualification and receive the full disability

benefits. If that's the case, then it seems to me this runs in contravention to

that.

I'd like

clarity as to how those two positions go together. For many people with

disabilities, to put out the effort to go to work in the first place was a

threat in the past, because they would lose their disability benefits and have

to have a waiting period to get back on. Their encouragement to move in this

direction was that they would automatically go back on to full disability

benefits when the work ceased, and then they could prepare themselves again. I

need a clarification between that understanding and what's brought forward here.

Hon. M.

Coell: A clarification for the member. If someone leaves employment because

of their disability, this

section doesn't apply.

[1450]

J. Kwan:

I just want to go back to the previous answer from the minister when he said

that the 60-day limit is better than before, where it was limitless, so that the

person can go back to whatever in the future. The difference is this: a person

on disabilities before was never required to look for work. If they happened to

find work, that's excellent. That's fantastic. They were never threatened with

penalties before. If a person came to apply and if they lost their employment a

year before, six months before or whatever the case may be, that was never held

against them as long as they qualified under the conditions to be a person with

disabilities under the Income Assistance Act. That was the difference.

Now what

the minister is saying is that even if you qualify, if you got fired from your

job, you quit your work beforehand or you voluntarily left your job, you're now

not qualified to receive income assistance.

People with

disabilities are faced with multiple challenges — no doubt about it. Some of

them are able to work — no doubt about it. Some of them are not able to work;

there's no doubt. Some people might be able to sustain work for a period of

time, but they may not be able to carry on for a period of time for whatever is

going on. For the minister to say that some people can work, so they're expected

to work, and that when they don't or if they get fired from their job, they're

now dismissed and cut off of income assistance is simply wrong.

Don't just

take my word for it, Mr. Chair. I know the minister is sitting there thinking

the opposition will just say whatever they want to say. Don't take my word for

it, as I say. This afternoon during the lunch hour I had a bit of time to go

back and look quickly at my correspondence that came in. This mail just came

into my in-box. I want to read this to the minister, and I want the minister to

answer the questions from this correspondence. It's addressed to the minister,

actually. It mentions the minister by name.

It reads as

follows:

"Dear

minister,"

"This

letter addresses comments you made in a letter to the Victoria News Group

printed Friday, October 11, 2002, and the process by which many people with

disabilities are being assessed.

"In

the letter you say that your ministry has confirmed 43,000 clients and has

asked others 'to provide more information so the Ministry of Human Resources

can assess their circumstances and ensure consistency in program delivery.'

In conversations with workers from the health services branch, I've learned

that the booklet received by some recipients was sent because they had not

accessed anything through that branch.

"While

I understand that the ministry needs a way to assess people with

disabilities, there is an inconsistency in your attempt to provide

'consistent programs.' Had the minister sent the booklet to all people with

disability classification regardless of their status with health services,

then action would have been consistent. In this case, we have spoken with

several members who have received the booklet and yet have tremendous health

challenges and others who were classified disabled who are very functional.

doctor I spoke with, having received the booklet, stated flatly that he

would not be interested at all in completing the last

section for his

patients and finds the entire process punitive.

"What

this process has accomplished is to petrify many people who are now fearful

of losing their only source of income and who will be asked to seek

employment with the repercussion of penalties if they do not comply with the

terms of the employment plans."

Let me just pause here for one moment. Just relating back to the act before

us right now, a part of the conditions for penalties is that if a person fails

to accept suitable employment from the ministry's point of view — if that

should happen — this person would then not be eligible to continue to receive

income assistance. If that was the case before they applied within the 60-day

period, that person would also not be eligible to receive income assistance.

That's where the relevancy comes in, particularly in relation to the amendment.

Going back

to the letter:

"For

people with HIV there are not only concerns about maintaining physical

health, there are also concerns about disclosure of HIV status to potential

employers and co-workers. While there are laws in place

[ Page 3958 ]

to protect people from discrimination on the job, we know

that discrimination still exists and that people are let go from work when

their status is revealed.

[1455]

"Further,

while there will be adjudicators to review the information provided, it is

not clear that clients will have the opportunity to present their case to

the adjudicators or if the adjudicators will have the chance to ask

questions of the clients. There s a difference between the ability to climb

a set of stairs and to climb a set of stairs with energy. There is a

difference between being able to cook a meal and to cook a meal where you

are not exhausted afterwards. Yet the booklet does not distinguish these

things, and the meaning of daily living activities as prescribed in the

regulations does not distinguish these either.

"The

ministry worker will be able to make arbitrary decisions about the physical

ability of the client, and personal subjectivity, morality and opinions

about people with disabilities will rule their decisions."

Again, the

relevancy here is this: it's not just about being able to accept work. Even if

you do accept work and if you face discrimination in the workplace — and

sometimes it's not so blatant and obvious as some might think — if you are let

go as a result of that, you are not able to show just cause. Here, once again,

the penalty is being applied against you if you're not able to show you were

fired without just cause. Sorry, I said "just cause" earlier. It

should be "without just cause."

Continuing

on with the letter:

"And

for many people with a disability, the test this booklet and the regulations

poses to them is a test they will fail miserably. If cleaning your small,

inadequate apartment and cooking a meagre meal, going to a bank or getting

along with others is the criteria for employability, it is clear that the

vast majority of people living with a disability — and, in our agency's

case, HIV — would be considered by the ministry as fully functioning and

good job-market candidates. Employability is not a case of being able to

sit, walk a few blocks or climb a few stairs. It is a complex situation that

involves the physical, mental and emotional capacity of people to be

involved in work that is meaningful and that offers a reward that makes the

work at least bearable.

"Simply

shovelling people into the workforce may reduce the ministry's welfare rolls

but it will not create an environment where people are accepted,

acknowledged, appreciated and rewarded for their contribution to a

workplace. Adding insult to injury by imposing fines on those disabled

people who do not comply with their employment plans" — and this is

what this is: adding penalties, fines, if you will, for people who do not

comply with their plan, and that's exactly the

section we're talking about

— "is not only mean-spirited, it is cruel and lays unreasonable

expectations on the person.

"Is

not living with the disability difficult enough? If the ministry seeks to be

truly equitable and consistent in how it assesses people with disabilities,

it must either ask all recipients to complete the 23-page booklet or ask

none of them. If the ministry is dedicated to assisting people with

disabilities to become employable and independent, then it must consider not

only the fiscal reality of the business of the government, it must make

increasing efforts to create a society where all people, disabled and not,

are valued for being and not for their net worth as a disposable commodity

in the labour force. This task, I fear, is one for which the ministry and

the government as a whole will not accept responsibility.

"Sincerely,

"Michael Yoder, Executive Director"

Of course,

the agency that sent this letter is the Victoria AIDS Resource and Community

Service Society. It's copied to a number of Victoria MLAs, as well, not just to

myself.

Again, a

question to the minister: why would he put forward penalties to penalize people

who do have disabilities if they fail to meet the requirements of the work plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: If a person with disabilities quits work because of their disability,

there would be no sanctions. Nearly all people with disabilities will be exempt

from

section 12 by regulation. The regulation, for the member's interest, is

section 25(4). For a small percentage, their disability may not affect their

employment, and

section 12 would apply. It would also apply to spouses who are

persons without disabilities.

Kwan: I want to ask the minister. The minister keeps saying there's only a

small percentage to which the penalties will apply. What is that percentage? Who

qualifies for that, when he says only a small percentage will be required to

work? My understanding is that people who have disabilities…. The only reason

why they qualify for disability to begin with is that they actually meet the

criteria of being classified as disabled under the act. The very nature of that

classification means the person is not able to work on a continuous basis. If

that definition and that logic apply, then none of the people who qualify for

disability should be subject to this penalty at all.

[1500]

Hon. M.

Coell: I think, to clarify — the member may know this — persons with a

disability are not required to show they cannot work to be eligible. That's the

difference.

Anderson: The minister has indicated that not many people would necessarily

be affected by this part of the act. In one sense in which he expresses it, he's

probably right, in that not many people would be penalized because of this as

far as getting back on the support of human resources. But the penalty that will

face all of them, whoever they are — at least 95 percent of them — is the

penalty of the tension of losing the job in the first place, for whatever

reason, and "being regarded as a failure" in overcoming the handicap

or the difficulty as you were there and then going out and having to say to

somebody else: "I failed. I wasn't able to do it. I'm sorry; I

apologize." The pain and the emotional stress of that within themselves….

Even if they don't have that feeling themselves, there is the concern that other

people will regard them in that fashion — that they're not able to succeed

because of their difficulties, because of their disability.

[ Page 3959 ]

The very

thing we've been trying to do with this act is convince them that they can rise

above their difficulty. If there's a fallback, you can come back and go over it

again. You don't have to be put down by it again and again. It's that attitude

which is important, and it affects every person. Even persons without

disabilities have that problem if they lose their job, either for their cause or

somebody else's cause. Even if they're simply laid off because a business has

gone bankrupt, there's still that emotional struggle. That emotional struggle is

intensified with people who have disabilities and with people whose income is on

the margin every day of the week, and a month or two months is years in their

lifespan.

I'm just

trying to ask again why this particular bill, this

section of this bill, is the

same as the other bill. I think there should have been and still must be a

distinction.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the answer to that is that the "persons with a

disability" designation is a functional definition. Persons are not

required to show that they cannot work to be eligible for the designation. If

their disability in any way interferes with work, the individual would be

exempted. It will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and if there's any

indication that their disability affects their ability to work, they would be

exempt from seeking work.

[1505]

Anderson: Almost by definition, if you have a disability, you are prevented

from doing some kinds of work because the disability is such that you may not be

able to climb stairs and go into a building that doesn't have an elevator. If

you're in a wheelchair, the limitation of the kind of work you're able to do is

there because of your disability in most cases. If you have a sickness

disability, a physical disability that limits your stamina, then you're limited

in the kind of work you can do. If you have a disability of sight or hearing,

you need special skills and special training and special opportunities to go

ahead and do that. This

section treats you as if you were completely healthy and

had no disabilities or no disadvantages that you have to overcome. Overcoming

those difficulties is a major hurdle in itself without the kind of limitation

this seems to put forward.

Hon. M.

Coell: To answer the member, I think you have to realize that many people in

British Columbia with disabilities are employed. Tens of thousands of people

with disabilities are employed in British Columbia, and what they want is the

ability to have a level playing field so that they don't have a 50 percent

higher unemployment rate than people without disabilities. That's the direction

we're moving in. If a person with disabilities quits work because of their

disability, there would not be any sanctions to that person.

J. Kwan:

Let me try this another way. I know the minister would like to say: "Well,

they won't be sanctioned. There won't be penalties that apply to the individual

if they are fired from their job because of their disability or if they were

unable to accept a job because of their disability." I know the minister

would like to say that. But the original premise is this, which I think is the

point I'm trying desperately to make with the minister and which the member for

Vancouver-Langara is also trying to bring to the minister's attention, and he

fails to either accept this logic or understand this logic…. So let me try

this another way.

If you're a

person with disabilities and you have a job…. Many people with disabilities do

have a job. Some would argue that here I am doing a job, with a variety of

different disabilities. The people who have a job are not applying for income

assistance. They're not at the office. They have a job. They don't need income

assistance. The people who have a disability and for whatever reason don't have

a job…. It could be because of their disability. Perhaps a small part of it

may be because of their disabilities. It could be other reasons too. Whatever

their reasons are, they don't have a job, and so they go to the last resort,

which is income assistance support, and they're able to show that they qualify

under the disabilities definition. It's one that I disagree with, but they're

able to show that they qualify.

Once they

qualify for it, they are then, in the minister's estimation, supposed to go and

look for work. Now, the disability may not be 100 percent why the person wasn't

able to get work, but it may be a portion of the reason that that person is not

able to find work. If the person gets offered work, maybe it's 25 percent of the

reasons why they were not able to sustain that job and not 100 percent. Even

then, for the very fact that unless the person can show that it is because of

the disability that they were unable to accept that job or that it is because of

the disability that they've been fired, would they be able to receive income

assistance? Would they then be able to not be penalized under this piece of

legislation that we're now debating before us?

[1510]

The issue

here is this. If you qualify for income assistance under the disabilities act,

isn't it assumed knowledge that sometimes the person may well lose their job,

and part of that may well be attributable to that disability even though it's

not 100 percent? Why should the person be penalized for trying? It is not for

lack of trying. The person is trying, and if the person should fail at some

point in time for whatever reason, why should they be penalized? It's not just

about their eligibility that you're hurting the person on. As the member for

Vancouver-Langara also says, it's for a variety of other reasons. Even the very

fact that the person might have lost their job already is traumatizing for the

individual. Yet the government is now going to come and say: "Well, that's

not the only penalty. Now we're not going to be there to support you. You're not

qualified for income assistance under this act."

Hon. M.

Coell: I'll try to answer the best I can for the member. The hypothetical

person that she describes would not be penalized. In fact, they would

[ Page 3960 ]

have the ability…. If they lost their job because of their disability and

had been on income assistance, they would be rapidly reinstated back on income

assistance so that the security is coming back quickly if the loss of job is

because someone is having problems with the disability that they have.

J. Kwan:

If the minister is saying, "Don't worry," which I know the minister is

fond of saying, the reality, though, I can tell you, is different. I've already

cited cases during second reading debate where people were cut off the

disability benefits, and they were forced to look for work under regular Bill

26. These are people suffering from HIV/AIDS and someone who has actually also

lost his eyesight in conjunction with a variety of other health issues, but that

person is expected to go and look for work. I expect that the person, if that

person even was offered employment, would have a very difficult time sustaining

that employment. And in that case, I expect that the person would be not

eligible for income assistance.

What about

this scenario? The minister talked about if the person was already on income

assistance and if they were able to find work and if they lost that job, they

would be able to get rapid reinstatement. What about the person in the 60-day

period who lost work before that and then went to apply for income assistance?

By the very fact that they were fired for cause — and it may have a component

of it to deal with the disability that the person was suffering from — would

that person be qualified? What would the person need to do to show the ministry

that they were fired even with cause? They were fired with a cause, but it was

related to their disability. How would one show that to establish that, so they

would not be subject to the penalty this government is now imposing — that

this minister is now imposing?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think I understand the question, and I'll do my best to answer it.

The person, if they lost their job and it was due to their disability and they

applied for income assistance, would not have the sanction of the 60 days if it

was because of the disability that they lost their job.

Anderson: I think it's important that we try to understand so that there's

not misunderstanding in the community. I'm quite aware that the minister, in his

comments, is positive on what he's trying to accomplish. I'm responding to his

comment that persons with disabilities want a level playing field. They want to

be respected in their own right for who they are, and that the same expectations

would be made of them as they would of anybody else of the things they can

accomplish and undertake. I agree wholeheartedly with that approach and with

what the minister is putting forward in that position.

[1515]

Except that

I have to ask: then how do we discover what is a level playing field? The

University of B.C. wanted a level playing field so that those in wheelchairs

would have the same opportunity for education. So they built in wheelchair paths

for the university in order that these people could get around, which previously

they were not able to. People who are blind or deaf have a level playing field

now, because they have computers which are available for them to be able to work

in a natural workplace, which they would not have been able to do before. The

level playing field, in order to be level, of equal opportunity…. To have

equity as well as equality, the field has to be different. What I'm trying to

suggest is that there needs to be a difference here to recognize that the same

field is not a level playing field for those in both acts.

Hon. M.

Coell: Well, with regard to comments, employment strategy for persons with

disabilities does a number of things. It supports persons with a disability. We

have enhanced medical and dental, we have the $300 earning exemption, we have

the rapid reinstatement, and we now have a job strategy that will include a

round table of businesses that we want to encourage to employ people with

disabilities to level that playing field.

I don't

think there's any secret to the fact that people with disabilities have had a

much higher rate of unemployment for decades. It's not something that's new.

It's something that we're working on. It's something that I think will take time

to bring that disparity down, but it's something worth our doing.

Actually,

the funding envelope has been increased this year. It's now $19.2 million in

funding, so there are a number of programs in motion here that should start to

help that disparity between people without disabilities and people with

disabilities getting employment. At the same time, you know, we want to make

sure that we're treating people with disabilities fairly and people without

disabilities fairly as well.

J. Kwan:

I want to go back to this. Could the minister please explain how he would

establish that a dismissal, for example, was related to a disability?

Hon. M.

Coell: There could be a number of ways. You could have documentation from an

employer, or you could have a number of comments and validators from the

individual who is applying. As well, the caseworker would evaluate those bits of

information that are usually brought forward at the time of an application.

J. Kwan:

If you've been fired by your employer, it's highly unlikely that the employer's

going to give you a piece of documentation that says, "You know, I fired

you because of your disability," because that would be in violation of the

Charter on discrimination. I doubt that any employer would actually go out and

do that, so that puts the person in a very difficult situation in terms of being

able to prove or show documentation to validate that. What's the minister's

answer to that?

[1520]

Hon. M.

Coell: Simply, the intention is to assist. I guess there are two issues that

the member brings for-

[ Page 3961 ]

ward. One, is that person exempt from the

section 12? And if not, was the

firing for just cause? If the firing was not for just cause, then we would

possibly see a process that's been initiated through labour standards. As I

mentioned in the previous question, there are a number of other processes that

caseworkers do look for in dealing with an applicant — whether there is

documentation from an employer as well.

J. Kwan:

I know the minister is fond of pointing to other branches and offices available

to investigate these kinds of cases, but the reality is that those offices are

not available to assist. In case the minister himself hadn't noticed, his own

government brought in changes to completely strip the employment standards

branch from providing support for people who are faced with discrimination or

complaints around the workplace. They're given a self-help kit to go and handle

it themselves. They're not registered as cases when there's a complaint. The

issue is that there is no branch that a person could go to. If you're a person

who is suffering disabilities and who is trying to manage all of these kinds of

things, one would have thought earlier that you could go to legal aid and ask

for help with these administrative justice kind of cases. There is no legal aid

branch that can offer that kind of assistance.

I don't

know what the minister is talking about. I don't know what world he is living

in. The reality is that those things don't exist for the people to access. This

letter that I just read into the record…. Maybe the minister wasn't listening.

Maybe he'll go back and look at his own letter, because it was addressed to him.

The person says that a person with HIV/AIDS would have concerns not only on

maintaining their physical health but also about disclosure of HIV status to

potential employers and to co-workers. If you don't want that information to get

out, and the minister says you're expected to go and look for work because

you're qualified….

The

minister is shaking his head, but I know a case of a person diagnosed with

HIV/AIDS who has been told that they've got to go out and look for work. If that

person is unable to find work or if that person is offered work and subsequent

to that…. If the person doesn't want to disclose that this individual is

HIV/AIDS positive and gets dismissed from work, how do you make the link that it

is your disability that cost you the job at the end of the day, and it's not

because the person is somehow unable or somehow has decided that they just

simply don't want to work?

Hon. M.

Coell: I just want to reiterate, and I think I've covered it in the past,

that this ministry and government are committed to persons with disabilities.

This is, I think, evident in the legislation, the policy, the funding of

programs under the employment strategy for people with disabilities.

We're

committed to safety and security, and again I would say to the member that we're

looking at

section 5 here, which is…. Basically, the use of the present tense

is ambiguous. We're debating a

section that the amendment changes to past tense

for clarity and limits a time period to 60 days. That could have been longer,

and we want to make sure there's a definite time on that amendment to 60 days.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm going to take a tiny bit of a different tack with

the minister. It was provoked by a telephone call that I had in a talk show.

It's lucky I go on talk shows. It can fill the whole day. I talked about one

call earlier this morning. This call was questioning the combination between the

disability 2 and CPP.

What

happens when you cut people off welfare? Sorry, Mr. Chair — through you to the

minister. When the minister cuts people off disability 2 who have another

disability income source, what happens?

Hon. M.

Coell: The comments of the member would probably be better served in

estimates or the questions, but they certainly don't have any relevance to

section 5.

[1525]

MacPhail: In fact, they do. They have complete relevance. We're talking

about a penalty. Maybe I'm wrong. My colleague has been doing all of the heavy

lifting on this, and she's getting quite a lot of feedback from the public about

what a wonderful job she's doing. I'm a little bit surprised that the minister

dismisses my comments so completely, because I believe the

section is about

cutting people off — is it not? — through a penalty. We're talking about

denying people benefits for 60 days. Am I correct or not?

Hon. M.

Coell: I guess the answer the member is looking for clarification on would

be that this only applies…. We're looking for eligibility, and the eligibility

is that if someone is leaving employment and it's not related to their

disability.

MacPhail: So the answer is yes. This is about cutting people off. Not being

eligible is another way of saying we're cutting you off access to this benefit.

When income

assistance was the place of last resort for support, the government of the day

required that there be a full accounting and, I think, a deduction of any other

sources of income including Canada Pension Plan disability. Is that correct?

Well, actually, I know it's correct; I don't need to ask the minister that.

That was

based on the premise that social assistance is the last resort for coverage, and

so everybody…. It's a hard-hearted policy, I agree, but in order to allow the

government to make sure everybody, as a last resort, was eligible for income

assistance and to explain that to the public and to not put any barriers in the

way of income assistance being the last resort, we asked people to declare their

income from other sources, including CPP, and that would be calculated in how

much income assistance they're getting.

The

government, with this piece of legislation right here, has changed that

principle. They're not providing

[ Page 3962 ]

income as a last resort. In fact, they're saying to people: "We don't

care whether you've got any income. If you've broken some little rule we've put

in place here, we're going to penalize you 60 days." So I would argue

you've completely done away with the principle of providing income as a last

resort — you don't care — and that the person shouldn't be penalized in any

way for sources of income from any other place. Can the minister comment?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'd just remind the member, who I think was a minister in another

government, that her government also had penalties, and — whether they be 60

days or 30 days — they had ranges of penalties and sanctions that have….

MacPhail: Not with people with disabilities.

Hon. M.

Coell: Disposing of an asset would have been an example. Fraud would have

been an example.

J. Kwan:

You know what? I want….

MacPhail: You just make it up, don't you?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Not people with disabilities.

The

Chair: Order, member.

J. Kwan:

I would just point out a couple of things, Mr. Chair. The minister liked to use

this continuously, even though he knows very well that it is he, his government,

who has brought forward these very punitive changes in income assistance.

[1530]

I want to

just touch for one minute on Bill 26, for people who are on regular income

assistance. Yesterday we debated that in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act —

section 3, I think it was. The minister liked to say: "Hey, there's

not really that much change, guys. Everything is the same as it was." But

when I asked the minister the question for a family — a single mom, for

example, with children…. If they need support and are out on the street

without food, would they qualify for income assistance in spite of this penalty

that is now being imposed? The minister then said for people with children, they

will get some assistance.

The

minister then said that people with children will get some assistance, but

reduced assistance, and I want to be clear on this point. Under the previous

act, when a person was in that scenario they were always able to get assistance,

and the penalties did not apply. That is a distinct difference. Single

individuals who needed support — who were on the street without food, without

shelter, who went up to the office and even if they quit their job for whatever

reason — at the minimum were able to get hardship. They were not turned away

to hear: "Sorry. You do not qualify. End of story." That was not the

policy of the former government.

In the case

of people with a disability — and I want to be very clear about that — the

previous government never made people with disabilities go out and develop a

workplan, look for work and, if they didn't find work, subject them to a

penalty. The only issue was: were they qualified for disability? We loved it,

when we were in government, if a person was able to get work, but never were

penalties attached to it if they lost that job.

Let us be

very clear about the distinctions here around what was before and what is now.

Please stop hiding behind that. You're paid a salary to be a minister, to answer

for your policies that your government has brought forward. You can no longer

hide behind the previous government, and even if the previous government made

some mistakes on some of these issues, your job now is to move forward in a

progressive way and not backwards in a punitive way.

I will be

the first to accept that the previous government made mistakes, but do not hide

behind that and say that these policies are the result of the previous

government, because it simply is not true. The minister has time and again been

misleading this House and misleading British Columbians, and that is simply

unacceptable. Please do your job, minister.

Let me ask

you this question. For people on disabilities — and this is a real, live case

that impacts on three different constituencies…. This is a person who was my

former constituent, who has moved to another area and was a constituent of the

Speaker's for a period of time, who wants to actually move back to Kamloops and

who now resides in the area of Vancouver-Langara. This is a person with

disabilities. This is a person with disabilities who is able to secure

employment in Kamloops if the person can get the transportation costs to go up

there to secure that job, if the person is able to get the government to provide

assistance for him to get the equipment for him to do that work so that he would

then be awarded the licence to do so.

He has, to

date, not been successful in dealing with the ministry. He has now come back to

me to ask for assistance. I have written letters to his MLA. The two respective

MLAs who are now involved in this issue in asking for assistance have also

written to the Attorney General asking for assistance from the Attorney General,

because he also has a case before the courts right now. He's got a court date

pending.

If this

person is unable to receive the support he's supposed to get from the government

— and the former government, by the way, always supported people if they had

jobs offered to them…. It supported them to get there, to get the equipment to

get there and to get the clothing or whatever it was they needed in order to

secure that employment. That is now changed according to this government. Yet

people are expected to find work.

In this

case, when the job offer dies because the person can't get up to Kamloops, when

the job offer dies when the person can't get their licence renewed

[ Page 3963 ]

because they were unable to get the money to purchase the equipment from the

government, from this minister, will this person then be penalized? You'll say:

"Guess what. You turned down a job. You will now be subject to this

penalty." As I read the act, that's what it looks like to me. I'd like the

minister's response to that.

[1535]

Hon. M.

Coell: Just a clarification for the member. Under B.C. Benefits, families

with children would have received a hardship which was totally repayable. What

we're doing is not turning away families with children. They have a reduction

that is not repayable.

J. Kwan:

That's not the case, and I can tell the minister that. I dealt with cases for

people thrown on the streets because they didn't have the money, they were being

evicted, and so on and so forth. They always received the assistance.

For the

minister to say, "Hey, you know what? Now we're providing some sort of

assistance but at a reduced rate," as if somehow that justifies what the

government is doing…. Some sort of penalty just to kick you a little bit

further when you're out on the street is somehow okay with this government. It

isn't. It isn't okay for the people who are suffering. It isn't okay for the

children who need food, and a reduced amount of money may only get them the

shelter but not the food they need, as an example. It is not okay for the

minister to get up and justify that and somehow say that it is okay.

For the

minister to suggest that somehow this is not really all that different…. I

pointed to the case of the individual who was a single person. You know, is it

any wonder, when we look in my own riding and actually in Victoria now, that

people are living in empty buildings, setting up tents, because they cannot

access government support? For the government to brag about…. It was just in

this week's newspaper, on Monday. For the minister to brag about how great the

welfare roll was because the numbers have gone down…. Miraculously, they're

not eligible. They're not eligible, not because they don't need it but because

the government won't let them have access to it.

That's why

people are sleeping on the streets. I have never in my ten years as an elected

official, municipally and provincially, seen this many people sleeping on

streets. I used to be a housing advocate. I used to go out and look for people

who were sleeping on the streets just so I'd get a better sense of what was

going on out there and what needed to be done to provide assistance to people.

Now I don't even have to look. I just walk down the streets, and people are

lying right there in front of you.

How dare

the minister sit there and say that somehow this is okay. His job is to provide

assistance to the people who are in greatest need, the people who are most

marginalized, and not create penalties for people so they can't get access to

it. Furthermore, for the government and for the minister to bring forward

policies that say to the people, "By the way, I expect you to go out and

look for work, and guess what. I'm not giving you any bus passes to look for

work; I'm not giving you any support so you can go out and find work. But if you

don't find a job, I'm going to cut you off anyway…." How dare he say

that.

Now for the

people who are faced with disabilities, for the government to say, "I will

now impose a penalty on you within a 60-day period if you should be fired from

your work…. If you should refuse to accept work, if you feel that there's

discrimination going on in your workplace and you feel compelled to leave, you

have to prove that you're being discriminated against." That's essentially

what the minister is saying. It's been mentioned time and time again that

sometimes it's not easy to establish discrimination. It is subject to the

discretion of the worker to decide. But you know what? That discretion does not

always translate to justice for people. What that sometimes translates to is

non-access for people.

That is the

problem here. That's why the government needs to change its legislation. That's

why the government needs to change the policy, so that subjective decision is

taken out of the equation, so that application of fair policies is being applied

and so that assistance is provided to the people who need it the most.

I want the

minister to answer the question in the case of this individual that I just

mentioned, which involved three different constituencies. What will happen to

him if he's not able to get the money to get up to Kamloops to buy the equipment

in order for his licence to be renewed so he could get off of income assistance

on the disability side?

Hon. M.

Coell: The member brings up a myriad of suggestions, but I would suggest

that she maybe go back to the BC Benefits Act from her government and read

section 5. It might just help her and her colleague understand what sanctions

were in place for persons with disabilities in the prior government.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

Maybe I can suggest for the minister to read his own act that he just brought in

this last spring and the penalties he's bringing forward. My God, I asked the

minister a simple question. Let me just break down the number of questions that

I asked the minister, because he's not been able to answer one question to date.

God knows why he has this position. He's not able to answer any questions —

not from the opposition; not from the member of his own caucus, Vancouver-Langara;

not from British Columbians; not from letters that have been directed to the

minister for answers. He's not been able to provide one answer on any of these

questions.

Let me ask

that question once again, because it's happening right now. It's not my

constituent I'm dealing with in this case. What happens to that individual who

has been offered a job, unable to secure money from the ministry to get up there

to take that job and to get the equipment he needs to get in order to secure

that employment? What happens to that individual?

[ Page 3964 ]

Will that person be cut off income assistance under this act, this piece of

legislation, this change, this penalty that this government, this minister, has

brought before us?

Hon. M.

Coell: I've actually answered that question a number of times. The answer

would be no.

J. Kwan:

Then why doesn't the minister provide the individual with the dollars to get up

there to take that job and the moneys to buy the equipment so that he could have

his licence renewed? Why not?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member…. I've tried to answer her questions the best I

can. We're dealing with

section 5 here. I would be willing to answer any

questions regarding

section 5.

Anderson: Just in the spirit of being accurate, the person that is being

discussed did get the money to go to Kamloops to have the job.

J. Kwan:

The person was just in my office two days ago, and if that money came through

just yesterday, I would be very surprised to learn that. The person was just in

my office two days ago and was not able to secure that.

But, you

know, I just want to make this point. The minister wanted to say that's not

relevant to

section 5. It is especially relevant to

section 5, because what

section 5 talks about is that a person would be imposed with penalties if they

failed to accept employment, if they voluntarily left employment without just

cause or were dismissed from employment for just cause. That case scenario fits

right in there. If the government and the minister fail to see that, then I

don't know what the minister, quite frankly, is doing in that chair. I really do

not. There is absolutely a direct link.

The case I

just highlighted is just one case in point. The issue I want to bring up is that

it is not a case-by-case individual issue but rather an across-the-board policy

issue. If the person indeed — as the member for Vancouver-Langara said and as

I said, I spoke with the individual only two days ago — came through with the

dollars and managed to secure that employment, I'm delighted. But it should not

take three MLAs to advocate for that. It should simply be a clear direction of

policy from the government to make sure that's in place. It's as simple as that.

Not every individual has three MLAs working for them, trying to pursue a case on

their behalf. Nor should they expect that to be the case.

What about

those individuals who now are expected to look for work, with a disability or

otherwise, and who do not get transportation support, as an example, to look for

work? How are they expected to secure employment? Maybe the minister thinks it's

funny, along with the deputy minister — that this is all very funny, that they

don't need to pay attention to it and can laugh and chuckle about it in their

own little corner. But you know what? It isn't funny. It means real lives for

real people, impacting them right now. Where is the training money that will

provide the people the opportunity to secure the employment and live up to the

work plan the ministry says they are expected to? If not, penalties would be

imposed.

[1545]

The

minister can sit in his chair and laugh and chuckle, make jokes and belittle

questions that are being asked. You know, Mr. Chair….

The

Chair: Member, will you please be seated for a second.

MacPhail: You guys used to do that all the time.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order. I don't think it's appropriate to comment on

what people are doing in the House.

Member, you

have the floor. Carry on. Proceed.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I want to say it's unacceptable for anyone in this House, especially

the individual who has the authority and the power to bring forward changes that

impact people's lives, to belittle or to minimize the importance of this debate

by not answering questions. It's unacceptable.

the Minister of State for Women's Equality wants to rise up and defend the

single moms who are being penalized by this legislation, she could do that

instead of sitting there quietly in her chair without any advocacy from her,

without rising up to say: "This penalizes single moms and children, and I,

as the minister of state, will not accept that."

Instead,

she sits silent and defends the government on these issues. Instead, she goes

about shutting down women's centres across the province, throwing women out on

the street. Then, if you happen to be an individual who needs income assistance,

who's not able to access it and who may be faced with penalties, the minister of

state sits silent. Shame.

Hon. L.

Stephens: How many people are working?

MacPhail: You don't know. You don't have a clue. They've left the province.

The

Chair: Order, please.

Member, we

are dealing with

section 5. Please keep your comments to

section 5.

MacPhail: Yeah, and each of them probably has to have four or five jobs. Did

you hear that at UBCM? I'm glad. My son has five of them, when people talk about

the 88,000.

The

Chair: Order, please.

MacPhail: That's what the public is saying.

J. Kwan:

I want to ask the minister a question, Mr. Chair.

[ Page 3965 ]

Interjection.

MacPhail: Actually, it is. The overall payroll is down.

The

Chair: Member, let's keep the debate on

section 5 between the member

standing and the minister.

Proceed,

member.

J. Kwan:

I want to ask the minister this question. The minister says he's expecting

people to go and look for work and that if they fail to accept suitable

employment, penalty would apply — in this case, for people with disabilities.

I want to know from the minister: what support is the ministry providing to

these individuals, especially on the issue around transportation? I'm not

looking for an answer where the minister gets up and says: "We're spending

so many million dollars." I want to know, specifically: if an individual

needs transportation, would the person be able to get bus passes, as an example,

in order to go and look for work to fulfil that work plan?

Hon. M.

Coell: To the member, I have respectfully answered all of her questions to

the best of my ability. This is an amendment to legislation that we debated last

spring, and the regulations have been now put in force. This is an amendment

that clarifies a prescribed form, and it clarifies a length of time. I have, to

the best of my ability, tried to answer her questions that have been relevant to

this section, and I will continue to do that.

J. Kwan:

Then where's the answer to my question?

In case the minister has forgotten the question already — because he

provided no answer — I asked the question: where is the money to support the

people with transportation when they need it to fulfil their employment plan?

It's subject to the employment plan that they could actually lose or be

penalized. Where's the money? If a person needs a bus pass in order to fulfil

that employment plan, does the ministry pay for that bus pass?

[1550]

Hon. M.

Coell: As I said, with respect, I will do the best I can to answer questions

that are relevant to

section 5. As I said earlier, the amendment changes to the

past tense for clarity and limits the time period to 60 days.

J. Kwan:

Let me just read, then, into the record what we're debating right now. The

section we're debating right now says this. It's

section 5, by the way, not 6.

"

(1) Subject to the conditions of an employment plan,

the family unit of an applicant or a recipient is subject to the consequence

described in subsection (2) for a family unit matching the applicant's or

recipient's family unit if

(

a) at any time while a recipient in the

family unit is receiving disability assistance or hardship assistance or

within 60 days before an applicant in the family unit applies for disability

assistance, the applicant or recipient has

(

i) failed to

accept suitable employment,

(ii) voluntarily

left employment without just cause, or

(iii) been

dismissed from employment for just cause, or

(

b) at any time while a recipient in the

family unit is receiving disability assistance or hardship assistance, the

recipient fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to search for

employment."

This

section is what we're debating right now, Mr. Chair, and I asked a

question directly related to this

section that we're now debating.

To the

minister: when a person is expected to fulfil this employment plan and part of

the fulfilment requires transportation support, will the person get financial

support from government for transportation needs so that the person can fulfil

that employment plan requirement? If they do not, the person could be penalized.

That is the

section we're now debating in this House, and I expect an answer from the

minister.

Hon. M.

Coell: With respect to the member, we're discussing an amendment that

changes the present tense of the relevant section.

J. Kwan:

You know, the minister likes to hide. He doesn't want to answer questions, and

he's just saying that it's a tense issue. It isn't.

You're

imposing retroactively a penalty for people — that is what the minister is

doing — if they don't meet the conditions. To avoid the penalty, a person

would need things in order to meet that condition. One of those things would be

transportation expenses, which a lot of people don't have access to,

particularly persons with disabilities. If they don't have that transportation,

how, then, would a person be expected to be able to meet that employment plan?

If they can't meet that employment plan, then the penalty triggers, and the

person is cut off and is deemed to be ineligible.

I don't

know how else to explain this to the minister. He's simply choosing not to

understand so that he doesn't have to know the reality of the pain and suffering

that this government, this minister, is subjecting the most vulnerable British

Columbians to.

Hon. M.

Coell: To answer the member, this is not retroactive. It specifies a time

period of 60 days so that it is clear and not ambiguous and is not open-ended.

[1555]

MacPhail: I admire with all of my heart the passion with which my colleague

the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant brings forward these issues. She's doing

it with a great deal of passion, but she's also doing it with a great deal of

substance. She's bringing forward real cases of people who have been affected by

these draconian changes that this government has brought into support for people

as a last resort.

[ Page 3966 ]

I think the

frustration arises because the minister sits there and somehow intimates that

they're housekeeping changes and then tries to throw it back in the opposition's

collective faces that perhaps we should examine our own record.

Well, I was

the minister who brought in the BC Benefits Act, and people on disabilities were

never, ever subject to the rules that the minister now imposes every day on

people — every day. I challenge the minister to find one single case before

his government took over and destroyed the social safety net for people with

disabilities. Find one single case that comes close to matching the actions of

his government. He won't be able to do it.

I'll tell

you what the evidence is, Mr. Chair. The evidence is that there are tens of

thousands of people with disabilities who now have a pension and who are living

in fear of being kicked off. That fear wasn't because we're fearmongering, my

colleague and me. It wasn't because my colleague rises every hour with a passion

on behalf of these people. It's because there are real, live examples of people

who are being threatened with that. I'm not even talking about the 29-page

report that has to be filled out at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars

to our health care system, by the way. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to fill

out these forms because the government thinks it's fine to impose red tape on

people with disabilities and cost the health care system hundreds of thousands

of dollars to implement that red tape because of doctors' costs. That's fine.

When this

government introduces an amendment that penalizes people double what they were

penalized before, people live in fear. They want to know what the rules are

about that penalty. Why is the government making it more difficult? What else is

going to change? Already the vigour with which this government applies its rules

to kick people off income assistance is unmatched. There have been tens of

thousands of people who are no longer collecting income assistance. The

government tried to fly by that it was all good news, and their own attempt at

misleading came back to fly right in their own faces. They have no idea what's

going on — no idea.

The real

examples come to our offices every day. It's not just my office or my

colleague's from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It's every single one of our

offices here that is getting these requests. It is only the bravery and courage

of — not even me — the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who raises

this with the vigour that it does deserve in defence of people with

disabilities. Every time the minister stands up and says, "It's simply a

change in tense," it's like a verbal assault on people with disabilities.

[1600-1605]

Section 5

approved on the following division:

YEAS — 48

Coell

Hogg

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Santori

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Clark

Bond

Nebbeling

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Chong

Penner

Harris

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

R. Stewart

Hayer

Krueger

Bray

Les

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Hamilton

Sahota

Hunter

NAYS — 3

Anderson

MacPhail

Kwan

[1610]

Sections 6

to 8 inclusive approved.

On

section

J. Kwan:

I have a number of amendments to make. I'd like to table those, please, relating

section 9. Here's the signed copy. For the information of the House, I've

shared a copy of my amendments with the minister. Sorry. The minister says he

hasn't got a copy. But I just passed a copy over to the minister.

The

Chair: We have three copies at this point, but that's all we have.

J. Kwan:

There are three separate amendments. Perhaps while we wait for copies to be

made…. I thought there were enough copies, but we're short one, so copies are

being made. Perhaps I can ask the minister this question to start off the

debate, then. Could the minister please advise: why not restate

section 12(1) of

the act regarding the substance of deliberations? The act just talks about the

deliberations, but not the substance of the deliberations.

Hon. G.

Plant: Are we debating the member's amendment? I thought she had tabled and

moved an amendment.

The

Chair: No. She's tabled but not moved them. We're still just talking in

general terms.

Hon. S.

Santori: I move the amendment to

section 9 that is standing in my name on

the order paper.

[SECTION 9, by deleting the proposed

section 12 (5) and (6)

of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,

c. 165, and substituting the following:

[ Page 3967 ]

(5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may

designate a committee for the purposes of this section.

(6) A committee may be designated under subsection (5) only

(

a) the Lieutenant Governor in Council

considers that

(

i) the

deliberations of the committee relate to the deliberations of the Executive

Council, and

(ii) the

committee exercises functions of the Executive Council, and

(

b) at least Z\c of the members of the

committee are members of the Executive Council.]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

The question still applies. Why not restate

section 12(1) of the act regarding

the issue around deliberations to include the substance of deliberation?

Hon. S.

Santori: We are not changing the substance of deliberations that are

included in

section 12.

J. Kwan:

That is the question. Why not?

Hon. S.

Santori: The provision has been there all along. This is not an issue of

deliberations, and that is not why we are bringing this amendment forward.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but the issue is this. The provisions that the government

has now brought forward are to exclude access to freedom of information. The

exclusion that the minister's now brought forward is to say that government

committees, where they include cabinet members as one third of the members, per

the amendment, would exclude for that information to be provided through the FOI

process.

Formerly

that was not required because it was clear that those exclusions would only

apply with committees that are doing the business of the executive council. But

now the government has created new structures where it is in relation to caucus

committees, where there might be some cabinet ministers present, and those would

be excluded. It's substantively different. How do we know that the deliberations

that now take place are actually the business of the executive council, that

they're actually doing the business of the executive council? If it's just a

general broad term, "deliberation," to be used, then I believe that's

not prescriptive enough to clarify, to indicate that you have to be doing the

business of executive council for it to be excluded.

[1615]

Hon. S.

Santori: The test has not changed in what we are bringing forward. The

deliberations of the committee relate to the deliberations of the executive

council. The question here is the inclusion of those committees who carry out

the deliberations as a function of cabinet.

J. Kwan:

But it isn't clear, according to the amendment. Certainly, in the first round

that the government brought forward this

section under the miscellaneous bill,

that was not clear at all. In fact, the office of the information and privacy

commissioner had written to the government particularly on this issue to bring

further clarification to it and requested the government to make various

changes.

Now

government has made some changes, but still, in my mind, it's not clear. It's

still not clear, so let me ask the minister this question, because the

commissioner had to actually write a letter to complain to the minister about

how the amendment was brought about, how the changes were brought about under

the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002. Why was the commissioner

not consulted before the rushed amendment was put in the miscellaneous bill?

Hon. S.

Santori: The commissioner was, in fact, consulted prior to the amendment. At

the time when the amendment came forward, there was no outright objection by the

commissioner in terms of the amendment that came forward. There was a letter,

yes, back to myself, to my office, whereby the commissioner did bring to my

attention that the context of the amendment was somewhat broad, and he had some

difficulty with that.

Government

is very receptive to productive suggestions, and we respect what the

commissioner brought forward to us. It was not our intent to try to be secretive

on any activities that take place in these committees of cabinet, which play an

integral

part in the decision-making process.

On receipt

of the letter, I did instruct my staff to communicate with the commissioner,

which they did. They sat down with the commissioner, in fact, and reworded the

amendment so that it would satisfy the concerns that the commissioner had

brought forward. As a matter of fact, the commissioner was part and parcel of

the amendment and the wording of the amendment that I just introduced.

J. Kwan:

Well, isn't that interesting, because the amendments came after the letter was

issued, not before. Of course, my question was around the consultation with the

commissioner prior to the amendment being brought to the House. The minister

would like to say, "Well, gee, consultation was done." But you know,

it's interesting. When you read the letter, there were a lot of issues that I

could glean from the letter from the privacy commissioner in terms of the

concerns with the proposed changes that were brought forward under Bill 62, the

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002.

Just to put

some of the issues on the table here, the letter actually says: "I

therefore do not agree with you that the proposed amendment 'simply confirms'

that government caucus committees are cabinet committees. The proposed amendment

does not name government caucus committees or otherwise apply only to them. It

could be used to cover a much broader variety of committees."

[ Page 3968 ]

It goes on

to talk about how this application should be used very sparingly. The

amendment's language is not, as I believe it could be, specific to government

caucus committees and committees such as the agenda and priorities committee,

and so on.

Lots of

concerns have been raised. It was only after the fact that those amendments are

now before us. I'd like to ask the minister this question: will the amendment

capture the government caucus committee?

Hon. S.

Santori: First of all, I just want to clarify something with the member

opposite. As I said earlier, there was consultation with the

freedom-of-information commissioner on the first amendment, at which time he did

not oppose the intent of what government was trying to do. That was the first

consultation with the freedom-of-information commissioner.

We then

received the letter from the commissioner with respect to the concerns of the

broadness of the wording of the amendment that came forward. We then further

consulted with the commissioner, and as a result, with his input and his

suggestions, we have now brought forth this amendment to clarify the concerns

that the commissioner had from the original amendment.

[1620]

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer from the minister as to whether or not the

amendment captures government caucus committees.

Hon. S.

Santori: As the amendment states, the committees will be identified by

regulation, and yes, the government caucus committees will be part of that.

J. Kwan:

Then on the basis of the amendments, too, the composition of the government

caucus committees will also change. The amendment now requires that there be

one-third of the members of the committees who are members of the executive

council.

Hon. S.

Santori: Once again, with respect to the amount of representation by cabinet

members on the government caucus committees, the FOI commissioner did bring to

our attention what he would have felt comfortable with. I'm not sure, but if my

memory serves me correctly, the number of one-third was within the context of

his letters. In actual fact, the government caucus committees already do meet

the requirement that is brought forth in this amendment.

J. Kwan:

Could the minister please advise how many cabinet ministers now sit on the

government caucus committees? Which ones would change, and how would the changes

take place if they are required to change in order to meet this requirement?

Hon. S.

Santori: With respect to the question by the member opposite, I'm not

totally sure of the exact numbers of each caucus committee, but I believe

they're 15 and 16 and some, 14. I can provide you with the number of cabinet

ministers, but I feel quite confident in saying that each of them is composed

currently of one-third cabinet members.

J. Kwan:

I don't know if it's difficult for the minister to get this information. I would

suspect the minister would readily have the information now, and I would like to

receive it as we're debating this in the House. I expect that perhaps your staff

could run the information to you now, as they are watching the debate.

Hon. S.

Santori: I would be more than pleased to provide this information to you

later. I don't think it's relevant to the debate at this time.

J. Kwan:

It may not be relevant to the minister, but it is relevant for the opposition

caucus. The fact of the matter is that there are going to be changes. I would

like to know, because of the legislation that's being debated right now, if the

amendment being debated right now is going to cause changes, which government

caucus committees it's going to change and how it is going to change them. I

think the information is very relevant, because it is the amendment the minister

has brought forward that would result in those changes.

Hon. S.

Santori: The names of the committees, as I said earlier, will be named by

regulation, and we will meet the conditions as set out by the amendment. Further

to the question the member brought forward, I can give her assurance that the

government caucus committees that exist now are…. I would say all but maybe

one — and I'm not even sure of that one — do have one-third cabinet

ministers sitting on those committees. If we do not in fact meet the requirement

on that one, we will meet the requirement.

J. Kwan:

The minister seems to me to know the answer. He says there may be one that may

not meet the requirement. Which one is it?

Hon. S.

Santori: I did not memorize each of the committees that may be listed by

regulation of OIC. For that, I apologize, but I can reassure the member that

those committees will be composed of one-third cabinet ministers. I think that's

the issue before us.

J. Kwan:

The minister just said he thinks there may be one. Which one does he think does

not meet the requirement? It's a simple question. There's no trick to it.

[1625]

Hon. S.

Santori: And there's no trick to a simple answer. What the amendment said

was that the committee….

Interjection.

[ Page 3969 ]

Hon. S.

Santori: I think it's irrelevant which one it is at this time. The fact of

the matter is that one-third will be composed of cabinet ministers for all those

committees that are named by regulation in the OIC.

J. Kwan:

So much for an open and accountable government. They are taking away access

to freedom of information. The minister says: "Well, gee, there's nothing

hidden about this answer." I don't know why the minister doesn't just say

it. Why doesn't he just say it and then provide information for British

Columbians to know?

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister responsible for the community charter says: "Well, gee. Go do

your homework." I suppose that is the reality with this government. They

expect every British Columbian to go and read through Hansard , to go and

look for OICs to find out what information the government is trying to hide from

the public. That is the expectation from this government. That is their new-era

agenda, which is to prevent information from getting out to the public no matter

what.

Maybe

that's the intent. Maybe that's why we're debating this amendment, this bill,

this miscellaneous statutes amendment act to begin with — a bill that really

is supposed to be dealing with miscellaneous things. Lo and behold, what do we

find? Government is trying to prevent access to freedom of information. That's

what we find. That's what we're debating right now in this bill.

I want to

go back to the issue around the substance of deliberations. I have the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act before me. Subsection 12(1) says:

"The head of a public body must refuse to disclose to an applicant

information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the executive

council or of any of its committees including any advice, recommendations,

policy considerations or draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared

for submission to the executive council or any of its committees."

I want to

go back to ask a question around the substance of deliberation, because that is

central to the point here. The amendment does not address the issue around the

need for the substance of deliberation. It just talks about the deliberations.

In essence, deliberations could be anything. It could be about a variety of

things. It may not necessarily even be the business of the executive council.

Why has the government excluded that?

Hon. S.

Santori: The test is still the same for withholding information. We are

talking about the deliberations and the functions of those committees and the

relationship they have with cabinet. We have made it very clear from the start,

and I will refer to the government caucus committees. It should be well known by

the member opposite that we made it very clear prior to the election that

government caucus committees were going to play an integral

part in the

decision-making process of this government. In fact, we have carried out that

commitment.

The duties

and the responsibilities of government caucus are an integral function and a

direct link to what cabinet does in terms of cabinet submissions, in terms of

making recommendations, providing advice and taking

part in the development of

policy.

J. Kwan:

Actually, quite the contrary. There is nothing clear and open and

accountable with respect to the government caucus committees. The reality is

this: the government says — you know what? — it will make things

transparent. They will provide the information to the public. The reality is

that when the government caucus committees were set up, they were secret

committees. They were not open to the public, and now, of course, the process of

FOI would not be accessible for these cabinet caucus committees. That's what the

government has brought in to further shut down the ability to get that

information.

The

government has actually done a variety of reviews from these so-called cabinet

caucus committees that are supposed to be open and public but that are secretive

in reality. We have not seen any of the reports that came out from the

government caucus committees. The report on leaky condos — where is it? It's

been some time now. Why isn't it out in public? The report on smoking is out.

Government even brought in legislation to take away workers' rights around the

WCB smoking issue. No report. The report on oil and gas — where is that? Huge

ramifications both on the economic side as well as on the environmental side.

Where are these reports?

[1630]

To pretend

that this is an open and accountable government is simply not true. To pretend

that what this government is doing is transparent is simply not true, because to

date everything has been done in the back rooms secretly and behind closed

doors. Now this minister, this government, has brought forward legislation that

will further prevent information from being accessible and made public to the

general population and to British Columbians.

The

minister committed that he would provide a list of the government caucus

committees and their membership. We're not going to get it at this time, but I

expect that the minister will send that information to our office at a later

date.

I would

also like to ask the minister if he could advise whether there is some time

frame that would apply to the government caucus committees if they are not

complying with the provisions under this amendment. What is the time frame for

the government to bring that about?

Hon. S.

Santori: First of all, some of the reports, if not the majority, that the

member opposite was referring to were not part of the caucus committees.

Hon. G.

Plant: Government caucus committees.

[ Page 3970 ]

Hon. S.

Santori: Sorry — of the government caucus committees. Secondly, none of

these committees will be designated until such time as they actually comply with

the requirements that are brought forth in the amendment.

I'm quite

shocked at the member opposite. On one hand, she says that the government is not

open, that we're not transparent. I beg to differ. We brought out an amendment

to be open and transparent and to further clarify the intent of

section 12 of

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

She

understands that this came forth with good intentions, and I will sit up here

very proudly with good intentions. We did listen to the suggestions of the

information and privacy commissioner. We respect his suggestions. We brought the

commissioner to the table with staff to be able to sit down and reword the

amendment to satisfy the commissioner. Surely, the commissioner, I feel, is

quite confident with the amendments and the intent that this government is

trying to accomplish with respect to those committees and the functions and

roles they play in connection with cabinet.

I feel very

confident that we have been very open, very transparent and very accountable and

that we have worked together with the commissioner to come up with the

appropriate amendment that will both serve the needs of the people of this

province with respect to access and freedom of information and the protection

that cabinet and its committees rightfully deserve during the deliberations.

J. Kwan:

Unfortunately, the opposition and, I would venture to say, a lot British

Columbians do not agree with this government. The government would like to

believe and pretend that they are open and accountable, but the reality is

they're not. Let's just face it. Let's just call a spade a spade. This is not an

open, accountable, transparent government. You can say it so many times to

yourself in front of the mirror. It doesn't change the reality. It's different.

People see it differently, and that is the reality. The minister should know

that and just simply admit it.

Will the

designation of a committee be done on a case-by-case basis, or will it be done

as once designated, always designated?

Hon. S.

Santori: As I had indicated earlier, these committees will be designated by

regulation. I don't know what more I can add to the member and the question that

she's brought forward.

J. Kwan:

It's quite simple. Would it be done on a case-by-case basis? Will there be new

committees added to it over time? Or is it just what is existing now, and then

once those are designated, that's it?

[1635]

Hon. S.

Santori: I can't predict what committees may be required in the future. If

there are new designations to take place in the future, they will have to meet

the test that was set out in

section 12 with respect to the substance of what

takes place within those committees. The test will always be there.

J. Kwan:

Is it the intent to only use this for government caucus committees, or would it

be used to designate other committees that the government may conjure up?

Hon. S.

Santori: This will apply to all cabinet committees or committees of cabinet.

J. Kwan:

Cabinet committees, caucus, government caucus committees…. Any other

categories, then?

Hon. S.

Santori: At this point — and I will try by memory to relay this to the

member opposite — it would include the five government caucus committees:

Treasury Board, agenda and priorities, legislative review committee, the cabinet

committee on the economy…. And I believe there's one more. Those are the

existing ones.

J. Kwan:

I'll ask the minister, then, to also provide a list of those committees and

their membership to the opposition — that would be in addition to the

government caucus committees — if the minister could do that at a later date.

The

one-third designation — why one-third?

Hon. G.

Plant: While the minister is dealing with that question — the answer to

which I think I know, because it was in the letter she read from earlier — I

just wanted to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the minister

for the way in which he has moved forward on this issue. I had some

responsibilities in respect of the FOI legislation when I was an opposition

member. I think I participated in two or three standing committees of the House

that looked at information and privacy legislation and also recommended the

appointment of the current commissioner. I also want to, as a colleague of the

Minister of Management Services, express my appreciation to the information and

privacy commissioner for his contribution to this discussion.

This is one

of those issues where some of the public commentary, I think, has missed the

point. Unfortunately, even some of the advocacy commentary has missed the point.

Section 12 of the FOIPPA has been there from the beginning of this legislation,

which, as you know, Mr. Chair, was introduced by the NDP when they were in

office in the 1990s. I have said before, and I'll say again that it may

represent their single finest hour in a decade of government.

Section 12

says today and will say tomorrow and has always said that there are

circumstances in which the executive council or any of its committees ought not

to be required to disclose to the public information. In fact,

section 12(1) is

unusual. In many cases, the question of whether or not documents should be

provided to an applicant who seeks them is left to the head

[ Page 3971 ]

of a public body as a matter of discretion. That is, the public body head may

or may not disclose.

In this

case, the former government that the member was a member of thought that cabinet

deliberations were, by their nature, unique. They are, by their nature, unique

in our constitutional framework. Accordingly, it's, I think, quite legitimate

that

section 12(1) of the FOI act read as follows: "The head of a public

body must refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the

substance of deliberations of the executive council or any of its committees,

including any advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft

legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the executive

council or any of its committees."

[1640]

Now, one of

the aspects of the public discussion of this that has concerned me — because I

am always interested in ensuring that the public understand what is being

proposed and what the law actually is — is that it is not every document that

is a document of the executive council that is non-disclosable here. This is

actually a pretty clear test, and it's a good test, because it means that only

the things that relate to the heart of what the executive council does are in

fact exempt from disclosure. In fact, they're not exempt from disclosure, but

the author of the act has said they must not be disclosed.

That public

policy distinction actually is given further life in subsection 12(2), which I

have not seen any reference to in the public discussion around this issue over

the past few weeks. Subsection (1) makes it clear that this protection from

disclosure does not apply to information in a record that has been in existence

for 15 or more years. It does not apply to information in the record of a

decision made by the executive council or any of its committees on an appeal

under

an act. It does not apply to information in a record the purpose of which

is to present background explanations or analysis to the executive council or

any of its committees for its consideration in making a decision if the decision

has been made public or implemented or if five or more years have passed since

it was made or considered. In all of those cases, that restriction which the

author of this act put in place does not apply.

Now, let's

be clear about what the author of the act said. It said that this protection was

available to and in fact was required for the protection of the executive

council, but not just the executive council. What subsection (1) says, twice, is

"the executive council or any of its committees." For as long as this

act has been in place, the same rules that restrict and prevent disclosure of

cabinet deliberations are there also for the benefit of the committees of the

executive council.

That's not

new. That has been there from the moment that the members opposite and their

party brought this bill onto the floor of the Legislature to be supported, as I

believe it was, by all members of this Legislature who were in the chamber in

those days.

What has

happened? What has happened recently is this. When we took office, we created a

new set of committees of the executive council. We called those committees

government caucus committees, but they have been, from the outset, committees of

the executive council. They are not committees of caucus. They are not

committees of this Legislature. They are committees of cabinet. That is how they

were created. That is how they have been staffed. That is how they are

administered, and that is how they operate. Nothing has changed since June 5,

2001, with respect to that.

What

happened was that an issue was raised for the consideration of the information

and privacy committee as to whether the government caucus committees, properly

speaking, were in fact committees of the executive council. That question was

before the commissioner, who expressed an opinion on it which I respect and

which we as government are bound to respect but which, with respect, I disagree

with. The commissioner failed to see that the GCCs are committees of cabinet.

[1645]

In order to

ensure that the protection of this statute, which its authors always intended

would be there for the executive council or "any of its committees,"

is there as it was intended to be from the outset, we have brought forward in

this bill amendments which do nothing more than provide a framework of clear and

concise and certain principles that in fact will allow the public to see which

committees are in fact the committees of the executive council for the purpose

of applying the test for disclosure in subsection (1).

Now, we

wrote the provision that's in Bill 62 in a manner that gave cabinet a fairly

wide degree of discretion about which committees from time to time would be

included within the umbrella of the mandatory obligation that the author of the

act placed in

section 12(1), which the author of the act placed there for the

benefit of the committees of the executive council. As I have heard the minister

say, his officials spoke with the commissioner to discuss this issue as they

worked to prepare the amendment that was introduced in the bill that was

originally tabled. I get that there was some discussion after the fact, in the

public domain and elsewhere, around whether the amendment as proposed in the

bill was apt to achieve the purposes for which it was intended, and only those

purposes.

congratulate the minister for going back to the drawing board and telling his

officials to sit down with the commissioner again and say, "I want to make

sure I get your intent right"; to read the letter that the commissioner

wrote — a thoughtful and helpful letter; to point out and to identify that the

commissioner thought there should be a three-pronged test; and to bring forward

an amendment here today that gives life exactly to that three-pronged test.

That's how you make good legislation. That's how an open, accountable and

transparent government makes good legislation for the benefit of all the people

of British Columbia, and I think the minister deserves congratulations for that.

I thank

you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.

[ Page 3972 ]

J. Kwan:

I guess we're back to second reading debate, so let me go into some of the

issues that the Attorney General raised.

Let me tell

you, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue on the one hand that this is

a cabinet committee doing the work of the executive council and therefore should

be exempt — and that it was always the original intent for it to be exempted

— from FOI provisions, when the reality is that the funding that backs the

government caucus committee does not come from the source that funds executive

council work. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways, and that's what the

Attorney General is trying to pretend is the case.

You know

what? The government got caught red-handed trying to close the doors for access

to information. The government caucus committees were never meant to be doing

executive council's work, and the government caucus committee….

As such,

the argument was from the government side why the funding for those caucus

committees did not come from ministers but rather from another source, the

Legislature — funding that was supposed to provide for all members of the

Legislature on committee work. That's how it's being funded. On that basis, the

funding source in and of itself tells you that it is not an executive council

committee.

You cannot

have it both ways. You say now, "Well, the funding source did come from the

larger Legislature's budget," and then on the other hand: "It's really

doing government caucus committee work." Which is it? You cannot have it

both ways. That's what the Attorney General would have you believe, would have

the public believe.

[1650]

You know,

the FOI commissioner said that

section 12 of the act could not be used to

protect government caucus committees or other committees that are not a

functional part of the executive council. The original amendment contained in

the bill allowed the cabinet to designate any committee as a committee of

cabinet. Following introduction and then criticisms from the media and from the

FOI office — people who advocate for openness and accountability — the

government made a change, and the commissioner wrote a letter calling the

government on it. Then the minister said the original amendment was simply to

clarify that government caucus committees were in fact cabinet committees,

thereby extending what is a cabinet committee, and that their deliberations

would have the same protection as cabinet deliberations.

The

amendment on the order paper which we are now debating, submitted by the

minister, corrects some of the original faults of the changes the government

brought in under this bill, but it doesn't actually change all of the faults of

the amendments. There is the issue around the amendment which deals with the

substance-of-deliberations issue — if the threshold for a