2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

Hon. S. Hagen

Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 50)

Hon. G. Collins

Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 51)

Hon. R. Coleman

The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act (Bill M204)

B. Bennett

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Actions against Liberal MLAs

B. Lekstrom

Health care in Mission

R. Hawes

Opportunities for B.C. youth

K. Manhas

Introductions by Members

Oral Questions

Negotiations with physicians

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Preventative health care services for children

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Government support for farmers and agriculture industry

B. Lekstrom

Hon. J. van Dongen

Government support for forest industry

R. Visser

Hon. S. Hagen

Committee of the Whole House

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

S. Orr

Third Reading of Bills

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

Royal Assent to Bills

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Degree Authorization Act (Bill 15)

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23)

Securities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 29)

Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30)

Environment Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 31)

Waste Management Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 32)

Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35)

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36)

Food Safety Act (Bill 37)

Legal Services Society Act (Bill 45)

[ Page 3333 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's a great honour and privilege today to introduce some guests here

from Thailand, from the beautiful city of Suphanburi, which is certainly one of

the more beautiful cities in that country. These are all folks who are here

visiting the city of Courtenay, my hometown, because they are sister cities. I'm

not going to read all the names, but I've passed the list on to Hansard. They

are accompanied by city of Courtenay staff Mickie Donley, Dennis Henderson and

Raegan Spence. Would the House please assist me in making them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. J.

Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce in the House today my mother, Peggy

Kubin, and my aunt and her husband, Joan and Norman Sagerson from Chicago. I'd

ask the House to make them warmly welcome.

Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing a friend of many years, who is

also the vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Lindsay Olson. She is

with us today, and I would like the House to make her welcome.

Hayer: I am very pleased to introduce a group of 70 grade 5 students from

William F. Davidson Elementary in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, led by

their respected teachers Mrs. Buckham, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs. Takhar and Mrs.

Guilmont-Smith. Among them is my nephew, Shaun Bains. They will be visiting the

Legislature tomorrow morning.

Will the

House please make them most welcome.

S. Orr:

I would like to introduce in the House today nine very, very special people who

are not only special people, but they're my very good friends. I do have

friends. These people are people that work in my constituency office and

volunteer in my constituency office. These people make my life incredibly easy,

and I cannot thank them enough, as none of us can thank our volunteers enough.

They are Gill Wall, Catherine Campbell, Bev Mallett, Trish Fougner, Doris

McLennan, Diane Patterson, Jane Simmons, Trisha Gerard and Vikki Simmons.

Would this

House please make them all welcome.

Bennett: I'd like to introduce two constituents from the East Kootenay, Faye

and Steve Street, who are ranchers. They own Mountain Meadow Ranch in the East

Kootenay. They're up there somewhere.

They're

down here doing what they're always doing, which is advocating for the ranching

industry here in this province — two of the hardest-working people I know and

great, great people. Would you all help me make them welcome.

Chong: I'm pleased to introduce today a constituent of mine, Mary McSevenry.

She is in the gallery with relatives visiting from Argyllshire, Scotland. Mr.

and Mrs. Tommy McCoban and Mr. and Mrs. Robert McSevenry have travelled across

Canada by train, making various stops along the way. While in western Canada

they will be travelling around British Columbia, visiting other relatives and

enjoying our very wonderful attractions and scenery.

Would the

House please make them all very welcome.

Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to introduce some individuals visiting here

from Masset, British Columbia, on the Queen Charlotte Islands. We have Mr. D.

Cyr from Tahayghen Elementary School, and he is joined by 22 smiling people from

the grade 7 class at that school. Please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Hon. S.

Hagen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Environmental Assessment Act.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this bill today,

one that initiates a much-needed and prudent reform of British Columbia's

environmental assessment process. This bill puts in place a more streamlined and

flexible process for conducting environmental assessments of major projects in

the province.

[1410]

I'm pleased

to say this bill supports the government's goals for a thriving economy based on

sustainable economic development of our natural resources. Importantly, this

legislation improves the environmental assessment process without compromising

high environmental standards and ensures that communities throughout the

province can benefit from sustainably developed projects.

British

Columbians have raised concerns about the inflexibility of the current

one-size-fits-all process and the amount of time taken to complete reviews and

make decisions under the current Environmental Assessment Act. This government

has listened. Under this bill, it will be possible to better tailor assessment

procedures to the circumstances and issues presented by each project. At the

same time, the bill will continue to

[ Page 3334 ]

ensure that meaningful consultation with the public and first nations is

provided for and that key issues are fully addressed.

The neutral

environmental assessment office will have an increased role to play in oversight

functions and ensuring the act is implemented in a timely and responsible

fashion.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders for the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ADVANCED EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 50 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, I'm

introducing today Bill 50.

Bill 50

amends the Engineers and Geoscientists Act to authorize the Association of

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to make bylaws

requiring that the members of the association carry both primary and secondary

liability insurance. In addition, the amendments will authorize the association

to establish insurance fees and other fees, either by bylaw or under the

authority of a bylaw. These amendments will enable the association to

participate in a national secondary liability insurance program established by

the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. The amendments will also enable

the association to make bylaws establishing the circumstances under which its

members are required to hold primary liability insurance.

As well,

this bill amends the Technical University of British Columbia Act so that the

government can appoint a transition administrator to wind up the Technical

University of British Columbia. The amendments will also provide for transfer of

the university's assets and liabilities and for repeal of the Technical

University of British Columbia Act.

After

extensively reviewing a number of business plans from Tech B.C. and seven

proposals from other institutions, government decided previously to have Simon

Fraser University assume responsibility for students and assets of Tech B.C. and

its operation at Surrey Place Mall. The decision not to proceed with the

Technical University of British Columbia was made at an open cabinet meeting on

February 7 of this year. This legislation will implement that decision. SFU will

continue to offer Tech B.C. programs and eventually integrate these with a Simon

Fraser University degree program.

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Collins: Our Surrey members, Mr. Speaker.

Not only

will SFU accommodate current Tech B.C. students, but they'll expand to 800 FTEs

at the university's present location in the city of Surrey. This is great news

not only for the students and staff at Tech B.C. but also for the growing

community of Surrey.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill 50

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2002

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move that Bill 51 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 51. This bill amends the Crime

Victim Assistance Act, the Criminal Records Review Act and the Motion Picture

Act.

The new

crime victim assistance program will come into force this summer. It transfers

programs and services for victims of crime from the Workers Compensation Board

to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1415]

The new

crime victim assistance program provides several new benefits to victims of

crime. The amendments specify which benefits will be available for which

category of applicant. The changes also streamline the administration of the new

program.

The

criminal records review program protects children by requiring anyone who is

employed, licensed or funded by the government and who works with children and

who has unsupervised access to children through their work to get a

criminal-record check. The program is funded entirely by government and costs

$1.2 million each year to administer. Amendments to the Criminal Records Review

Act will ensure that the program is sustainable by creating a cost-recovery fee

to be paid by the individual or employer requesting the check. This fee will be

in line with fees currently charged by police departments. The registrar of the

[ Page 3335 ]

criminal-records review program will have the discretion to waive the fee

when appropriate.

Another

change will streamline the adjudication process and eliminate the appeal panel.

This panel is not necessary, because since the program started in 1996, there

have only been nine appeals.

Changes to

the Motion Picture Act will ensure more efficient use of resources by allowing

the province to adopt ratings for films, videos and new media from other

jurisdictions rather than requiring the film classification office to

independently review each of these media, as is currently the case. The

amendments will also eliminate the Motion Picture Appeal Board, which reviews

classification decisions. Fewer than ten decisions are appealed each year.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill 51

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE HUNTING AND FISHING

HERITAGE ACT

B. Bennett

presented a bill intituled The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act.

Bennett: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Bennett: This is a very simple bill, but it's important to thousands of

British Columbians. This bill acknowledges the legitimacy of hunting and fishing

that is done in accordance with the law and recognizes that hunters and anglers

play an indispensable role in the wise management of fish and wildlife in this

beautiful province.

I move that

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

of the House after today.

Bill M204

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ACTIONS AGAINST LIBERAL MLAS

Lekstrom: In recent weeks there's been a dangerous escalation of the protest

that has no place in our democratic system. For over 15 years I was on and

worked with the executive of the Telecommunications Workers Union, Local 34, in

my area. I fought hard at the bargaining table, and I walked the picket line,

and I participated in many protests, which certainly is one of my rights. Never

once did I consider attempting to thwart the democratic process through the

aggressive and increasingly invasive tactics condoned and encouraged today.

particular, there are several recent examples that trouble me greatly: an early

morning protest at the private home of an MLA, the forceful occupation of an

MLA's office, a protest rally held at the private home of our Premier, and the

unconscionable actions of six HEU members on a recent commercial flight and

their appalling behaviour towards our Premier in the airport.

As a former

union official I'm furious at the extent to which all of these tactics are

tolerated, if not condoned, by some union leaders. Through their inflammatory

rhetoric and undemocratic tactics, they are drowning out constructive dialogue

in our province. In my books any union leader or political leader that condones

these tactics or, worse, fails to condemn them is not much of a leader in my

eyes.

HEALTH CARE IN MISSION

Hawes: Mission Memorial Hospital and its dedicated health care providers

have given excellent service to the Mission citizens for many, many years. In

the wave of much-needed change sweeping across health care in British Columbia,

Mission Memorial Hospital cannot exist as an island, untouched. Health care

providers in the community have asked me to bring political pressure to bear on

the government to stop the change. The government has, however, agreed with the

British Columbia Medical Association, who have strongly stated that political

interference in the day-to-day operation of health care has made long-term

planning impossible. They state that politicians should back away from

manipulating the management of the health care system. The government has agreed

with this.

[1420]

I now wish

to encourage Mission's health care providers, its mayor Abe Neufeld, his council

and others to continue showing great leadership by developing the progressive

and innovative proposal we have discussed in the past. This proposal would

create new clinically, medically and fiscally sound and innovative services for

the whole region and would see services we in Mission feel are essential

preserved in the Mission Memorial Hospital.

I urge the

Fraser health authority to encourage this type of innovation and to work

collaboratively and cooperatively with health care providers in an atmosphere of

respect and consultation. This will be critical to building an integrated and

responsive system that works for all of us. I would further urge the ministers

of Health Services and Health Planning to ensure that there is a venue in the

Fraser health authority — and, for that matter, in all health authorities —

where the clinical and medical views of health providers will be consulted, and

innovative proposals will not just be listened to but will also be encouraged

and actually heard in a spirit of collaboration.

[ Page 3336 ]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR B.C. YOUTH

Manhas: This week we mark B.C. Youth Week, a celebration of the efforts,

energies and positive contributions of youth around the province and a

recognition of the important role that youth play in their communities

year-round.

We all know

that young people play an extremely important role in the sustainability and

future success of a community. But according to Statistics Canada, from 1996 to

2001, 45,510 British Columbians under 45 left the province. As a young person

myself, I nearly left the province in those years. The last government left B.C.

in such a staggering state that many young people looked at better opportunities

elsewhere.

Alberta, on

the other hand, seems to have gotten it right in attracting young people.

Alberta managed to attract 126,565 people under 45 from other Canadian provinces

during that same period.

I'm tired

of seeing young people feel like they have to pick up and move, to leave B.C.,

in order to build a positive future for themselves. That is changing, and there

is no doubt that this government's initiatives to increase viability of business

and to attract trade and investment to B.C. will provide more opportunities for

everyone in the province.

The

Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and the Ministry of Competition,

Science and Enterprise are charged with developing a youth strategy. It is

important that we remember how important youth are to the success of this

province. We've got to keep young people in B.C. We need to ensure that B.C.

youth want to stay in this province, because opportunities exist for them to

build a bright future here in B.C.

We need to

move forward with an articulated youth strategy and continued measures to

address youth unemployment. We also need to attract more young people to come to

B.C. We'll do that if young people start finding that they have the

opportunities they need to succeed here in B.C. We need to create an attractive

and exciting place for young people to stay in and move to, to build and create

opportunities for their and our future.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I appreciate it.

Further to

the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Jeff Morrison has joined us in

the gallery today. He is an energy policy expert who moved here from Calgary

after tax reductions were introduced by the Minister of Finance. This young man

is joined today by his mother, Lily, visiting from Ontario. Would the House

please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS

MacPhail: Today we see once again that the doctors' dispute has degenerated

into name-calling, and there are no new talks scheduled. The doctors and the

government can't even agree on the most basic of facts.

I wonder

why the government has decided to do away with the binding arbitration mechanism

that would be so important in these circumstances and why, without one,

disagreements degenerate…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …into disputes that put patients at risk.

To the

Minister of Health Services: at the beginning of today, another day of this

dispute, will he now admit that it was a mistake to get rid of binding

arbitration, and will he agree to a new binding arbitration process to end this

dispute?

[1425]

Hon. C.

Hansen: The previous government two years ago, as the member well knows, put

in place a binding arbitration process that had very specific terms of reference

attached to it to protect the interests of taxpayers in British Columbia. Those

terms of reference included a provision that the financial circumstances of the

province had to be taken into consideration and that the operational and

management needs of the health authorities had to be taken into consideration.

In the

arbitration process those two issues were not adequately dealt with by the

arbitrator. The binding arbitration process did not work. It did not serve the

purpose it was intended to serve. When the memorandum of understanding was

signed with the B.C. Medical Association six weeks ago, the Premier made it

clear that binding arbitration was not on the table, and the president of the

B.C. Medical Association acknowledged that at the time. She has acknowledged it

on several occasions since.

Quite

frankly, I think it's inappropriate for physicians in British Columbia to be

denying care to their patients throughout this province when in reality what

should be taking place is negotiations at a negotiating table. We are more than

willing to resume those negotiations this afternoon, tomorrow or whenever

possible so that we can put patient interests first and allow these other issues

to be solved where they need to be solved — at a negotiating table.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: It's disappointing that the Minister of Health Services continues

the name-calling. The government is saying…

[ Page 3337 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …that the doctors are asking for more money, and the doctors are

saying that the minister isn't telling the truth. The government says the Canada

Health Act does not require binding arbitration. The doctors say it does. Both

sides are engaged in spin operations to present to the public their point of

view. This is no way to handle a dispute that has the potential to threaten

lives.

At the very

least British Columbians deserve an independent assessment of the facts. So if

the minister won't agree to binding arbitration, will he at least agree to an

independent third party to sort out, at least, who is right and who is wrong on

the facts as both sides present them so that British Columbians can tell who is

actually telling the truth?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have a very good group of individuals who are negotiating on

behalf of government, and the BCMA has a very good group that are negotiating on

their behalf. These are issues that need to be sorted out at the negotiating

table. Good progress was being made up to 2 o'clock in the morning last

Saturday, when the BCMA walked away from negotiations. There was good progress

being made.

The issues

can be resolved at the table. Everyone's agreed that there's a $392 million cap

to resolve all of the issues around physician compensation. The place to resolve

those is at a negotiating table, not by compromising the health care of British

Columbians, which is what physicians are doing.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: You know, Mr. Speaker, today I heard a commentator suggest that

the BCMA and this Minister of Health Services weren't even at the same table,

let alone on the same planet. The tit-for-tat spin operations being employed by

the government and the doctors are offensive to people in need of care. All

British Columbians want is a government to keep its promise to deliver health

care when and where people need it.

independent third party will help get to the bottom of the mess, and it'll

provide British Columbians with the information that they want and, more

importantly, that they deserve. Will the minister today stand up, set individual

interests aside and call for an independent third party so that patients aren't

caught in the crosshairs of this ridiculous spin war?

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have made it very clear right from day one that we want to put in

place an independent third-party process to provide for a dispute settlement

mechanism. Both parties have that objective. We've put a proposal on the table.

We've asked the BCMA to comment on that. We've asked them to sit down, and

mutually we will come up with that independent process.

[1430]

It is not

up to me to impose a third-party process on the BCMA. It is up to us, the BCMA

and the government to sit down together to work out a third-party, independent

dispute settlement mechanism that will work for everybody involved. We should

not be doing the dispute on the backs of patients in British Columbia. It should

be done at the negotiating table.

PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE

SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

J. Kwan:

The government is allowing the Vancouver coastal health authority to cut

back and outright abolish a number of extremely important programs aimed at

children. Immunization programs, speech pathology programs and vision screening

for children are all on the chopping block. These services are especially

important to kids that come from poor, transient families, many of whom live in

my constituency.

To the

Minister of Children and Family Development: will he tell the House today

whether or not he supports cutting these preventative health programs? Will he

tell us whether or not he asked his ministry for an assessment of the impacts

these cuts will have on children's health?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The Vancouver coastal health authority is looking at how to better

deliver programs within the financial envelope they have, as are all the health

authorities throughout the province. In the cases of each of the three programs

that the member just mentioned, they are reorganizing the way those programs are

delivered, but the programs themselves are not being diminished. Access to those

programs is not being diminished. They are being reorganized. They're going to

be done in a more cost-effective way. I congratulate the health authorities for

looking at more cost-effective ways of delivering the kind of programs we need.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

This government has new

definitions for words around protection. Cutting

programs does not mean protection. Cutting programs does not mean

reorganization. The Minister of Children and Family Development's job is to

protect B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens, but his government is preparing to

spend millions of dollars on glitzy TV ads. Early intervention programs for

children in Vancouver are disappearing. He doesn't have a clue how that impacts

children's health.

Will the

minister at least, then, have the courage to stand up for the convictions that

he had when he was in opposition and condemn his government for cutting programs

that protect B.C.'s most vulnerable children from disease and illness?

[ Page 3338 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: What we inherited when we took over as government was a health care

system that was not working.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. C.

Hansen: Whether it was programs for children or whether it was health care

programs generally in the province, the status quo was not acceptable.

Fundamental change was essential.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: We have now undertaken the challenge of reorganizing the way health

care can be delivered so that we can deliver better programs, we can continue

programs, and we can continue to give the service that individuals need, whether

they're children or anybody else, but do it in the most cost-effective and

responsible way possible.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FARMERS

AND AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Agriculture has played an important role in the communities that I represent for

over the last 100 years. This makes the minister's recent attendance at the

federal-provincial agriculture meeting in Ottawa all the more important to my

constituents.

Can the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries please update us on what was

discussed at that meeting?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: Since last June the federal government, along with the

provincial and territorial governments, has been involved in negotiating a new

agriculture policy framework. Our goal is to develop a new policy that will

foster a profitable farming industry in Canada — one that will be a world

leader in food safety, environmental sustainability and innovation. We also want

to ensure that the new agreement includes a strong risk-management component

and, in particular, a crop insurance policy that will help farmers deal with

adverse, unforeseen weather conditions. We have a lot of work to do on this new

policy, but we expect to have it in place before April 1, 2003.

Mr.

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

[1435]

Lekstrom: In my riding we're having an extremely late spring this year. The

deadline for planting canola and other crops and having them insured under the

crop insurance program is rapidly approaching. Can the Minister of Agriculture,

Food and Fisheries tell us what he is doing to assist the farmers who will

likely not be able to seed prior to the May 10 deadline?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: In the Peace River the farmers are certainly facing some adverse

weather conditions that are delaying planting, and in the last two weeks we have

been reviewing the eligibility deadlines for farmers to plant crops and still be

eligible for crop insurance.

We have

extended some of the dates, and I'll just mention them quickly here for the

members. The canola seeding deadline has been extended from May 10 to May 20.

The oat seeding deadline has been moved from May 20 to May 25. The hard red

spring wheat deadline has been moved from May 20 to May 25.

We've

discussed all of these changes with the producers, and the B.C. Grain Producers

Association supports these changes.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST INDUSTRY

Visser: The resource sector is the cornerstone of B.C.'s economy and allows

us to provide many important public services. At the same time, balancing wealth

generation with environmental stewardship is the only way to make sure that they

are available for future generations.

Can the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management tell us what this government is

doing to ensure the balanced management of our forests?

Hon. S.

Hagen: Today is a great day for British Columbia. I'm pleased to tell the

House and all British Columbians that the Premier and the Minister of Forests

are in Prince George today to mark an important milestone for the forest sector.

Today the five-billionth tree will be planted in British Columbia —

five-billionth.

We are

planting more than 200 million seedlings every year. By the year 2007 we will

plant the six-billionth tree in the province. This is a tremendous testimony to

the commitment that we have to the future of our forest sector.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for North Island has a supplementary question.

Visser: The current state of our forest industry has many British Columbians

concerned about the economy. Despite that, we still recognize the continued need

for reforestation and the important role this plays in sustaining the industry

into the future.

Will the

Minister of Sustainable Resource Management outline what other steps are being

taken by this government to promote a sustainable forest industry?

Hon. S.

Hagen: This government has undertaken a very ambitious agenda to promote a

sustainable forest industry in this province. We want to build the forest

[ Page 3339 ]

industry back from the doldrums that it's been in for the last ten years.

We are

dedicating $20 million this year to forest research and a further $6 million for

tree improvement. We have launched a public review of our results-based code,

which the member, I know, is very well aware of as he chairs the committee

that's going to go around the province to get public input on this very valuable

process.

We will be

moving forward with consultations on the….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. S.

Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I'm really getting tired of getting interrupted.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Please

proceed.

Hon. S.

Hagen: It's too bad that some members have to be rude.

We will be

moving forward with consultations on the working forest initiative very, very

quickly. We look forward to the public input that's going to come back from

British Columbians on this very important issue.

Lastly,

with our commitment to tax and regulatory improvements, we are confident that

the forest industry will once again provide working families in this province

with good paycheques.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

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

[1440]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I understand members are getting tired as we near the end of the

session. Despite that, I would like to call, yet again, continuing debate on

Bill 27 in committee stage.

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE

FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(continued)

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:42 p.m.

section

2 as amended (continued) .

MacPhail: Before we broke for lunch, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant was exploring the concept of the new definition of what constitutes a

disability under this new act. It is our premise, completely unrefuted to date

by the minister, that the government is trying to limit the people who qualify

for disability benefits in this province.

Because the

act has changed the words so dramatically, all we can do is rely on the minister

telling us what conditions need to be present in a person with a disability in

order to have him or her qualify. There is no other way of determining this, so

we will continue reading the…. They're not cases; they're diagnoses. They are

existing conditions that could apply to anyone, to any member of our family or

our friends. They're existing conditions that are not a case-by-case basis but a

diagnosis.

Does the

diagnosis of arthritis qualify for disability?

[1445]

Hon. M.

Coell: The member may recall that through BC Benefits, it was not on the

basis of diagnosis that an individual would qualify, and it won't be under Bill

27 either.

MacPhail: No, I don't recall that. Perhaps the minister could expand upon

that.

Hon. M.

Coell: Under BC Benefits you had to show that you had a severe mental or

physical impairment. It was not on diagnosis.

MacPhail: Yes, and often the indication of that impairment was a diagnosis,

so it's unusual for the minister to somehow suggest that diagnosis is

irrelevant. Is the minister suggesting diagnosis is irrelevant?

Hon. M.

Coell: It's a factor.

MacPhail: Yes, so we will continue. The minister may be sensing what kind of

purpose does this serve while people are being judged by the new rules as we

speak and are preparing. People in this world are out there. They're now

eligible for disability benefits, and they're wondering, with a great deal of

angst, about what it is they have to prove in order to get them either benefit

that they now are eligible for.

I must tell

the minister that this information has come in. These questions have come in

since my colleague last night was so ably raising so many of these issues.

People were calling in and asking for these questions to be put because they had

no comfort from the debate they watched last night when my colleague from Mount

Pleasant was raising a series of very, very important questions.

Bipolar

disorder.

Hon. M.

Coell: Both Bills 26 and 27 require that anyone seeking the designation as a

person with a dis-

[ Page 3340 ]

ability meets two tests. BC Benefits also states that an individual must have

a severe mental or physical impairment. This carries forward in this bill. I

don't think I can be any clearer for you.

MacPhail: Well, in fact, the diagnoses that I'm reading off to the minister

now qualify. They were approved. They're not individual cases, but the diagnosis

represents a diagnosis upon which the person qualified. These are questions that

are coming in. So it would be appropriate, then, for the minister to say:

"Yes, that does qualify you."

Blood

clots, epilepsy, anxiety, depression.

Hon. M.

Coell: We had a thorough discussion this morning on that.

[1450]

MacPhail: You know, I actually believe that this is one minister in this

government who wants to communicate as much information as he possibly can in a

forthright manner. Now is the time to do it.

discussed earlier on about the way ordinary British Columbians can actually seek

input into this government's decisions. The Income Assistance Advisory Council

had been cancelled, repealed. The minister said he meets regularly. He wouldn't

give any details on meetings that he'd had, but he does say he'd meet regularly.

People

listen to the words of this minister and are calling in and want information.

Does a diagnosis of breast cancer qualify?

The

Chair: Shall

section 2 as amended pass?

MacPhail: Cerebral palsy — does that qualify?

The

Chair: Shall

section 2 as amended pass?

MacPhail: I find it shocking, actually, when the minister knows why these

questions are being asked and he could alleviate people's concerns out there

and, instead, what he's done is contributed to the state of anxiety.

There have

been a couple of MLAs — good on them for raising particular situations —

only a couple, but thank you for that…. Certainly, the minister was more than

willing to respond to individual situations that other MLAs raised. I guess it

was because they weren't from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or me

that he agreed to respond.

Now he sits

there, and all the people can hope for, who are now eligible and rely on that

disability benefit…. All he does is sit there and say nothing — absolutely

nothing.

In fact, I

guess I'll have to add this particular minister to my list of those whom I'm

disappointed in — that he would play favourites and politics and refuse to

give information to people who are directly affected by this.

In a recent

meeting with the deputy minister and the B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities, the deputy minister stated that the new definition as outlined in

Bill 27,

section 2, is intended to cull out specific types of cases or medical

conditions that are seen as the key unjustified cost pressures that flow from

the current definition under the Disability Benefits Program Act. Perhaps the

minister could list the key unjustified cost pressures, the types of cases or

medical conditions that come under that guise.

Hon. M.

Coell: I would seek clarification. I'm not quite sure what the member is

referring to.

MacPhail: I'll read it again. In a meeting between the deputy minister and

the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the deputy minister stated that

the new definition as outlined in Bill 27,

section 2, is intended to cull out

specific types of cases or medical conditions that are seen as the key

unjustified cost pressures that flow from the definition under the Disability

Benefits Program Act that this government is now changing. What are those types

of cases or medical conditions that are seen as key unjustified cost pressures?

Hon. M.

Coell: I understand from my deputy that she has been misquoted and that she

did not say that.

J. Kwan:

We'll double-check this information and whether or not we have misquoted the

deputy minister, because it was provided to us by the B.C. Coalition of People

with Disabilities.

[1455]

Let me ask

the minister this question on the medical conditions in this new definition

under Bill 27. People who have soft tissue injuries, chronic back pain,

fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, some forms of arthritis and depression

— will they still qualify for income assistance under Bill 27?

Hon. M.

Coell: Again, it depends on an individual's circumstances and the degree or

severity as stated by a medical practitioner.

J. Kwan:

The reason why I read out this list of medical conditions is because it is

believed by the community, as an example, that these are some of the conditions

the ministry will be looking to get rid of for qualification under Bill 27.

Formerly, under the old act, people were qualified for disability 2 with these

conditions. The list I have here states that very clearly. There are hundreds of

different kinds of medical conditions for which individuals qualify for

disability 2 under the former act. Unless the minister can provide assurances

otherwise, with the change under Bill 27 it is believed that these conditions

will no longer qualify individuals to receive income assistance under Bill 27.

In fact,

from yesterday's debate…. There were people who were watching this debate. I

have a case here that was sent to me by e-mail. Here's what the e-mail

[ Page 3341 ]

reads. I'll just read part of it. This individual has a brain injury and has

tried working and wants to be retrained, but even when she has worked here and

there, she's not able to make enough money to get above disability level. People

with dementia won't be able to answer accurately if their disability affects

their daily life or not. In this case, will this person be qualified?

Well, her

experience is such that her husband and herself were forced to separate so that

they could get benefits of some form for her disability. When he works, he makes

about $867 a month, at $8.50 an hour. Of course, with that calculation, they

didn't get support from the ministry. Without the support, they were unable to

pay their hydro, and now they're being evicted. They couldn't pay their full

rent, and they couldn't even cover food, their basic need. They are right now,

at this moment, at the dollar-breaking point, and of course, the husband is

being penalized for trying to work. The couple is contemplating that perhaps

they need to split up in order to survive. Maybe the minister can tell this

couple: people with dementia, who won't be able to answer accurately if their

disability affects their daily life — would they be able to collect income

assistance under Bill 27?

Hon. M.

Coell: The member is actually talking about a situation under the BC

Benefits Act, which her government introduced.

[1500]

J. Kwan:

No. This was e-mailed to me yesterday, on the 8th. Effective April 1, the

changes the minister brought in through the interim regulations are impacting

this couple. I know the minister would like to say, "It was the previous

government; it was the BC Benefits Act," and so on and so forth, but the

reality is that the changes being brought in are from this government, from this

minister. Even though the act has not passed through this House, even though the

regulations are not set, the minister said that effective April 1, changes were

going to be taking place. They're impacting people's lives as we speak. The

minister advised me of that when we did estimates. When we were doing estimates,

he said: "Effective April 1 changes are going to take place." Now

e-mails are coming in, and people are being impacted. The minister would like to

say it was the previous government. But you know what? It won't wash. It wasn't

the previous government's regulations. It is this government's regulations. It

is this government's bill that is causing these problems for people who are

faced with disability challenges.

Hon. M.

Coell: I would correct the member. There have been no changes as of April 1

for persons with a disability.

J. Kwan:

Let me try another tack, because the minister is obviously not answering the

questions, creating even more anxiety in the broader community.

When the

opposition was in the House, we rose during second reading and raised these

questions with the minister. Then every Liberal MLA was shouting and pounding

their desks, heckling my colleague and me, suggesting that we were somehow

fearmongering, scaremongering and so on. Well, this is the time, in third

reading debate, for the minister to give concrete answers — answers for people

who are sending e-mails by the droves for us to ask these questions of the

minister on whether or not they would be qualified and whether or not they'll be

cut off as a result of changes in Bill 27.

In fact, in

a moment I am going to find the e-mail from a person that's just e-mailed me.

She's being cut off disability, and she did receive a letter from the minister

telling her to go get a job. The minister yesterday said he did not send out

such information to anybody. In fact, after hearing that debate, individuals in

the broader community sent in such a letter which the minister did send to them,

and then subsequent to that, about how they were being cut off. I will find that

information in just one moment.

I want to

go back to the question here around these medical conditions. The minister likes

to flip and flop. He wants to say: "On the one hand, these are individual

cases, so we can't deal with them." Then when we say: "Okay. These are

medical conditions that I'm highlighting. Will the minister confirm that these

medical conditions will qualify people to receive income assistance?" Then

the minister says: "Well, gee, it's not up to me. It's up to the

practitioner." Well, the practitioners have already decided on the basis of

these medical conditions for people to receive disability 2, under the previous

act. We already have that information. We already have the medical practitioners

who have spoken on that issue. It is now up to the minister to advise what his

intention is for this act and the change he's now bringing forward under Bill

Last night,

when we were talking about the issues relating to HIV and AIDS, I asked the

minister whether or not there was a qualifier attached to it if someone's been

diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. The minister said something about fatigue being another

qualifying factor. I want to ask the minister, then: on the issue around

fatigue, would that mean that soft-tissue injuries, fibromyalgia, chronic

fatigue, cyclical manic fatigue disabilities — and that's the person who

e-mailed me; she has this fatigue disability — MS, Parkinson's and a host of

other disabilities qualify under this act?

Hon. M.

Coell: It will depend on the individual circumstances and severity.

J. Kwan:

The circumstances and severity are such that they now qualify for disability 2

under the former act, which required the individual to show….

"…as a direct result of a severe mental or physical

impairment, requires extensive assistance or supervision in order to perform

daily living tasks within a reasonable time frame, or requires unusual and

continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special diets or

for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, and who has

confirmation from a medical practitioner that

[ Page 3342 ]

the impairment referred to in paragraph (b)" — which

I just read out —"exists and is likely to continue for at least 2

years or is likely to continue for at least one year and is likely to

recur."

Under those

conditions physicians have determined the individual is qualified for disability

[1505]

The

minister yesterday tried to say that there are no substantive changes here under

this act that we're debating right now, under this section. He tried to say:

"Don't worry; be happy. Those people who need to qualify will

qualify." Well, the people who need to qualify did qualify under the old

act.

I now want

to know: where the minister says, "Don't worry; be happy. They will

qualify," would those people under this new act…? Will he confirm in the

House right now that those people, who did qualify under disability 2 with these

medical conditions, will continue to receive that assistance?

Hon. M.

Coell: I may have already said this, but some of the questions are quite

repetitive.

The

ministry will not be requiring all DB-2 clients to reapply. For example, the

ministry is working with the Ministry of Health Services, mental health

division, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to identify

clients with mental health disorders who are receiving treatment and those who

are developmentally delayed and living in group homes. These clients will

clearly meet the new criteria, so they will not need to reapply. They will be

advised that a review of their designation has indicated that they meet the new

criteria for continuous assistance.

Similarly,

the ministry is reviewing all client files to determine the extent of

information already available. If there is sufficient information on a client's

file to determine eligibility based on the criteria, their designation will be

confirmed.

J. Kwan:

You know what? The minister can read that list as many times as he wants to, but

he's not answering the question. He's not answering the question that's being

posed to him. Will these individuals, who now qualify for disability 2 under the

previous act with these medical conditions, qualify under this new act? I don't

think it's that complicated. Does the minister not know what his intent is with

his respect to this act?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I've said before, it will depend on the severity and individual

circumstances. I have a commitment to persons with disabilities. I know that

this legislation and the continuous assistance will provide the support for

safety and security.

J. Kwan:

The minister said yesterday that the changes that are being brought about in

this act will not substantively affect people in terms of their eligibility. In

fact, it wasn't just my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and I who asked these

questions. The member for Vancouver-Langara stood up and asked the question. He

rose up and said: "It is not clear under this act in terms of who would

qualify and who wouldn't qualify." In fact, the member for Langara had a

wonderful suggestion, and that is for the minister to stand down

section 2.

I rose up

and said that we would be happy to stand down

section 2 and work with the member

for Vancouver-Langara and the minister and the community to make sure that it is

clear that individuals who ought to qualify and should be receiving support from

government would continue to do so.

The

minister then got up and said: "No need to do that. It is very clear in

terms of who qualifies and who doesn't." Well now, it is not clear to me at

all who qualifies and who doesn't. I want to get into the specifics by asking

the minister. If he says the intent is the same as the previous act, and there

are no substantive changes in that regard, then it ought to follow that the

people who were assessed by medical practitioners on the severity of their

illness, on the severity and the impact of their disability and who qualified

for disability 2 under the previous act, ought to qualify now, today, under this

new act.

All the

minister has to do is confirm with the list that I have received from the B.C.

Coalition of People with Disabilities, which lists all the medical conditions,

that the people who have already been assessed will continue to receive support

from government under this act and that new people who come forward with the

same medical conditions, too, will receive support.

[1510]

If the

minister can do that, then I have no more questions. I have no more question on

section 2. If the minister is not able to do that and keeps on saying that he

doesn't know and that it's somebody else's responsibility to decide, then we

have a problem. We have a problem in this

section of the bill, because it is

unclear and the minister has not satisfactorily answered the questions to make

it clear for individuals in the community to understand who is qualified and who

is not qualified for disability assistance under Bill 27.

P. Wong:

I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

P. Wong:

I am pleased to introduce 56 students from St. Andrew's School in Vancouver.

These students are from grade 4 and grade 5 and are led by their teachers and

parents: Mr. Samson, Mrs. Riccardi and Mrs. Scali. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M.

Coell: Just to answer the member's question, some individuals' medical

conditions change. They can in some cases improve. They can in some cases

deteriorate over a period of time. It's therefore not possible to make blanket

statements.

[ Page 3343 ]

J. Kwan:

I don't know what is possible for this minister. It seems that nothing is

possible. It seems that none of the questions that are being asked of the

minister, he can answer. It seems that he cannot give any assurance whatsoever

to allay the fears in the broader community. It seems that his answers are

contradictory in their nature. They first say: "Yes, they're

qualified." Then they say: "No, they're not qualified." Then

there are additional qualifiers attached to it around eligibility.

Let me just

review from yesterday's Hansard on the questions around HIV and AIDS. The

question was asked: can the minister please explain and give what assurance he

can to the individuals who have HIV and AIDS that they would qualify to receive

income assistance for disabilities under Bill 27? The minister's answer:

"Currently, under BC Benefits, HIV-positive do not qualify on the basis of

diagnosis, because they have to show either a severe mental or physical

impairment. That won't change."

Then I rose

up and challenged the minister on that, because I have been identified with

people with AIDS. They have come forward to say that they have been diagnosed

with HIV and AIDS, and while their disability is not 100 percent symptomatic,

because of disability they need extra resources for them to perform their daily

activities. It costs them extra to simply survive, and so on. They were and are

receiving disability 2.

I rose up

and asked the minister that question. Again, the minister's answer says: "I

think the easy answer is that if someone is diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, they will

qualify." This is a direct quote from Hansard last night.

Then

discussion went on for a little bit. I asked the minister the question for

further clarification. Then the minister changed. He goes on to say that

currently, under BC Benefits, they do not qualify on the basis of the diagnosis.

If they show that they have a severe mental or physical impairment because of

that diagnosis, then they would qualify. In the same breath, the minister has

changed his position around whether or not a person qualifies.

Then he

goes on to say: "A person with AIDS will need assistance for a range of

reasons. One of them could be, as I said before, fatigue. They will

qualify."

[1515]

Then,

following precisely on this statement made by the minister, calls and e-mails

started to come into our office. People wanted to know: if fatigue qualifies

them, then would another diagnosis, such as fibromyalgia, qualify the individual

for continuous benefits? The list is actually in an e-mail sent in by real

people out there, not stuff that I'm just making up. People just sent in and

said, "What about this condition? What about this condition?" on the

basis of what the minister said. Would the minister please answer the questions

for British Columbians?

Hon. M.

Coell: For clarification, fatigue was an example of one factor in

consideration for HIV/AIDS.

J. Kwan:

The minister says fatigue is one factor with HIV/AIDS. If you have HIV and AIDS

and you have fatigue, you would qualify, and you will meet the medical

assessment and the daily living test. That's what the minister said yesterday.

Then he went on to say: "Just to reiterate again, we fully expect that

someone diagnosed with HIV/AIDS will qualify." Then I asked the question:

are there any conditions attached to that? The minister did not get up to

dispute or to add any conditions to it. Then it just stopped with him saying

that someone diagnosed with HIV/AIDS will qualify.

Is the

minister now saying that if someone is diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and has fatigue,

then they would qualify? Like, how many conditions are attached to eligibility

for a particular illness that are currently now eligible to receive disability?

Hon. M.

Coell: I am not a medical practitioner, and those are decisions best left up

to medical practitioners.

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister would like to just pass it off to the medical practitioners.

I've already said this to the minister, and I hope he can hear me: the medical

practitioners have already confirmed the diagnosis. They have already confirmed

that these individuals should be on disability, and they are on disability right

now. They're on disability 2. The minister will not, however, confirm whether or

not, on that basis, where that confirmation has already been received, people

with these medical conditions will continue to receive disability. Why won't he?

What is he hiding?

Hon. M.

Coell: The person could have a mild diagnosis or an extreme diagnosis.

That's why it's left up to a medical practitioner.

J. Kwan:

How will medical practitioners know what is deemed to significantly restrict the

person's ability to perform daily living activities when in the act it is not at

all clear? In the former act it was clear, because anything that is deemed to be

beyond reasonableness would be deemed to be a significant restriction on an

individual's ability to perform daily living activities. Well, that's now gone,

so there's no guidance whatsoever for the medical practitioners. People will be

looking to the minister who has put forward this bill, who is sponsoring this

bill, for that clarity to understand what those intentions are. What is the

intention of government in this regard?

Hon. M.

Coell: The medical practitioner will use an assessment tool. The tool is

under development by the ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Health

Planning and the Ministry of Health Services to assist in the development.

J. Kwan:

That gives no information whatsoever to the public now, the people who are

waiting and who are trying to understand what the ramifications are with respect

to this bill. It gives them zero assurance whatsoever.

[ Page 3344 ]

[1520]

I received

another fax from another individual, who wants to know from the minister:

"How will people with diabetes qualify — learning disabilities? Who says

that a person who does not need assistance with daily living will qualify for

disabilities? What in the act says that they will qualify?" Then the letter

goes on to say: "Unfortunately, in this field, lawyers go by written stuff,

not the minister's statements." Then the person wants the minister to give

examples, to give clarity on understanding "directly and

significantly" in the act under this section, which refers to:

"…directly and significantly restricts the person's ability to perform

daily living activities…." The person wants to know, actually, what the

budget is for people who are diagnosed with disabilities. What is the maximum

rate which the person would be able to receive?

Hon. M.

Coell: I'm not sure what the member means by rate.

J. Kwan:

The rate means the dollars, the dollar amount which the person would be able to

receive. I know that in the act later on it does talk about the rates. If the

minister wants to skip that answer, maybe the minister can answer the previous

questions. Let me just reiterate what the questions are. How will people with

diabetes qualify? Learning disabilities…. What in writing says that people who

do not need assistance with daily living will qualify for disability benefits?

What in the act says that they will qualify? Let me stop there.

Hon. M.

Coell: As I've stated a number of times, and I'll clarify the definition for

you again, the definition creates a three-step test: (1) is there a severe

mental or physical impairment, (2) will the impairment last two years, and

(3) does the impairment directly restrict the person's ability to perform daily

living activities?

J. Kwan:

Quite frankly, the minister hadn't answered this person's question either. I'll

send her Hansard on the minister's response.

Let me ask

the minister this question. Senior members of the Ministry of Human Resources

have informed the community that the continuous assistance classification will

include a category known as "multiple persistent barriers" and that

there will a reduction in income for those who fall into this category. Could

the minister please confirm whether or not there will be such a category and

please define this category in terms of eligibility criteria? How does it differ

from the other categories?

Hon. M.

Coell: That category will be under Bill 26.

J. Kwan:

That category is under Bill 26. Bill 26 is for people with regular income

assistance, not continuous assistance. I want to say again, and I want the

minister to be very clear on this…. Senior members of the Ministry of Human

Resources have informed the community that continuous assistance classification

will include a category known as multiple persistent barriers and that there

will be a reduction in income for those who fall into this category. Continuous

assistance is not under Bill 26. It is under Bill 27.

[1525]

Hon. M.

Coell: The definition of persistent multiple barriers is in Bill 26. It also

has the ability to provide continuous assistance. Both bills actually have

continuous assistance.

J. Kwan:

Actually, I remember we canvassed these questions in estimates as well, and we

talked about people with what are called multiple persistent barriers. I used

examples of people with perhaps substance misuse and mental illness, amongst

other issues. The minister assured me that those individuals would qualify for

the continuous categories.

Continuous

categories. As far as I can see, in both of these acts, the continuous only fall

under Bill 27. Continuous means that the person would need ongoing assistance.

Then I also

asked the minister: if the person can find work but find that they are not able

to sustain their job, and they are either fired or let go because of their

illness, what would happen in that instance? The minister replied that there

would be a thing called rapid reinstatement. That's what people with a

continuous disability would qualify for.

Here we

have a situation that's being asked exactly of that. A person faced with

multiple persistent barriers ought to qualify for continuous assistance for

disability under Bill 27. The minister just said no, they would not qualify for

it under Bill 27 but rather would qualify under Bill 26. That is a direct

contradiction not only to the information given to the community groups by the

deputy minister but to what the minister said during estimates.

Hon. M.

Coell: Persons with persistent multiple barriers to employment are not

expected to be able to achieve independence through employment. They will get

continuous assistance under Bill 26.

J. Kwan:

The minister has just changed his position. He's changed his position to say

that those people who are faced with persistent multiple barriers are not

qualified for disability benefits under Bill 27. That means that when they

qualify under Bill 26, after two years, if they are not able to sustain a job,

even if they have persistent multiple barriers, they will be cut off. That's

what Bill 26 says. People with persistent multiple barriers are not considered

individuals with disabilities. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M.

Coell: People with persistent multiple barriers are exempt from time limits.

J. Kwan:

The people with persistent multiple barriers are exempt from time limits. Are

those who qualify for disabilities then not under Bill 27?

[ Page 3345 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: No. Persistent multiple barriers will be under Bill 26.

[1530]

J. Kwan:

The minister, during estimates, used a number of examples of people with

persistent multiple barriers. He used examples of people with physical

disabilities, HIV and AIDS, mental illness and fetal alcohol syndrome, amongst

others. The minister had said that in those instances where people are unable to

keep a job because of their illness, there would be a thing called rapid

reinstatement.

Then he

went on to say that those who have these conditions — multiple barriers —

would be put back on income assistance immediately and that they wouldn't have

to go through a three-week pre-employment training. Then he went on to add that

people on continuous assistance would be able to earn up to $300 a month. As I

understand, the only people who can earn up to $300 a month are those

individuals who qualify under Bill 27. It appears that there is a discrepancy.

Maybe things have changed between then, when the estimates process was in place,

and now, and the minister has had time to re-evaluate the situation.

Is he now

saying, for the record, that those with multiple persistent barriers would be

qualified for income assistance and would not be subject to a time limitation

and that if they lose employment as a result of their disability, their illness

— whatever barrier it is that they're faced with — they would receive rapid

reinstatement? That, in the minister's view, is continuous assistance under Bill

26, not Bill 27.

Hon. M.

Coell: That's essentially correct.

J. Kwan:

I just want to put this on record. This is something that I want to advocate

for the people that I fear are going to be cut off because of the time

limitations. I want to say very clearly to the minister that by his confirmation

today, I will be developing a fact sheet, if you will, on this issue and sending

it out to the broader community for every individual who ought to qualify so

that they can bring this piece of paper to the welfare office and not receive

any hassle and threats of being cut off. I want that on the record, to be very

clear about it.

When

individuals come back with problems, it is the word of the minister that I'm

taking at this point. I will now let go of this issue in terms of questions to

the minister relating to people with persistent multiple barriers. It is the

minister's word that will ensure that these individuals are qualified. I want to

thank the minister for that commitment.

Hon. M.

Coell: I need to clarify for the member that it is based on an assessment.

MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have to give my colleague a break here,

because she is reaching a conclusion where she has got the minister to finally

land on a definition and reiterates the minister's own words. Then the minister

clarifies by standing up and saying: "No, no, that's based on an

assessment." An assessment of what? If the person is not eligible for

income assistance under Bill 27 for people with disabilities, what are we

assessing in terms of multiple barriers?

[1535]

Hon. M.

Coell: It will be based on an employability assessment. Essentially, the

category is for those people who do not have a disability but have social

barriers or other barriers that prevent them from seeking work.

MacPhail: Yes. Well, in a different kind of government that understands

barriers and how they create disabilities, I think the previous government

classified that as a disability 1. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

Coell: It is different than disability 1, and we're actually back debating

Bill 26 at this point. It will allow people with invisible barriers, who were

not able to get DB-1, to be identified and to receive continuous assistance.

MacPhail: All right. I appreciate the minister's comments about us being

back debating Bill 26, but the reason why we're raising these issues right now

is that by the ministry serving notice to pretty much everybody who's on income

assistance — and we still heard from people last night who are on disability

and were very much in the dark about their future as well — there are many

people who are trying to figure out exactly how their lives will change.

I take it

from the minister's comments, then — and I have to confess that I'm not nearly

as well informed as my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — that there

will be a category under Bill 27 that's disability 1 and disability 2. How many

categories are there?

Hon. M.

Coell: Under Bill 27 there is one category: persons with a disability.

MacPhail: That's why, I guess, the person that my colleague read out said:

"How much are we earning?" There will be an opportunity for us to

explore this later on, but as I understand it, this Liberal government has

removed, then, the category of disability 1. Is that correct?

Hon. M.

Coell: We've changed the category under Bill 26 to persons with persistent

multiple barriers.

MacPhail: Okay. So the assessment….

Hon. M.

Coell: I just want to clarify that. It's not DB-1. We have a new category,

which is persons with persistent multiple barriers.

MacPhail: Well, I guess that's where everybody's confusion is coming in now.

What a previous government recognized in, I would say, a fairly compassionate

way — that people are disabled by their multiple

[ Page 3346 ]

and persistent barriers — this government just looks at as an employment

issue. Is there a special adjustment for people with multiple and persistent

barriers? Is there a category of assistance that's different from those without

multiple and persistent barriers?

Hon. M.

Coell: As I say, we're still in Bill 26. If the members would like to carry

on, we're obviously going to get another chance to deal with Bill 26.

[1540]

Just for

clarification, the barriers in persons with persistent multiple barriers will

include things like poor work history and poor education that make it difficult

for someone to seek work — that aren't in the DB-1. They will have enhanced

medical and other supports and also the $300 earning exemption.

J. Kwan:

That $300 earning exemption applies to people who qualify under Bill 27 — the

continuous category, not for the people who are faced with persistent barriers?

Hon. M.

Coell: People with persistent multiple barriers will also have that $300

earning exemption.

J. Kwan:

We will then canvass this issue some more when we deal with Bill 26. This was

brought up under Bill 27 because it was believed and understood by the

community, through not only my estimates process with the minister in the

questions and answers but also through the process of discussions with the

deputy minister and community groups…. They were led to believe that those

individuals who are faced with persistent multiple barriers would qualify for

continuous income assistance under Bill 27. Clearly, that information was wrong

both in the replies from the minister in the estimates process as well as in the

meeting that took place with the deputy and the B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities.

At this

time I'd like to move an amendment. In all of the discussions we've had so far,

I have received zero comfort from the minister for people with disabilities

around who qualifies and who doesn't. It causes me grave concern.

Reviewing

yesterday's discussion, the minister advised that the individuals who are

qualified now don't have a lot to worry about because everything is essentially

staying the same. At that time it was suggested that

section 2 be stood down and

for the minister to come forward with wording that will rectify this problem not

only for the opposition members but also for government members. Particularly, I

want to give credit to the member for Vancouver-Langara for raising these

issues.

I would now

like to table an amendment to this

section of the bill. The amendment is as

follows:

[Section 2 is amended by adding the text highlighted by

underline and deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:

(1) In this section:"assistive device"

means a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living

activity that, because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person

is unable to perform;

"daily living activity" has the

prescribed meaning;

"health professional" means a person who

is authorized under an enactment to practice the profession of

(

a) a medical practitioner,

(

b) a registered psychologist,

(

c) a registered nurse or

registered psychiatric nurse,

(

d) an occupational therapist,

(

e) a physical therapist, or

(

f) a social worker.

(2) The minister may designate a person who has

reached 19 years of age as a person with disabilities for the purposes of

this Act if the minister is satisfied that the person has a severe mental or

physical impairment that

(

a) in the opinion of a medical

practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and

(

b) in the opinion of a health

professional

(

i) directly and significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily

living activities either

(

A) continuously, or

(

B) periodically for extended periods, and

(ii) as

a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those

activities.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),

(

a) a person who has a severe

mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder, and

(

b) a person requires help in

relation to a daily living activity if, in order to perform it, the person

requires

(

i) an

assistive device, or

(ii) the

significant help or supervision of another person.

(4) The minister may rescind a designation under

subsection (2).

In this Act:

"person with disabilities" means a person who

at the time this

section comes into force was a handicapped person under the

Disability Benefits Program Act or a person

(

a) who is 18 years of age or older

(

b) who, as a direct result of a

severe mental or physical impairment,

(

i) requires

extensive assistance or supervision in order to perform daily living tasks

within a reasonable time, or

(ii) requires

unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for

special diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs, and

(

c) who has confirmation from a

medical practitioner that the impairment referred to in paragraph (

b) exists

and

(

i) is likely

to continue for least two years, or

(ii) is

likely to continue for at least one year and is likely to recur. ]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

I'm moving this amendment because this definition that was formerly in place

under the old BC Benefits Act states clearly who ought to be qualified and who

ought not to be qualified. It sets out the parameters on reasonableness in

determining what significantly restricts the person's ability to perform daily

living activities. It sets out clearly, with a test of rea-

[ Page 3347 ]

sonableness, the reasonableness of the amount of time for a person to perform

these daily living activities.

[1545]

It further

provides for the option for individuals who could overcome the challenges that

they face to perform daily living activities…. However, by overcoming these

challenges they have other issues that they're faced with, issues that would

require them to have additional resources to survive — whether it be

additional resources for the purposes of transportation, for special diets or

for any matter that is required and needed for the individual. That provision is

there under this amendment, and it allows for that broad understanding for

qualification and requirement for qualification for people with disabilities.

Given that

the minister has said that it is not an issue around trying to cut people off

disability under Bill 27 and given that the minister said last night that there

are no substantive changes with respect to this act and what was formerly in

place under the BC Benefits Act, then the minister ought to have no trouble

whatsoever adopting and accepting this amendment.

MacPhail: I think this amendment tabled by the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant goes a long way to resolving a lot of the concerns expressed by pretty

much everyone who has spoken to date on

section 2. I think it resolves a lot of

the concerns and still allows the minister to proceed in a way that matches the

rest of the legislation under Bill 27.

Here's the

reason why it is so crucial that this government once and for all puts to rest

the concerns and the level of anxiety amongst people who are currently

collecting a disability 2 pension. The definition in this grandfathers —

basically grandparents — people now who are already eligible for disability

benefits.

Let me read

this letter. It's to the Minister of State for Mental Health, and it's from a

mental health worker in the Vancouver coastal health authority. It was received

just moments ago. It was sent yesterday to the Minister of State for Mental

Health.

"Dear [Sir]:

am a community mental health case manager in Vancouver with an MSW degree

and 12 years experience in community and hospital mental health. I was

heartened last year by your appointment and new role and hopeful that it

signalled better treatment for the mentally ill in British Columbia.

am now writing with grave concerns about recently announced changes to

disability benefits by the Ministry of Human Resources. I foresee terrible

impact these changes will bring to the health and lives of our clients. I

have seen a letter co-written by yourself with the Minister of Human

Resources and was not reassured nor convinced you fully understand the

ramifications.

"Fully

75 percent of my caseload of 56 seriously mentally ill clients receive

disability benefits level 2. Mental health workers have responsibly assisted

their clients to apply for this pension and seen the tremendous benefit of

secure, adequate support on their mental health and in their lives

generally. The freedom from welfare stigma has been as important as the

extra benefits which allow for decent housing in safe areas, transportation,

participation in rehabilitation programs and dietary supplements.

"As

you know, the changes in the proposed legislation focus on changing the

definition of disability and on employment for the disabled. Your point that

mental illness is now recognized in the legislation is well taken. However,

I point out also that the emphasis in definition on the need for daily

supervision would disallow virtually all of our clients, who are encouraged

to be as independent as possible. And of course, although cursed by

hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, depression and difficulty organizing

and thinking clearly, our clients are able-bodied and not requiring such

supervision.

[1550]

"Regarding

the emphasis in the new act on employment for the disabled, you must be

aware that mental health clinics all over the province already assist their

clients to function as productively as possible. We all know how important

this is toward maintaining wellness. We have a wide variety of programs

designed to this end, which recognize the specific difficulties faced by the

mentally ill in finding work. To shift the responsibility for assessing

capability for employment to Ministry of Human Resources staff is very poor

policy, destined to disaster. To require mental health staff to reapply on

behalf of our clients would be wasteful and time-consuming.

"This

week already" — as an aside, Mr. Chair, the letter was written May 8,

2002 — "I have responded to six different clients' anxieties about

their financial future. They have brought clippings from newspapers

outlining changes. They are full of fear and anxiety about the uncertainty.

I have even seen guilt in folks who haven't been able to work for many

years. Of my 56 clients, only four are regularly employed, and two of those

are off frequently due to poor stress tolerance. The vast majority have

never worked in competitive employment in their lives. It seems to me both

more humane and more cost-effective to leave these people alone, with decent

support and no pressure to seek to work or justify themselves to welfare

reviews.

have one client who was recently inexplicably turned down for DB-2,

disability benefits 2, who has $85 per month to exist on after his rent is

paid. We are working hard to gain his trust, despite his paranoid thinking,

and trying to avert his moving to the downtown east side, the only place in

the city with rents in the range of welfare rates. Of course, our clients

who do gravitate to that dangerous part of town end up living short, often

addicted and painful lives.

"We

must do better, [Minister of State for Mental Health], for them and for us

all."

As I read

this letter from an expert who works with these people every day, the member for

Vancouver-Burrard says: "Oh, what, are they watching the Legislature

parliamentary channel?" Completely dismissing in an unbelievable way the

expertise….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member, order, please.

Proceed.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I just read a letter from a community mental health

worker with 12 years' experience and a graduate degree, and the member for

[ Page 3348 ]

Vancouver-Burrard says that he doesn't understand what's going on.

Mayencourt: I clearly understand what's going on.

MacPhail: The member for Vancouver-Burrard says this expert doesn't

understand what's going on. I was reading the concerns raised by the mental

health worker, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard says this person doesn't

understand what's going on.

Interjection.

MacPhail: It is unbelievable that that member, whose constituents are

directly and negatively affected by these changes, sits there blindly heckling

and somehow suggesting that these concerns are not legitimate.

The fact

that the member sits there and breaks promises that he made to people in his own

community to raise exactly these issues is outrageous. His contribution from his

silent seat, his cheap shots to an expert in the field….

Mayencourt: Point of order.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has made an allegation that I

have broken a promise to my community. I would ask that she please withdraw

that. That's not correct.

MacPhail: That's not unparliamentary.

Mayencourt: I would ask that she withdraw that comment because it is not

true.

The

Chair: Member, the comment is not unparliamentary.

Mayencourt: I will apologize to the Chair for that.

[1555]

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, my colleague and I are standing here in the Legislature

as…. Perhaps it's fair to know that the public can't see the things that are

coming in here. These are not situations that my colleague and I have made up.

These are people who are unable to have their voices heard in any other fashion

to date. That may change, Mr. Chair. Rightfully, that may change. Some members

have had the courage to get up and put their concerns on record.

The

community of people with HIV/AIDS have asked that their concerns be raised and

thought that their concerns were going to be raised by the member for

Vancouver-Burrard. In fact, the questions have had to be put in careful detail

by my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who is working

closely to ensure that accurate information is distributed. My colleague gets

the answers and distributes the very words of the Minister of Human Resources.

That's her job. Unfortunately….

The

Chair: Member, perhaps we could get back to the debate on the amendment.

Interjection.

MacPhail: It's not her job.

Yes, Mr.

Chair, exactly. This is right on point. The very concerns that are being raised

here are addressed by the amendment that my colleague has put forward. The very

concerns that are being addressed by this 12-year, unbelievably dedicated and

expert specialist. When the letter came in, I hadn't had a chance to read it

before I stood up and read it into the record, yet it is so on point to

supporting this amendment. It's but one of dozens of missives that have come in.

All the

minister has to do is accept this amendment to the definition, and it won't

affect one commitment that he's made here — not one commitment that the

minister has made here. If what the minister has put on record and if the

minister has been sincere, without any misleading…. If the minister has been

truthful in describing how his….

The

Chair: Member, member. I think….

MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. My apologies.

As the

minister has been truthful, we accept, in his description of his intent, then

this amendment meets the test of actually putting the words properly to what the

minister's commitment in debate has been so far.

The one

example is what I just read, where it is the test now…. As the minister has

said, the test will be a functional test. The mental health worker says it is a

functional test that we strive for, for people with mental illness. Yet they are

still mentally ill. They still, as he said, have hallucinations; they have

delusions; they suffer from paranoia, depression and have difficulty organizing

and thinking clearly. Yet they are functional. That is but one example of why

this amendment merely does the work that the minister says he's committed to

achieving.

The

Chair: The Minister of Human Resources, speaking to the amendment.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think it's very unfortunate that there has been misinformation in

the media and that it has caused this stress.

I can

respond by saying that we are committed to people with mental health disorders

and that I am confident that these people will find the safety and security they

need in these two acts.

[1600]

The

Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, speaking to the amendment.

[ Page 3349 ]

J. Kwan:

Given that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has not risen to ask any questions

during this debate on Bill 27, I have a list of questions that I have received

from community members from the member for Vancouver-Burrard's area. They have a

lot of concerns in this area, and they all pertain to the amendment that I have

tabled. The amendment that I have tabled speaks directly to the issues that they

are concerned about, and they have asked for the minister to make sure that

those issues are indeed protected under the new definition of disability in Bill

Let me just

read this into the record. Here are the concerns that were asked about by the

Pacific AIDS Network to the member for Vancouver-Burrard to raise these matters

in the House, which he has not to date. The concerns are as follows:

"Unusual and continuous costs have been removed from the definition. The

current definition provides that applicants can qualify for disability status if

they can demonstrate that they have need of assistance or have

disability-related costs. Why has this been removed, and how will the new act

address this issue?"

The

amendment puts this back into the act so that it will address this particular

issue that's been raised by the Pacific AIDS Network that the member for

Vancouver-Burrard was supposed to ask the minister, which he has not.

The cost

criterion has now been removed. The amount of money a person may need to spend

in the care and management of his or her disability has no bearing on the

application for disability benefits. This will affect, for example, people who

may not need assistance but who have ongoing costs related to their disability.

The amendment puts back the previous requirement to allow for an option for

consideration for disability, and that is extra expenditures related to

disability.

To qualify

for disability benefits, applicants will have to be directly and significantly

restricted in the ability to perform daily living activities. Daily living

activities will be defined in the new regulations. Will PWAs be required to show

that they need help with specific activities? What is the difference between

significant assistance and extensive assistance? This wording change signals

that there may be criteria more restrictive than are currently in place. Can you

explain the rationale behind this change? This change, as we see it, would

disqualify many PWAs from qualifying for disability benefits. Have we misread

the bill's intent, or will the regulations address this concern? The minister

has not answered these questions appropriately or satisfactorily to allay the

fears that now lie in the hearts of PWAs.

To that

end, the amendment addresses exactly that point: that the fear this government

has caused — the member for Vancouver-Burrard has refused to raise these

questions on behalf of his own constituents — is now going to be addressed

through the amendment.

"Performing

tasks within a reasonable period of time" has been removed. This change

indicates that the ministry will not consider the length of time that it takes

an individual to perform tasks unaided. PWAs who struggle to remain self-reliant

despite the difficulty and length of time it takes to perform daily tasks may

not qualify. Again, have we misread the bill's intent, or will the regulations

address this concern?

Just so

there will be no confusion, once again, the amendment addresses this issue. It

puts back the issue around "reasonable period of time to perform daily

tasks" so that there is no confusion whatsoever around eligibility.

Questions

continue. Will PWAs currently in receipt of a monthly health allowance — that

is,

schedule C — continue to receive the full amount awarded them by the

minister or as the result of a tribunal or appeal decision? Will an individual

with HIV/AIDS be entitled to disability benefits based on their doctor's advice?

If so, will there be any changes in the criteria a doctor must consider when

recommending a patient is disabled and should be provided disability benefits?

Will a PWA be required by the ministry to see a doctor other than his or her own

for any reason? If so, to whom, and when will this apply?

Given that

Bill 27 has removed the designation of "permanent disability," can a

PWA receiving disability assistance reasonably expect that if they return to

work and become too ill to continue working after a period of time, they will be

entitled to disability assistance within a reasonable time frame? And would

there be interim assistance while the person is waiting for reinstatement to

disability assistance?

[1605]

What kind

of support programs are being contemplated to assist a PWA in preparing to

return to work and would be available to enable them to continue employment,

given the bill's emphasis on employment? Will the new bills and regulations

allow a PWA that has an income that is the same or slightly more than the

disability assistance levels — those on Canada Pension long-term disability in

a low-income job or with some other income — to receive medical services only?

Medical services only provide for some items of medical need, such as

wheelchairs, walkers, etc.

These are

the questions that have been asked by the Pacific AIDS Network for the member

for Vancouver-Burrard to raise with the minister. The member for

Vancouver-Burrard did not raise these issues during second reading. He did not

raise these issues during committee stage reading on precisely the definition

that changes eligibility.

The

amendment I've put forward addresses all of these concerns, and I'm asking the

minister, on behalf of this group: why wouldn't he support this amendment, when

all of these concerns and the fears that have been caused in the broader

community by this government's change on the eligibility criteria and the

definition of disability would be addressed?

[1610]

Amendment

negatived on the following division:

[ Page 3350 ]

YEAS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

NAYS — 47

Falcon

Coell

Hogg

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Plant

Collins

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Long

Chutter

Bennett

Hayer

Krueger

Bray

Nijjar

Wong

Bloy

Cobb

K. Stewart

Visser

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Sahota

Hawes

Kerr

Manhas

Kerr

Manhas

J. Kwan:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan:

I just recognized that sitting in the gallery is Aaron Jasper. He is the

president of the Vancouver-Burrard Riding Association. Would the House please

make him welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

I wonder if it's all right, before we pick up on

section 2, for us to take a

ten-minute break. I would like to attend to some biological needs, if I may.

The

Chair: We'll take a ten-minute recess and resume at 4:25.

The

committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:25 p.m.

[H. Long in the chair.]

section

2 as amended (continued) .

S. Orr: I've

listened, obviously, intensely to the debate. I have all the four previous

bills. I've had a few things clarified, but I would like to ask…. I'm trying

to get through all the debate and zero in and get a very clear picture.

Obviously, this is to do with my constituents, because that's the people I

represent. Yesterday I did hear from the minister very clearly that the daily

living activities were going to be defined in the regulations, so I've put that

to one side.

Where I

want to get comfort is here. I want to come at this as a small story. I have a

bipolar constituent. I want to work through this. My bipolar constituent has

been to see a registered psychiatric nurse. That registered psychiatric nurse

has told my constituent that in fact she or he is bipolar. We now have a

definition that he or she is bipolar. Her daily living activities, as with many

bipolar people, are extensive. It takes them quite a bit of time just to get

through the day — or to survive the day, I think, is more like it.

He or she

— this is actually a real constituent I'm quoting here; that's why I'm not

going to give whether it's male or female — doesn't need somebody to dress

them in the morning or anything like that. This person is just surviving. She

does need help going to the bank. I need to know where that person sits in this

section. I need to know how you define that person. And is that person covered

by disability?

Hon. M.

Coell: Without commenting on specifics, because I don't know the specifics

of the case, you outlined a number of things. I suspect that it would be

probable that those conditions that you've indicated in the client would achieve

the designation of a person with a disability, but it's hard for me to comment

on the case, because I don't know the specifics of it.

S. Orr: I

realize you can't speak on specifics. I actually do understand that, but it

would seem to me that generally, if a person has a bipolar condition, under this

definition if they needed help to go to the bank because that's part of their

daily activity, they would be covered. Again, I don't want to make this

specific.

Hon. M.

Coell: I think I may have touched on this yesterday, but if you look at the

qualifications under "daily living activities," there would be things

like medication management, personal care — whether it be bathing, dressing,

cooking, preparing meals — banking, finances, shopping, transportation,

mobility inside and outside the house, basic housework. Those would all be daily

living activities that would be taken into consideration.

[1630]

S. Orr: This

is good for me. Again, I'm trying to make it clear for me, because there's so

much debate going on. This is good. This tells me that what your definition

of…. When it comes to a daily living activity, the ability to perform a daily

living activity can be a very small thing like a trip to the bank. Or, as you

said, maybe somebody helps them write their cheques or whatever. It's not a

performance all day. Can I ask for clarity on that?

Hon. M.

Coell: Yes, I think you're correct.

MacPhail: While my colleague is catching her breath, I want to explore

another issue around the

[ Page 3351 ]

definition that's causing some concern. As the minister may know, in the

previous definition of disability under the Disability Benefits Program Act, it

said: "…person with disabilities means a person who at the time this

section comes into force was a handicapped person under the Guaranteed Available

Income for Need Act" — in other words, we grandfathered people —

"or a person who requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for

transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but essential and

continuous needs." That's been removed. That is not in the new definition

of what would define or put parameters around who has a disability.

Here's a

letter. There are several groups that are fairly concerned about this, but the

minister did receive a letter from the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater

Vancouver. The letter to the Minister of Human Resources was dated April 22 of

this year. I just quote from it:

"By

eliminating unusual and continuous costs from the definition, people who are

disabled will either be pushed deeper into poverty or be forced to forgo

spending money needed for the care and management of their disability. Their

quality of life will be adversely affected as their health deteriorates. The

health care system will also be strained as people are hospitalized due to

poor health."

I'm just wondering if the minister could address…. These aren't the

concerns of fearmongering; these are people advocating on behalf of those who

have cerebral palsy.

Hon. M.

Coell: The persons designated as persons with a disability will receive the

higher rate.

MacPhail: Sorry. The higher rate for what? My apologies.

Hon. M.

Coell: Persons with a disability receive a higher rate than people on income

assistance as it is now. People on income assistance have $510; people with a

disability have $786.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister misunderstood my point. The point is about

whether people qualify for the higher rate or not. I understand that once they

qualify they get the higher rate, but this new act under the Liberal government

removes the parameter that would define a person as disabled and, therefore,

eligible for the higher rate.

One of the

determining factors under the old definition was whether the person required

unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special

diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs. That used to be

part of the definition and is no longer.

[1635]

The reason

that used to be part of the definition is because one can be functional and

still disabled. The daily living tasks that the minister recounted as, perhaps,

defining to the member for Victoria-Hillside are able to be done by hundreds of

thousands of people, but some of those people can do those and are disabled.

This was a way, after numerous months of consultation with people who have

disabilities, of clearly indicating who needed extra help to level the playing

field when they had a disability — if they required unusual or continuous

monthly expenditures for transportation. I know the minister may say that's

perhaps covered off under "assistive device." Well, the people that

advocate for people with cerebral palsy don't think it does. Or there's a

special diet — I'll get to that in a moment — or other unusual but essential

and continuous needs.

Those

parameters of defining, in a very real way, what constitutes a disability are

gone now. The Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater Vancouver suggest that

"by eliminating unusual and continuous costs from the definition, people

who are disabled will either be pushed deeper into poverty or be forced to forgo

spending money needed for the care and management of their disability."

Perhaps the minister could explain, then, to the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied

why that parameter in the definition was removed.

Hon. M.

Coell: The member canvassed that issue of higher medical costs yesterday,

and I stated that I believe we now have a more progressive definition,

consistent with human rights law. I think if the member goes back to yesterday's

Hansard and reads it, she'll find her answer in it.

MacPhail: That was in a question to the minister. There's no question about

it — except that the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied don't accept that answer.

Has the minister met with the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied?

Hon. M.

Coell: I don't recall that they asked to meet with me.

MacPhail: Well, they wrote you a letter. I just wondered whether…. I'm

reading from the letter they wrote asking these questions. There certainly was a

series of questions. Let me read another part of the letter, then. This is what

they assert. "By removing the one-year-and-likely-to-recur duration test

from the definition, people with cyclical disabilities will be cut from

benefits." That's what the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied of Greater

Vancouver are saying.

I would

assume that people with cerebral palsy believe they are subject to a negative

judgment of the nature of their illness based on the fact that the

one-year-and-likely-to-recur duration test is gone. That was why my colleague

was trying to find out what sort of diagnoses still remain, in any way, to meet

this test.

People with

cerebral palsy are ever hopeful that there will be a cure or a move to

remission. Unfortunately, there hasn't been. It is cyclical. There are good

days, good months and, on the odd occasion, good years, but the disease is with

them as they were born. What reassurance does the minister have for people with

cerebral palsy?

[ Page 3352 ]

Hon. M.

Coell: I think the member knows as well as I that cerebral palsy is a

permanent condition and that a one- or two-year test would not apply. I believe

you would find that the designation of a person with a disability would be

appropriate under Bill 27.

[1640]

MacPhail: Could the minister point to where, please?

Hon. M.

Coell: Under the definition in

section 2, which I've gone over probably a

hundred times.

MacPhail: Well, the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied have read the definition,

and they're comparing the old definition to the new definition. They don't seek

that comfort that the minister tries to give by just reasserting the definition.

Under the old definition, it said that one was classified as disabled if the

impairment is likely to continue for at least one year and is likely to recur.

That's the definition of cerebral palsy. Many, many people with cerebral palsy

are functional and would be able to perform the daily living tasks that the

minister seems to think is the reason upon which he will judge all disabilities,

so there isn't comfort in the current definition for people with cerebral palsy.

I can

actually appreciate the minister's frustration, but perhaps the frustration

should be examined on what its source is. Is it that the definition is weak and

doesn't properly capture people with disabilities?

Hon. M.

Coell: I believe this definition will protect those people who need the

designation of a person with a disability. We've looked at a number of ways of

looking at the issue, and I think I have answered the member's question to the

best of my ability.

MacPhail: Well, then, I am feeling less hopeful about this process.

All I'm

going to do, then, along with my colleague, is to read people's concerns into

the record. If that means the concerns are public and nothing beyond that, then

I don't know what else we can do.

These

concerns aren't from people who are ill informed or who lack knowledge in terms

of what it means to live with a disability. These aren't people who are

fearmongering, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard wants to challenge anyone. He

wants to label his own constituents as fearmongers. These are people who live

with these issues daily, and they're raising concerns. I would be just as happy

to raise the concern of the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied, receive an answer and

sit down.

Interjection.

MacPhail: They already have the legislation in front of them to which the

minister refers as being the saviour for them. It was on the basis of it that

they wrote their questions.

Well, I'll

carry on, then. There's an analysis provided by the executive director of the

Tiger's Eye Society. The executive director has a disability and presents

workshops for people with disabilities, helping them navigate the system, so she

comes forward with an expertise that's beyond mine. Here's what she writes:

"Presently,

under the existing disabilities act" — the one that's being repealed

— "one can qualify for being permanently disabled based on medical

costs related to their disability. At tribunal level we have always

interpreted this by guidelines given to us through offices that I believe

are originally from the Ministry of Health in Victoria. These costs can

include prescription medications; doctor-recommended herbs, vitamins and

minerals; bus pass or gas for a car getting to medical appointments, etc.

[1645]

"This

figure is a stand-alone qualifier at $200 per month ongoing or can be $100

per month or more if the need for personal assistance level is five to six

hours per week or greater.

"The

new Bill 27 eliminates any reference to costs of improving or maintaining

the best health possible for the permanently disabled person. Thus, people

with multiple sclerosis, for example, that can have drug costs of $1,700 a

month just to function and manage their condition will not be recognized

under the new bill as disabled."

Her

questions are: where will people be able to find support for the added medical

costs incurred because of a disability? Secondly, what will the Ministry of

Human Resources be doing to ensure that people are able to receive assistance in

paying for their medical needs?

Hon. M.

Coell: The simple answer to that is: the added medical costs will be

recognized in a higher rate as it is in the BC Benefits legislation.

MacPhail: Is the minister somehow suggesting…? Can he give comfort to this

woman who writes and say that she doesn't have a concern? Is that what he's

saying — that there is no change? She's outlined very clearly from an expert

point of view the way the system applied up until this legislation. Is the

minister saying that system continues?

Hon. M.

Coell: The rate will not change. I cannot comment on the conditions of

individuals.

MacPhail: It's not a matter of the rate changing. It used to be that the

medical costs associated with the disability contributed to being recognized as

eligible for the higher rate. What this expert is saying is: here's how they

used to determine medical costs associated with a disability. It was that if the

person with a disability demonstrated $200 a month ongoing extra costs or the

need for personal assistance of five to six hours per week and $100 a month in

extra ongoing costs, the health guidelines said those are medical costs that are

extraordinary, and then under the definition the person would qualify for

disability benefits 2.

[ Page 3353 ]

She is

saying that with the government now removing any sort of qualifier related to

medical costs resulting from the disability, there is now a potential that

people with these extraordinary costs may not be recognized as having a

disability that requires assistance. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

[1650]

Does that

change? The act has changed, and that qualification is gone now. But will the

system perhaps continue to apply in the same manner even without the legislated

guarantee?

Hon. M.

Coell: The new act, I believe, has the advantage that the individual does

not have to show proof of medical costs through receipts. Under the new

legislation the definition now recognizes that where assistance is needed for a

functional limitation, there will generally be associated costs. These are

recognized in the higher rate. As I've said, the definition under this new

legislation now focuses on functional limitations that restrict an individual's

ability to perform daily living activities.

Where

assistance is needed for a functional limitation, there will generally be

associated costs. By focusing on the functional limitations rather than medical

costs, the ministry is bringing the definition of disability more in line with

human rights case law. Moreover, no other Canadian jurisdiction uses costs as an

indicator of disability.

MacPhail: Yes, I know it was quite a breakthrough that people with

disabilities had in the 1990s in British Columbia, a huge breakthrough. You're

quite right. We did lead the country. I know there's lots of things that this

government likes to lead the country on — lowest taxes for the rich, the

fewest environmental protections, the biggest cuts to legal aid — but they

don't like to lead on the greatest support or the best recognition for people

with disabilities. That's true. This government doesn't like to lead on that.

Let me ask

this. You know what? We're finding it as frustrating as the minister is — the

lack of answers. When the minister met with a group of people — I think he

said when we were debating Bill 26 that he'd met with a group of people who were

advocates of people with disabilities — was he able to assure them that the

definition was fine? Are we just unaware that the minister has met with people

with disabilities and assuaged their concerns and that these issues no longer

apply? Is that what came out of that last meeting he had with them?

I'm

referring to a discussion that the minister had under Bill 26, when we were

talking about the Income Assistance Advisory Council. He used that as an

opportunity to say that he'd recently met with people with disabilities and that

some agreement had been reached or that it had been a fruitful meeting.

Hon. M.

Coell: I've met with many individuals and many groups and have had lots of

suggestions and ideas put forward, all of which are taken into consideration

when decisions are made.

MacPhail: Well, then I'm wondering why, as we debate this, we're being

flooded with situations of people who live with this every day not being

comforted. For those who sort of tune into a channel and wonder what all this

hoopla is about, you know, people with disabilities who require assistance from

the government get less than $1,000 a month. We're not fighting over big stakes

here. We're fighting over small stakes. In fact, a single person with a

disability gets around $800 per month.

[1655]

That's what

we're fighting about, and people with disabilities fought long and hard to have

their disability recognized, and they're about to learn whether this legislation

that's being introduced, which is a huge step backward, will allow them to

continue to have that $800 a month.

Here's a

person who has hepatitis C and has examined very carefully the new definition.

In fact, this was sent at lunchtime today. It's a person with a disability. This

person resides in the Victoria–Beacon Hill area. She is trying to apply the

functional test that she heard the minister describe.

Yes, she

can bathe herself. That's only because she can't get in and out of a tub, but

she does have a shower that still works. She can dress herself, but she can't

wash her floors or clean her toilet. She can't do her laundry regularly because

it's extremely painful, and she has to go to a laundromat; therefore, she has to

wait. She's been waiting six weeks for her illness to subside so that she can

tackle this job at a laundromat. She has skin disorders related to the hepatitis

C, and the lack of ability to wash her laundry is affecting her allergies. She

gets skin disorders and allergies. She has photosensitivity, and she has

exophthalmus related to her hepatitis C. She makes a note — it's not relevant

to this debate — that she has to pay for her eye exams now.

Here are

her extraordinary costs, all related to hepatitis C. She has skin and ocular

allergy medications that she has to purchase. She has to pay for her eye exams.

She has to buy rubbing alcohol, artificial tears, Murine and special powders to

clean her clothes because of her allergies. She has to purchase Gold Bond

powder, Lanacane, dry skin cream and bleach because of her skin disorders —

all related to her hepatitis C. It's quite confirmed that it's direct, and yet

she is worried that none of this will be taken into account — none of it,

absolutely none of it. I have to tell you, this woman was listening to the

debate, and she said she was extremely upset by the debate. I'll quote from the

woman who sent this in: "When I hear deliberate misleading statements, I

get extremely upset as I try to find these items, and they're not where the

minister says. I am incensed that people of this province are misled into

believing that these changes are for the better."

[1700]

I have to

tell you that this was a learning exercise for me. Even with my years of living

amongst people

[ Page 3354 ]

with disabilities and meeting over and over again with people with hepatitis

C, I was unaware of the way the disease debilitates certain people, and I was

unaware of the associated costs.

These

aren't prescription costs, as the minister may be aware, nor should they be.

They shouldn't be prescription costs, nor is anyone asking that they be. But

they are huge expenses. Now, this person suffering from hepatitis C believes

that these won't be taken into account. Is she right?

Hon. M.

Coell: I think earlier I gave a list of examples to the member. But

certainly those kinds of factors would be recognized as conditions that require

supervision — difficulty in bathing and laundry. It does not mean that the

individual has the actual help but because their condition would otherwise need

help…. On the basis of that, I think the person would fit the definition.

Again, this

individual would not receive a reduction in her rate but would continue to

receive the higher rate for a person with a disability under Bill 27.

MacPhail: Yes, I think this woman actually heard the minister say that, and

then she searched for where she could bring something to demonstrate that she

qualified. It was clear before, under the act, that she had unusual and

continuous monthly expenditures, but it's not clear anymore.

Was that

reading from a regulation — that the minister just did?

Hon. M.

Coell: No.

MacPhail: It's not in the act, and it's not a regulation. I guess what this

woman is asking for when she says here: "When I hear deliberate misleading

statements I get extremely upset as I try to find these items and they're not

where the minister says…." There she is, trying to find out exactly how

it works for her. There's no regulation.

Isn't that

interesting? If we hadn't asked these questions, would that statement by the

minister even be on record?

Yet people

from the Liberals accuse us of standing up and fearmongering. No regulations. No

legislation. Thank God, we're asking the questions so at least that statement

can be put on the record.

Yet then we

make the point, because this woman…. It's good that the minister says you

don't have to qualify for home care because even with her disabilities, she's

been cut off home care — had her home care cut. It's good that you can need

home care, but even though you don't get it, you can still use that as a

qualification.

I have a

couple more items to complete here, and then my colleague will ask some

questions.

There have

been some concerns, particularly around the issue of people with mental illness

raising these issues. Previously, people with disabilities had to show that

their disability existed for two years continuously or that it was likely to

continue for one year and then recur. That's the definition that's been

repealed.

[1705]

Under this

proposed legislation the definition of disability requires that the disability

will continue for at least two years and that it either remains continuously or

periodically for extended periods. To me, that's a tightening of the eligibility

requirements, and I am informed that individuals with neurological disabilities

such as multiple sclerosis, as well as people — and I started off with saying

people with mental illness, but not all of these are mental illnesses — with

cyclical disabilities, such as rapid-cycling bipolar disorder, depression or

anxiety disorders, will not qualify or will have to experience months and months

of illness before they're proven to be disabled. What does the minister say to

that?

Hon. M.

Coell: This government is committed to people with mental health disorders.

I am confident that these people will have safety and security not only in these

acts but in other programs that this government is putting forward. Persons with

a mental disorder are specifically included in subsection (3)(a).

MacPhail: Yeah, I understand that. Maybe this is the first time I'm hearing

it. Does that mean that a person under (3)(a), "a person who has a severe

mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder," doesn't have

to meet the tests under (2)?

Hon. M.

Coell: No, that's not correct.

MacPhail: I guess those are the kind of statements that upset people with

disabilities, when somehow that's offered up as reason why these issues aren't

legitimate.

We're

talking about how one qualifies. One still has to qualify. It says that in the

opinion of a medical practitioner, the impairment is likely to continue for at

least two years. We've already had a letter from a mental health worker about

the cyclical nature of mental illness and the fact that part of the therapy is

to demonstrate ongoing, continuous, functional lifestyle. Yet there will be a

challenge, perhaps, that they will have to live with that for two years before

they can qualify.

The

Minister of Human Resources has stated over and over again that the vast

majority of people on disability benefits 2 will "roll over" onto

continuous assistance. We don't know what number or percentage corresponds to

"vast." We have to acknowledge that the optimism of the minister is

welcome, but if that's the case, what is the reason for severely restricting the

definition or bringing such substantial change to the definition if nothing, in

the minister's mind, is going to change? Is it about people down the road

qualifying?

[1710]

Hon. M.

Coell: A clarification. When the new act comes into force later this year,

all existing disability benefits 2 clients will be transferred to the new act

and

[ Page 3355 ]

designated as persons with a disability. While some clients will b