Hansard -- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 8 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		2847

Second Reading of Bills		2848
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) Hon. M. Coell J. Bray B. Suffredine V. Anderson J. Kwan

J. Bray: It's my distinct pleasure this morning to introduce 17 grade 5 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School. They are joined today in the gallery by their teacher, Mrs. Clare Tanner, and their assistant teacher, Mrs. Kristin McLennan. Will the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: I wish to, first of all, rise and respond to the point of order which I raised yesterday with a further comment with regard to the Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002. At that time I made a presentation which referred to subsection (5)(a), which — I made a point at the time — created an impost against the people of British Columbia without the message from the Lieutenant-Governor which should accompany it.

The Leader of the Opposition has kindly brought to my attention that that part of this bill, in fact, maintains the current standing of the bill. I appreciate her input on that.

However, I want to make a further submission with regard to subsection (b) of the same section of the bill, which says: "A licence shall not be issued or re-issued under this part for the purpose of finfish aquaculture unless that operation is a closed containment facility."

I've spoken to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and he informs me that these licences, which individual businesses are required to have to remain in operation, are issued on an annual basis. The provision of that subsection in this bill, if it were to pass, would in fact, I believe, create a significant cost to operators if they chose to stay in business. It would involve a complete rebuild of their facility in an effort to comply with this new legislation.

Second of all, Mr. Speaker, in the event an individual chose to respond to the creation of this legislation and the infringement of their ability to do business, there are perhaps a couple of things that would result. Certainly, the individual business could seek compensation from the government of British Columbia. Government would then be required to do one of two things: pursue it through the court, in the event there was a judgment of the court that would create an expenditure of the government through a statutory provision. It does not require an approval through the CRF, through regular appropriation procedures, but rather it comes about as a result of a statutory provision. Second of all, if there were a court-ordered compensation, that would be one thing, but certainly that statutory provision is also in place to provide the government to settle legal disputes that may result.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue further, under standing order 67 and a variety of rulings that are referred to in MacMinn's third edition, that subsection (b) does in fact create an impost and a possible statutory expenditure obligation — I would say it would, in fact, create that — in the event that it were to move forward and somebody were to take action against the government.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I thank the member for his further input, but the matter is being considered by my office and is in hand, and I will be bringing back a ruling on the matter within the next day or so.

J. MacPhail: Just for information based on your comments, Mr. Speaker. The submission that the Government House Leader is making now — will it be considered as part of your consideration? In which case, I'd like to reply.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, we will take all comments into consideration, but we are well aware of the items that the member has mentioned. They are well known to the Chair and to the precedents in this parliament. But you may respond if you wish.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate your advice on this matter. However, previous rulings that have affected proceedings in this House have been limited to the submissions that have been made by the various parties.

It is interesting to note that the Government House Leader now makes exactly a submission to correct his error yesterday that was actually forwarded, first and foremost, by the Clerk of the House yesterday to me personally. Somehow, the Government House Leader gets his submission completely wrong on the advisability of the bill proceeding and being in order, because he makes a huge error in somehow suggesting that this couldn't be a bill other than a government bill because fees and licences were included in our legislation. He then discovers that fees and licences are not new parts of our bill but merely a reiteration of the old bill, and now he moves to an argument under (5)(b) about impost.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is tough enough for us in the opposition to work, to use our time as private members, to put forward bills that are in order. But I will say that it is highly unusual that the Government House Leader gets it wrong the first time. The only argument I heard from anyone on the argument made around (5)(b) was from the Clerk of the House in the hallway yesterday, and now it becomes a Government House Leader argument.

It is completely unbelievable that all of the issues on this House — all of the forces on this House — work against a private member's bill that was deemed to be completely in order, with all of the assistance available to a private member.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever in terms of either the Clerk of the

House's argument or what has now become the Government House Leader's argument that somehow this private member's bill imposes costs in any way that are opportunity costs on the government, lost revenue — absolutely not. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in this piece of legislation that affects government revenues one way or the other. For that very reason, the bill was drafted in its form with the best advice possible that it would be a private member's bill in order.

I am absolutely shocked, I must say, that this proceeding has happened this morning, without notice, by the way, from the Government House Leader — none whatsoever. He didn't stand up and say: "Oh, gee, I was completely wrong yesterday. I've had conversations since then, and I need to proceed to make another argument."

Let me just assure all members of this House that the ruling will be made by the Chair in a completely impartial and unbiased manner using precedents long established by this House. I really do not wish to hear any more arguments on the subject. Thank you.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act, be read a second time.

The Employment and Assistance Act and its companion legislation, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, signify a new era in the way we will provide assistance, create opportunity and help people achieve greater independence. Those concepts of assistance, opportunity and independence are the framework upon which we have built the new B.C. employment and assistance program, which was introduced April 1. The legislation is an important tool for my ministry as it embarks on a new program and brings about significant change in B.C.'s income assistance system.

Those same concepts of assistance, opportunity and independence underpin the legislation we are discussing today. I'd like to spend some time looking at each of those concepts and describe how they are woven into the legislation and how they will guide the ministry's actions in the future.

Assistance. There are about 241,000 people receiving income assistance in British Columbia today. That's nearly 6 percent of the province's population. I'm happy to say that most clients who seek work leave income assistance within six months. However, two-thirds return to income assistance within two years and continue to cycle on and off. Some people find it very difficult to break free of welfare dependency. For example, 70 percent of income assistance…older than 35 have been cycling on and off assistance for more than ten years.

These numbers greatly concern me. Ministry expenditures this year are more than $1.7 billion. During the mandate of this government we will spend more than 6.6 billion taxpayer dollars. The indirect costs, including the waste of human potential, are also immeasurable. How do you put a price on dashed hopes, lowered self-esteem, drained spirit and a myriad of social problems which stem from a system that fails to help people?

Clearly, it is time for a new approach. We are beginning by defining the nature of assistance that we provide to British Columbians. We are starting from a position that in most cases income assistance is temporary, the last resort for people who find themselves in difficult circumstances and require assistance while they get back to work.

Much of the caseload is made up of clients who are able to work. Most of them don't want to be on income assistance. They don't want a handout; they don't want to rely on government. They are anxious to get back into the job market and only need short-term financial help for support in their job search. That's why we have committed over $300 million in the next three years for job placement and training programs.

This legislation represents a fundamental shift to a culture of employment, self-sufficiency and independence. It includes mechanisms for employment such as requiring a client to enter into an employment plan. These will be formal agreements between the client and the ministry. Employable clients will be expected to actively seek and find work. The employment plans will provide support and direction to clients as they carry out their job search and take part in job training.

Employment plans will be mandatory for those who are expected to work, and the new legislation includes consequences for non-compliance. Consequences include reducing or eliminating assistance for clients who don't follow through on their employment plans. By including mandatory employment plans and penalties for non-compliance in this legislation, we are providing the ministry with the necessary authority to administrate these employment agreements. We are also sending a message that government is serious about people moving into long-term sustainable employment.

I would like to speak further about our emphasis on assistance being temporary in most cases. Right now there is no limit to the length of time that an employable person can spend on income assistance. The new legislation will change that. It introduces the ability to set time limits for income assistance eligibility. By regulation, employable singles and couples may receive assistance for a maximum of two years out of every five. After two years income assistance is stopped or, in the cases of families with children, reduced.

I want to emphasize that the time is counted during those months when a client is employable and expected to seek work. If, for example, the client is temporarily unable to work due to medical circumstances or because they are a single parent with a child under three or caring for a disabled child, that time won't count towards the two-year maximum. Persons with disabilities will be exempt from all time limits. Families with children in

which both adults have reached their time limits will see their income reduced, but it will not be cut off. The time limits come into effect this month. Therefore, no client will have their assistance reduced or eliminated as a result of the time limits until April of 2004.

The time limits are part of our emphasis on employment versus entitlement. I believe they will provide additional motivation for employable individuals to seriously pursue training or employment. This legislation is also designed to help break the intergenerational dependency on welfare that has become a trap for too many young people in our province. It will require new applicants for income assistance to be financially independent for at least two years before they are eligible. The intent is to discourage young people from moving away from home and going directly onto welfare. That will no longer be an option. The rule will not apply to people with disabilities, families with children and people fleeing abuse, but it will apply to employable people who are in a position to look for and find work.

So far I've described how the legislation will assist those who are able to seek and obtain employment. There are those whom we cannot expect to achieve independence through employment. They may have a short-term illness. They may be a single parent caring for a child under three years old, or they may face multiple barriers to employment. This legislation recognizes those special circumstances and provides for them to be temporarily excused from seeking work. They will continue to receive support until they are ready to return to the labour market.

We also recognize that people with long-term disabilities may require ongoing support. People with disabilities have told us that their distinct needs are best served by separate legislation. We have responded to that position with the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. Members will have an opportunity to consider that bill at a later time.

My comments about assistance would not be complete without reference to our vision for people with disabilities, who right now have an unemployment rate that is double that of people without disabilities. I want to give assurances that ongoing assistance will be available to eligible people with disabilities who require the ministry's support. At the same time, we want to provide fair and secure platforms for which people with disabilities can prepare and find employment. Many people with disabilities are able to work and want to. We recognize the cyclical nature of many disabilities, and the employment and assistance program can be a starting point for a greater level of independence or an ongoing support for people who, by the nature of their disability and their personal circumstances, must rely on income assistance.

The legislation for people with disabilities closely mirrors the Employment and Assistance Act. It includes the authority to require employment plans for employable clients. It does not include time limitations for receiving income assistance or the two-year financial independence test.

I would like to turn to the second key concept in the B.C. employment and assistance program, that of opportunity. Opportunity comes in many forms and means different things to different people. To someone with a disability an opportunity may be a chance to become more involved with their community; to someone on temporary assistance it may be a stable, family-supporting job. My ministry and this government have a role to play in creating opportunities for British Columbians, and it is a role we take seriously.

I mentioned earlier the $300 million that we have committed to job training and job placement programs during the next three years. Our goal is to create a range of employment supports that will help our clients compete in today's workforce. The employment plans that we'll enter into will help them make the best of their own efforts to take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. The plans may also direct clients towards ministry programs designed to get them the skills they need to realize opportunities.

We are also redesigning and adapting employment programs to address the diverse needs of people with disabilities so that they, too, can take advantage of the existing and emerging labour market opportunities. The opportunities range from volunteer placements to paid employment. People with disabilities will have access to the mainstream employment programs available through B.C. employment and assistance clients. They will also have access to specialized programs designed to meet their needs. We envision a broad range of job training, including formal and informal settings in classrooms and on the job, and short-term training consultation with business and industry that responds to the demands of specific skills.

In addition to building closer ties with the business community, we will work in partnership with the federal government. We have 50-50 cost-sharing services under the employment and assistance for people with disabilities agreement, and we're coordinating with Ottawa to reduce duplication of services and deliver specialized employment services. Such links and partnerships are important, and we've committed to strengthening them.

When I speak of opportunities, clearly my ministry isn't the only entity creating them. Communities and the private sector are working hard to create jobs and to diversify our economy. Every year about 500,000 jobs change hands in British Columbia. Since January B.C. has gained more than 25,000 jobs. The number of jobs will continue to rise as our economy improves. I believe the improvements in our income assistance system will play an important part in rejuvenating the economy and will fit well with the reforms that this government has begun. I am confident that our commitment to reducing the tax burden, attracting investment to B.C. and stimulating employment will create even more opportunity.

I see our clients as a tremendous asset, and I want them to be well positioned to take advantage of the many opportunities that will arise as our economy re-

bounds. But I also want to be clear that clients must exercise personal responsibility and seek out the opportunities as best they can. The ministry will help where appropriate but is no substitute for self-reliance and determination.

The third concept in B.C. employment and assistance is that of independence. That is the goal of this legislation: that people live fuller and more independent lives. They gain independence by means of different things to different people. For some, it is a full-time job. For others — for example, a person with disabilities — it is perhaps volunteer placement supported by ongoing income assistance.

This legislation will give the ministry the flexibility to provide a continuum of supports to help people achieve the highest level of independence that they can. Assistance, opportunity, independence: those are the themes that we are building on as we introduce this legislation and develop the B.C. employment and assistance program.

I'd like to address some other elements of the Employment and Assistance Act that distinguish it from its B.C. Benefits predecessors. The legislation will give the ministry a new tool in the fight against income assistance fraud. It will include a lifetime ban on income assistance for individuals who are convicted under the Criminal Code of income assistance fraud. A lifetime ban will be for the most serious cases of fraud. There will be lesser penalties for lesser offences. Again, there's a message here: that government is determined to protect the integrity of the income assistance system.

The Employment and Assistance Act also reinforces our position that the income assistance program is the payer of last resort. It will give the ministry the authority to register a lien against property in order to secure repayment of income assistance. This will apply only to clients who own homes and who have received income assistance for six months in any consecutive 12-month period. It will not apply for people with disabilities. I believe this section of the legislation increases accountability to the taxpayers of British Columbia and reinforces the obligation clients have to rely on their own resources first.

As we look to the income assistance system of the future, one of its features will be a fair and accessible appeal system. Clients must know they have somewhere to turn if they feel that a decision that affects their assistance has been made in error.

Under B.C. Benefits the appeal system operated a separate act. Appeals were heard by community-based tribunals made up of a nominee chosen by the appellant, a nominee chosen by the ministry and a chairperson selected by the two nominees. Cases that weren't resolved by these tribunals then went to the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board, which would sometimes take up to six months to process the appeal.

We have worked with the administrative justice project to streamline the appeal system and make it faster and more responsive. We are moving from a two-tiered system that has potential for bias and advocacy to a single-level system which has built-in safeguards for independence and professionalism.

Appeals will be overseen by the employment and assistance appeal tribunal. The chair and the vice-chairs of the independent tribunal will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The minister will appoint additional members to the tribunal who may sit on appeals. The appeal tribunal will administer regionally based appeal panels made up of members who will be fully trained and qualified to hear appeals. Selection of the panel to hear an appeal will be made by the chair or the vice-chair and may include the chair or the vice-chair. The panels will operate independently from the ministry. I am confident that clients, stakeholders and the public will welcome the independence of the appeal tribunal and the faster decisions that it will produce.

The new appeal process described in this act will also apply to people covered by the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act and the BC Benefits (Child Care Subsidy) Act.

In conclusion, this bill marks a fundamental shift in the ministry's approach. It underpins a move away from a culture of entitlement, which I believe has trapped too many British Columbians into an overreliance on government supports. It establishes a culture of employment, self-reliance and independence where people take responsibility for their own future and break free of the cycle of welfare dependence. It is based on the guiding principles of personal responsibility, active participation by clients, innovative partnerships between the ministry and communities, citizen confidence in the income assistance system, fairness and transparency, clear outcomes from ministry programs, accountability for the results we achieve.

This legislation matches our vision for a province with a strong and vibrant economy, a province with a supportive social infrastructure, health and safe communities; a province in which people in need are assisted to achieve their social and economic potential; a province where people with disabilities take their rightful place in the workforce and in their communities. I believe in people. I believe in their ability and desire to help themselves, I believe in their ability to recognize the value of an employment-focused approach to income assistance, and I believe this legislation provides the right mix of support, encouragement and motivation for clients and the consequences for those who would unnecessarily rely on long-term support.

This legislation builds on the successes of B.C.'s income assistance system and sets out a new direction for helping clients to secure their own futures. It is another step towards a new era of self-reliance and prosperity in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Debate on second reading of Bill 26, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

J. Bray: I appreciated hearing the words from the minister. I've got several things to say on this bill, and I'll try to do them in a cohesive order. I want to start,

Mr. Speaker, with the purpose of income assistance, what income assistance does in our society, the role that it plays as part of a whole group of government services and supports.

The minister in his comments spoke to, among other things, being the payer of last resort. I think that's one of the avenues. It is the social safety net that is there when all other systems within the community, within our society, are not available. It is something that collectively as a society we believe is important. We recognize often the saying that there but for the grace of God go I. In fact, it's a social safety net that is available for all of us, should we need it, although fortunately the majority of British Columbians do not need to access it. It's important to remember that it is part of a social contract in our community, part of a social contract within our society, that says although it's a service we may well not access, we believe it important that it's there for members of our community during times of crisis or other issues that arise from time to time in people's lives.

Perhaps the reason why I rise to speak is not only about my passionate belief in the importance of a social safety net in our community and that we are, really, bound morally to ensure we help those less fortunate in our own neighbourhoods and communities. As you know, for the 13 years prior to being in this place, I was an employee of the Ministry of Human Resources by its various names. I started as a financial assistance worker in the east side of Vancouver, became a district manager in east Vancouver and ultimately moved over to Victoria and worked as a policy analyst in the headquarters setting. In fact, some of the legislation and regulations that are being changed actually were written by me in my role there under the direction of the previous government, so I'm quite familiar with it.

I have seen what income assistance does in the community, both from the perspective of individual clients…. I had a caseload for many years of about 350 that included families, single parents, single employable individuals and people with disabilities, so I've actually seen, on a day-to-day basis, people living and struggling in poverty and the effects of government actions that have both been supportive and perhaps not so supportive. I've also, at a more global aspect as a policy analyst, looked at issues from a perspective of social policy research — the causes and effects of government policy on people living in poverty or people's ability to move out of poverty both in Canada and in the United States.

Welfare reform is not something new. It has been going around in different forms in North America for the last seven or eight years. Although Canadian research is painfully scant, there are some things that have become evident. I'm really rising to speak both as a passionate member of the community but also because it's what I spent my whole professional career working in.

It's also an issue that's very important to my community, and income assistance is one of the issues I have the most frequent conversations on with constituents, with community service providers and with staff in the public service. It's something that Victorians value very highly, so it is incumbent on me, not only as someone who passionately believes in this area but in my role as the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill, to ensure that I am expressing the issues and concerns of my constituents in this very important area.

Although we'll have an opportunity for further discussion during committee stage, and I certainly will have lots of questions for the minister during that time, I do want to raise on behalf of my constituents some of the issues that come out of this bill or the general direction that the minister is taking the ministry.

I think the first issue that my constituents have raised is some of the rate reductions that have occurred. The concern my constituents have raised is around single parents, where there has been a rate reduction now. The concern that has been raised, of course, is that for single parents and their children, the rate reduction may or may not operate as a stimulus for people to join the workforce.

What it will do, ultimately, is reduce some of the supports the parent is able to provide to their child, because they've had a reduction in income. Although the dollar amount to the general public may not seem particularly large, it actually represents a significant percentage drop for someone on a very small income. It also is a concern in an area like Victoria, with vacancy rates so incredibly low right now that the rental market is tight and the rental costs are very high. Quite often single parents are actually having to use some of their support money — money for food, clothing, transportation — just to cover their rent costs. Any reduction in their support does have an impact.

The other area that some constituents have expressed concern about is the rate reductions for persons aged 55 to 64. Again, this is a group that may have had a long time on income assistance. They may have developed a dependence that is not easily shaken. In fact, they may never re-enter the workforce, because of their circumstances but also because they may no longer really be employable from an employer's standpoint.

A 55- or 56-year-old who has been on income assistance for a decade is probably not likely, no matter what training they have, to be particularly employable from the employment community standpoint. The rate reduction is really going to impact them from the standpoint that they aren't going to be able to be using as it as incentive to enter the workforce, when it may well be that nobody is going to employ them anyway.

My constituents have expressed a great deal of concern around those rate reductions. They also expressed that concern because we, in fact, want to make sure we're strengthening the family, that we're strengthening supports for families. Single parents are already under large time burdens, time constraints, just being

single parents. The economic pressures of being on income assistance are an added burden. Their child might be going to an inner-city school, which is an added burden. They may be receiving services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's an added burden.

The concern raised is that this rate reduction doesn't seem to work in any positive fashion for them, and it is something I will continue to monitor very closely. As the minister knows, I've been in his office several times over the preceding weeks talking about these issues. I'm pleased that he has assured me he'll continue to work with me and any other members on these issues.

The next issue my constituents are raising some concern about, and it was mentioned briefly in the minister's comments, is the two-year independence test. Although there will be further definition in the regulations and further clarification, there are concerns raised and expressed among social service agencies as to who will actually be impacted, based on that two-year independence test. Will it in fact work as a motivation for people who, again, may not be employable but will be caught up in this independence test?

One of the areas that has been expressed to me is the person turning 19. I don't think anybody in this House — opposition, government members — would disagree that we want to see young people engaged in education and engaged in the employment market. I strongly support that. However, we must also recognize that we are sometimes dealing with people who don't have the same life skills as the average citizen, or families that didn't have the same opportunities over the preceding ten or 11 years to lead up to a point where that child who is turning 19 is in the mainstream of our community and attached to the supports that will allow them to carry on that journey.

In a city like Victoria, where we have a problem of homelessness — especially during the winter months where it may not be lifestyle choice but in fact a choice of other factors — we often refer to them as the winter homeless population versus the summer homeless population. Now there's concern that youth, at a time when they may need more supports, may find less available and may potentially end up being out on the street and become part of this winter homeless population.

My constituents are going to be asking me to monitor this very closely to make sure that the most vulnerable don't become impacted and that families are provided the support to encourage those children who will be turning 19 to be engaged in the labour market and in activities that will allow them to move forward and progress. I don't think anyone disagrees with the goal. The concerns my constituents have raised are about the impacts of some of these changes.

The other area that raises some concerns both for my constituents and for me is around time limits. The previous government — in fact, the Leader of the Opposition, who was minister at the time — brought in a significant change to the B.C. Benefits system. It went from a guaranteed available income for need to a B.C. Benefits package. It really made a positive step in many ways of going from an entitlement system to an ineligibility entitlement system.

Essentially what happened was that a client or an applicant or a family first had to be eligible for income assistance; then there was the issue of what benefits they were entitled to. There was a long series of eligibility criteria that dealt with income, assets, availability for work, immigration status — a whole series of things they had to be eligible for before we even talked about benefits. A lot of the eligibility factors were self-determinate. In other words, the client had to have done something in order to become ineligible.

The concern that I have, Mr. Speaker, and the concern that has been raised by some of the social service agencies is that time limits are an arbitrary measure. Time limits aren't based on anything but the turning of a calendar page. The concern is that at this point, the way it's written in the act, it's not sure who that is ultimately going to impact. People are concerned that the turning of a page, in and of itself, will make somebody ineligible and make them ineligible for a longer period of time than they may have been receiving.

I know that the minister will be able to explain this probably more thoroughly during committee stage, and I look forward to that discussion because I think that might help some of my constituents understand the impact of this. My concern is that there's enough discretion left in our professional staff to use their judgment as to who is making a reasonable effort to look for work, who is making a reasonable effort to move themselves along, and maybe the person who is just collecting income assistance and not really making any efforts. Arbitrary measures such as time limits do concern me at this point because they eliminate the ability for professional assessments at the field level. I think that is something I will be watching very closely.

Another area — probably one of the areas that my constituents have talked a lot about — is child care subsidy. Again, I don't think anyone disagrees that employment is better than income assistance. I don't think anyone disagrees that it's better for a family to have one or both parents employed than on income assistance. I think both sides of this House would agree to that. One of the realities, though, is that for somebody to go from no employment to employment, there are supports that are required, and child care is certainly one of the main ones. In fact, we have several working parents in this chamber who are only able to be here because they have access to child care.

People who are on a low income require the supports of the child care subsidy to allow them to stay employed, look for work or attend training programs. As employment becomes more complicated for families, especially in communities where it might be shift work, there might be a greater proportion of the child care that has to come out of their pockets. Child care

subsidy is one of the enabling supports that allows low-income individuals and families to go back to work where there's children involved.

I will continue to work with the minister on the area of child care subsidy. That is, along with education and stable housing, probably the other critical factor for ensuring success for single parents and families to rejoin the workforce.

Another area that has come to my attention in my community office deals with security deposits. This has been one of these ongoing issues in the history of the ministry that has been frustrating for clients, landlords and staff alike. The reality in British Columbia is that a landlord can and always does charge half a month's rent as a security deposit. For people with low or no income, that $175 or $200 is not something they have when they seek a rental accommodation, so they require a security deposit from the ministry.

The ministry does provide that. However, there has been a frustration — in landlords' and also workers' opinions — that the security deposit issue was perhaps open to abuse. The average citizen works very hard to ensure they get their security deposit back when they move so they can transfer it on to their new home. There was a sense that when people were on income assistance, they knew they could get another security deposit benefit, so they had no interest in really appeasing their old landlord and cleaning up the place because they knew they could go to their worker and get a new one.

The ministry has had various schemes to try and dissuade that activity by having some form of repayment of that security deposit, so in fact there was some effect. If you did nothing to secure your old security deposit and if you required another one, you were going to have to start paying them back. The concern that's been raised says that the changes now mean the repayment starts with the very first security deposit. In fact, it's just a deposit. It hasn't been extinguished; it hasn't been lost. The client is having to pay that back already. Again, at $5, $10 or $15 a month, that deduction, while small to the average citizen's ears, is still a significant percentage. It might be a day's worth of groceries.

There's some concern that with that first security deposit starting to be reclaimed, it is going to have an impact when, in fact, the client hasn't done anything yet that would suggest there's a need for any kind of reaction. It also may not serve as an incentive. If I'm paying it back anyway, then why do I care whether I get it back or not? That's an issue that my constituents are watching closely, especially here in Victoria, where we have such a high degree of rental housing.

The other issue is a technical issue, and I will appreciate further discussion during committee stage. I must confess, in reading the act, that I'm somewhat concerned as to the details on how it will work, and it is a phenomenon that's occurring more and more now. It's a positive thing where families are much more involved — joint parenting of children, where they have joint custody of children. In fact, that's one of the more positive aspects we've seen in the last five or seven years in family law. Sole custody is being sought less, and joint custody is becoming more of a reality — and voluntary joint custody, where the parents are part of the process. I think that's healthier for the parents, and it's certainly healthier for the children.

It did create a problem under the old GAIN Act as well as the old BC Benefits acts and regulations, which is: how do you actually deal with both of those parents? Traditionally, if there's a single parent with children, there are certain rates, benefits and eligibility factors that are assigned to that single parent that may be different from other categories. When you have joint parents, the question becomes: if they both have the children or child 50 percent of the time, are they both single parents under the act and regulations? Or are they both employable people who have a dependent, in which case they're not eligible for some of the additional benefits?

The federal government, when they brought in the national child benefit and some of the changes to the child tax benefit itself, decided that they would have an arbitrary ruling that one parent had to be the parent, and they would get the benefits. It would all flow in through to them. It was up to the two parents to negotiate any sharing of that benefit, if they were co-parenting. Again, when you're dealing with supplementary benefits, although that may impact negatively one of the co-parents, at least it was not the primary source of their income.

With the changes here, there is some concern that with the basic support for families, if in fact there is not an equitable sharing of the support and resources beyond the shelter component, it may impact one of the co-parents' ability to provide adequate care in the home. It might become an issue for additional family supports. Hopefully, in most co-parenting situations, the parents will work very closely together to ensure they share resources so that doesn't happen, but that has been a concern that's been raised. I think it will be a growing issue over the number of years as courts go to mediation and there's more co- and joint-parenting where the distribution of the custody is pretty well equal — 60-40, 50-50.

Now I want to move on to another area — again, this flows from my experience both on the front-line and in the policy shop of the ministry — and that's talking about the makeup of the caseload. I know that the minister has spoken very passionately about the need to do a culture shift. The feedback I've gotten from field staff has primarily been in agreement with that, has been encouraged by that. It likes to see the fact that this government does, in fact, believe that people on income assistance are assets in their communities and not deficits and that we believe in their ability to participate fully in the community. We're moving in that direction, and I fully support that philosophical move. I also believe that everybody in our community is able to contribute, and we should make

sure we have government programs that support that philosophy rather than hinder it.

I want to express my own views and those of community service providers around the makeup of the caseload that is on income assistance now versus even five or six years ago. The caseload was extremely high back in the mid-nineties, and there were changes to the GAIN Act to become B.C. Benefits, where there were more eligibility criteria put in and there was more emphasis on employment. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition…. One of the mantras was jobs, jobs, jobs and a recognition that a job is always better than income assistance. I think that is correct.

In many respects the program was successful in taking the most employable and either diverting them from applying for income assistance or moving them very quickly from income assistance into the workforce. That was often referred to — it's a tough term, but it's often referred to — in employment agency vernacular as "creaming." You take the very best group of clients and move them off the system. That has had positive effects both for government expenditures and certainly for those clients involved. They didn't get enmeshed in the income assistance subculture and become dependent on the system.

What you have left, though, is what in many U.S. research papers they talk about as the harder-to-place clients — those clients who have multiple barriers where one intervention for learning how to do a résumé or one intervention about some life skills in and of itself is not sufficient to move them from their current situation onto the employment stream.

What the employment agencies and the community service providers are telling me is that they want to see a shift in the programs that are being provided from the ministry and other ministries to match the philosophical shift that exists in Bill 26.

One of the problems historically has been that contracts for employment services, life support, life skills — these types of programs — have been limited to 16 weeks. They become independent modules in the community that are provided by various service agencies — all good service providers. The programs generally are quite good. One could argue whether or not they actually succeed, because we don't measure outputs yet, though that's a change we're making. The problem from the client's perspective is that they're referred to a program, they attend the program, they graduate the program, and then they're moved to this program over here and then this program over here. What's happening is that there's no continuity of service. They're not making progress from their current situation forward with any kind of long-term action plan.

What happens is that quite often, as I have done, you go into one of those programs and have a discussion with some of the students. I say to the students: "What made you select this program?" They sort of say: "Well, my worker sent me here." They're not sure why they're there. They're not sure what the goal of that program is, and they don't know what program they're going to go to afterwards. They know they're not going to be job-ready at the end of it.

The minister and I have had long conversations about this, and I know he's keenly aware of this reality, and he's been meeting with service providers around the province. I want to ensure that under the sections of the act that talk about funding programs, we look very closely at the need to ensure that service providers are meeting the goals of Bill 26. They must be given the ability to provide a continuum of services so that clients who may need some help with résumés and job searches can go into that program and move forward.

If a client has multiple barriers, including educational deficits, substance abuse deficits, life skills and parenting skills issues…. Perhaps they haven't learned how to hold on to stable housing, they haven't even decided what they want to do for work, and they have no work experience. They can start earlier in that continuum, and then their action plan or their employment plan will move forward. Each intervention adds on to the previous one so that the goal of that service is, in fact, attachment to the labour force with good family-sustaining jobs, as the minister has talked about before.

The other issue that has been raised is that we ensure, under section 6, that when the ministry goes out to fund community support services through community services funds and other ways that are enabled under section 6, again those community providers are meeting the goals of that community. Many of the service providers do an excellent job. I know that in Victoria we have some excellent community service providers. My urging under section 6 is that we ensure that we're funding those programs that complement Bill 26, complement the work the professional staff in the ministry are doing and complement the work our employment contractors are doing so that, again, we have a continuum of services provided directly by the ministry and indirectly through contracted services.

I've got the wrong section down, but what I wanted to refer to is the issue that is also coming to me, through comments from my constituents and service providers and clients themselves, that as we make this shift and as we move from an end point to a transition point within Bill 26, we monitor closely to ensure that people don't fall through the cracks — that if we are the social safety net, there is a continuous net that's there. People who choose not to engage employment, people who choose not to move forward and are capable…. I don't think anybody argues that perhaps that's not the person for whom income assistance is available, or should be, and there's lots of general public sense that that's who's on income assistance. I think this bill will ensure that people do move forward in their lives, and that will benefit them as well as the community at large.

The concern is that as we bring in new concepts like time limits and independence tests, people who

aren't yet able to be independent, aren't yet able to join the workforce, aren't yet able to engage in post-secondary education, where they could get a student loan to sustain themselves, don't fall through the cracks. The 45-year-old who has been on income assistance for ten years and who may, in fact, not have teeth — that they don't fall through the cracks because no matter how hard they try, nobody in the community may employ them. The concern is not for the large group of clients who can move forward in their lives. The concern is for that group who at the end of the day, despite any interventions the ministry may provide and any supports in the community and even any supports the family might provide, may still fall through the social safety net. That is an issue I will continue to work with the minister on and will monitor in my community, because those are the people income assistance is there for.

The other issue. I know that the ministries, during the development of the service plans, did a cross-ministry evaluation to ensure that as various ministries implemented strategic shifts, new legislation and new program design, they worked to ensure that families and individuals were being supported. I want to encourage the minister to continue to work with the other ministers so that as we move forward, single parents and families are strengthened by the changes that are happening, and children are strengthened and get better opportunities in the public school system in supports from Children and Family Development and the income they get from income assistance.

I believe Bill 26 sets forth a positive change. It is incumbent to ensure that as we move forward with Bill 26, those most vulnerable remain protected and receive the services that the community believes are important. That is something I'm committed to doing: continuing to work with the minister on that.

B. Suffredine: I wish to speak briefly in support of Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act. I'll be a little briefer than my colleague from Beacon Hill. That wouldn't be difficult, however.

I want to briefly focus on one aspect, and that's employing the employable. Many people find themselves unemployed, and they don't know what to do to find work. They feel trapped. This can apply to people who have never worked or to those who have worked for many years and then lose a job. Doing a résumé and planning a job search can be discouraging for people who have recently lost a job or have been unemployed for a long time. They may have lost the ability to even focus on what that means.

Being self-sufficient is something we all want. None of us wants a handout from government. The fact that our government is providing assistance to identify those opportunities to become independent is a positive change in the legislation.

The minister has said that now is the time to be entering into programs that support job placement, and I agree. In the coming years we will be experiencing a major change in our workforce. The baby-boomers are aging, and they're about to retire. There will be gaps left in the workforce. There are many people we refer to as Generation X'ers who could never find a job, who can happily fill those gaps if they can only identify the opportunities. They may need guidance to do that, to identify those opportunities and what suits them. This act supports clients by forming a strategy for individual employment plans and then helps them to focus on job search efforts.

The two-year limit on job assistance is something that people certainly challenge, but it's a reasonable limit that applies only to people who can reasonably be expected to work. It does not apply to people with disabilities, those temporarily excused from seeking work for legitimate reasons or single mothers with children under three. In short, it strikes a balance to encourage personal responsibility, while providing help and support to achieve self-reliance.

I support the shift in income support from one of entitlement — from one of the age of entitlement — to one that encourages a culture of self-reliance and personal responsibility. In short, I support the philosophy and the change in philosophy under Bill 26.

V. Anderson: In many ways this is one of the most significant bills we will deal with in this session for many people within our community. Also, in many ways it's important because it gives people across the community an indication of what our government stands for in its philosophical undertaking. My colleagues have already dealt with many of the parts of the bill that we would be concerned with. In some ways I can just say ditto to many of their concerns.

As I reflected on this, I had to go back a little bit, because the reason I got involved in the political process was when similar bills, in an earlier period of some 20 years ago, were being presented to the Legislature and the impact was being felt by the community at large. Because of that impact, I felt it was necessary to get involved. It's a philosophical part as you like….

I'll pause for a moment, please. One of our members would like to have the floor to make an introduction.

It's always lovely to have the opportunity to introduce people when they're actually seated in the public

gallery. We have 35 representatives of the Richmond Christian School accompanied by their teachers, Ms. McKenzie and Ms. Wilson, and I would ask the House to please make them incredibly welcome. They've been a fabulous audience this morning.

V. Anderson: As I was saying, I became involved in the formal political process over just such an issue as this some 20 years ago. We seem to be working in that particular case, where we went back and forth from what the minister has indicated is a climate of expectations, as things would be available to people automatically when they had need — regardless, sometimes, of whether they even had need…. On the other hand, it should be that no one could take advantage of a situation. The government support should be a position of last resort.

Hon. Speaker, that may be true in a specific sense, but we have to look at the context in which we find ourselves. This legislation is only one of many pieces of legislation, all of which impact upon the people, as my colleague has said, that this bill also impacts upon. The cumulative effect of this can be sometimes more significant than the effect of any bill or piece of legislation.

However, this is the one saying that it is the bill of last resort. It's saying it is the bill that responds to persons when all else has failed, not only with the life of the individual but within the life of the community and the society. When there is no help for a person with mental illness, then they will end up here seeking support. When there is no help for a physical disability, they will end up here seeking support. When they are overlooked in their needs and in their pleas for help in a community, then they will look here for help beyond their local community. It's one part of an overall puzzle, and I think we have to see it in that context.

Some of the words that came to me as I struggled to think through the context behind the particular implications of the bill was that we often talk about success. I went to my dictionary, as I have been used to doing over the years, and it says "satisfactory completion of something." That's success. It may be flying a kite. It may be going fishing as a little boy and catching your first fish. A satisfactory completion of something that is important to you makes you feel important to yourself and, hopefully, to others. The other definition of success is the gaining of wealth and fame. It seems to me that in the public image, in much of what we deal with, success is thought of in this latter definition to the most extent — the gaining of wealth and fame.

I think what we are doing behind what we are doing is a value system and a philosophy. Now, all of us as legislators have somewhat different value systems, and we may be here for different reasons. We may or may not have a different philosophy, because it's not something that normally we take the time to share with each other.

Philosophy is defined by the dictionary as a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them. Some of us come out of different religious traditions, so we have studied our religion in our background. Some of us have had the opportunity to do formal studies in philosophy and found that to be extremely interesting and a struggle.

Another term that we've heard very often is the term "integrity" — adherence to a code of values. What are the values that we are collectively trying to share within our society? We talk about the values of democracy, where every individual is important and every individual has the opportunity to participate and to have a say in their own life and the lives of others.

One of the early experiences that came to me came from the aboriginal community. We were in a forum discussion, and one of the films shown was a National Film Board film. And I'll put a plug in, because not many of these films are available anymore except at Langara College, which is in my riding. They have a whole library of these films, and that information has just come to light for most of us. Indian Dialogue is a film about a group of aboriginal people in Alberta, younger and older members of that society who had come together to talk about their lifestyle and its place in the larger lifestyle of the community. This film was made some 30 years ago, but it's just as relevant today as it was then.

There were two incidents in that film. One was an aboriginal elder thanking the younger people in his community for his pension. The young people looked at him and said: "What do you mean, your pension? Why are you thanking us for your pension?" "Well," he said, "it's the habit in our community that as an aboriginal person goes through their life, they share whatever they have with everybody else." For instance, if you go out in an aboriginal community and you stock your woodpile in the prairies for the winter, that woodpile is available to everybody in the community as long as it lasts, whether they've helped to stock it or not. That's just taken for granted. Somebody else will supply something else, and somebody else will supply something else. That mutual interaction is how the community operates.

So he simply said to them: "Now that I'm older and am no longer able to do any of these things, I'm thanking you for all the support that you're going to give me, which, in effect, will be my pension." This is somewhat like a friend of ours who went on a trip to South Africa, and before he left he said to his children: "Thank you for sending my wife and me on this trip." They looked at him and said: "What do you mean? We're not sending you on this trip." He said: "Oh yes. I'm using your inheritance." And they said: "Oh." They were paying for it, but they didn't know.

Another part of that film, Indian Dialogue, which always struck me and has remained with me over these 30 years is right at the very beginning of the film, as soon as it opened. One of the young aboriginal people — who has become very famous since — said simply:

"The Indian agent…." And for those who are visiting us, in those days the Indian agent was a person appointed by the government who made all the decisions about what money aboriginal people could have and how they could spend it. It kind of dictated their lifestyle to them. The Indian agent was there, presumably, to help the community to manage itself, with the understanding that they weren't able to do it on their own. The comment was: "The Indian agent is always saying, 'You can become somebody,' but the Indian agent never said: 'You are somebody.'" It was always future-oriented.

That came to me because in our political jargon of late, we're talking about how we're going to make this a better place for the future — fair enough — without recognizing in those same statements that with all our problems, the United Nations has said we are one of the best countries, one of the best communities, in the world.

The problem is that even here, not everybody is sharing the values of what we already have. I was trying to think through the philosophical shift that we're talking about. I'm basically in agreement with much of the shift and also with affirming very strongly that it was necessary. It had to come, and it must come.

What is the essence of that shift? As I thought more about this, I began to think it had to do with who we are as a person. One of the realities I found in my life was that the main point of my wife for me is that, against all odds, she thinks I'm somebody important. Now there are a lot of people in the community who would disagree with her wholeheartedly. In our college days she had much better opportunities, financially particularly, but she was out of her head. She thought I was important, and that to me is the same question as the Indian dialogue.

One of the realities is that we need to start out with an ethic and a value that says people are not going to become important, but that people are already important where they are. Let me give an illustration of a young family many years ago. They had a child who was extremely sick. We moved into their community. Nobody knew what the sickness of that child was, and so they were isolated by the community because everybody was uncertain and scared. We weren't aware of this.

When we needed someone to care for and look after our young daughter, who was just a year or so old, we asked where there would be a person who could do this in the rural community where we lived. They suggested this family. We went there, and they were surprised that we would come and even more surprised that we would bring our young baby to them and say: "Will you care for this young child when we're busy" — as it turned out to be, in church — "on Sunday mornings?" They agreed, and we went and left her there.

As you can understand, there was a great tension looking after their own baby. We never saw the father in the household because he was always absent when we arrived, and he was absent when we left. We discovered after a number of weeks that as soon as we left, he came into the house and gave to our daughter the love he couldn't give to their child because their child had a sickness that you couldn't touch him. You couldn't hold him. You couldn't get the warmth back from the child.

The recognition that he needed he got from our daughter without any of us knowing it. It was one of the best things that happened to him and to her, because she was somebody for him, and in retrospect he was somebody for her. They established a bond, if you like, out of their weaknesses rather than out of their strengths.

One of the realities in our discussion as I thought about this was: what kind of ethic are we using? One of the realities I thought, for better or worse, is that we're using a work ethic. Our value is a value of work. The women of our community have struggled with this work ethic for years because it was a work ethic that only valued the work you got paid for, that you had a salary from, that you had an income from that you could recognize to the public. Women have gained recognition of late within our communities, but largely the recognition has been when they become leaders in areas of work or profession, when they have been able to earn a salary and take it home, rather than spending the salary that was brought home to them by somebody else.

Or as one of the young, bright women, a young wife, did when we were working in a seniors centre…. We advertised a part-time position with an honorarium. You weren't really getting paid for the value of the work. You got an honorarium. She said: "One, I'd love to do it, but two, it gives me a little money in my pocket that's my own, that I don't have to ask my husband for. I can spend it the way I like. I could even spend it on him, and I don't have to ask him for the money to spend on him." It's that work ethic and the value of earning money that goes with it.

When we think about this, we're talking about people getting employed in order that they will be considered to be valuable to themselves and to somebody else — good and in many ways very proper. But the reality of the effect of that is that if you're not working, if you're not earning money for whatever reason, you're disvalued. Nobody says this consciously, but unconsciously, you're disvalued, and you feel disvalued. That becomes a problem. The work ethic can become a disadvantage for those people who are not able to be part of that work ethic system, particularly when it's a changed system like this.

It seemed to me we had to struggle with this in many parts of government but particularly in this bill, because in this situation — along with health, education, social services and children and families — we have a grave concern for those who have special opportunities, for those who have special needs. It's those people who are impacted, and the very fact that we are saying they have special needs and opportunities continues to put them in the limelight, continues to put

them in the public eye. They continue to say to themselves: "I don't want to be in the public eye. I don't want to be in the limelight because of the difficulties which I've had to cope with."

Now, when we talk about people being independent and wanting to move ahead with their lives, I don't know anybody as independent and as persevering and as putting-forth-150-percent-effort as the people who have disabilities or challenges in their lives. I've met with them, I've talked with them, I've sat with them, I've listened to them, and I have said to myself again and again: "I don't have the kind of devotion, the kind of perseverance, the kind of get-up-and-go-in-spite-of-every-difficulty that they have." They're not there because they're not trying. They're trying harder than any of us who do not have those difficulties can ever imagine.

Yet I don't hear or see that kind of recognition in what we're putting forward. This is what I hear from that community: "Recognize us for who we are, not what we will be. We would like to be that, but recognize us for who we are." In some ways they've said: "We spend so much time and effort just to get through a day, to meet somebody, to talk with somebody, to have the right food to eat, to have the chair we need. We'd just like a little time when that's all done to do the other things that aren't necessary that are done in our lives" — which many of us take for granted. It's this kind of philosophical thinking that says to me that collectively, we haven't yet come to the point where we're recognizing the validity of what this community has to offer us.

My colleague has talked about the people who would like to work but for a variety of reasons don't have the skill, the personality, the appearance — or, as somebody said today, the teeth — that would enable them to get through an interview for a normal job. There are times when we say, "We can help you through that term until you get the job, and then you can prove yourself," and it's important that we do that. They'd like to be able to do it on their own without our help, but they'll accept our help because they know it's important.

What I'm struggling with is whether we have moved far enough yet in our thinking to be able to say in what we do that we are really putting the real needs first, apart from the work ethic, in what we're trying to put forth in our intention. Our intention is right. Our will is in the right place. Perhaps I can express it best by saying this.

One of my friends was very passionate on an issue as he was preaching on a Sunday morning. During the conversation afterward, he said to people: "Let me know what you think." The doctor who came up to him very quietly said: "Your heart is in the right place. I know it's on the left side, and it's in the right place." He had mentioned this. But he said: "If your head is in the same place as your heart, you're in trouble."

What we need is balance. I'm not sure that with all the good intentions we have, we've yet got to that balance — the balance that says the contribution you make or the pension…. That's one place we do have it, although we're beginning to lose it again. We have said in our society that for many of our seniors, who were the pioneers and grew up through the Depression and so came to their senior years without any savings or background because it just wasn't possible in their time, we will provide them with a pension.

We will provide them with a pension because it's their right to have that pension. They've earned it, like the aboriginal elder. He had shared his life, and he had earned it. We've taken that pension for granted. We're beginning to question this in our more prosperous times, and there are some who are saying there are those within our community who perhaps don't have a right to the support they need. What they do have is a responsibility from us to make sure they have what they need.

Right and responsibility go together, and they really can't be separated. It's the same as I mentioned a few weeks ago in the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child. That's really the UN charter of the responsibility of the community for their children, and that's what gives the children rights. It's because of our responsibility for our children. The balances aren't there, as I would hope they would be, and I think we've got a long way to go yet.

We have mentioned a number of the things that are concerns and need to be worked out, and some of them I want to touch on just briefly again. Part of the problem we have in this particular legislation is that though there has been a lot of discussion among many people in the community, most of that discussion has been on misinformation. Therefore, there is a whole host of misunderstanding and fear because of that. We bring it in, in that context.

At the same time, we bring it in on Monday afternoon, and we're debating it on Tuesday morning. In all fairness to my eight or nine years of opposition, I know what the opposition said when that happens. We said — because we were the opposition — that can't happen. Only when the act comes out so that people see it in its real details in the light of day do we have time to examine it and have it responded to and reflected on by the community at large. The very fact that we rush it through is taken to mean — whether we intend it that way or not — that we don't want it to be examined and put forward. That's a reality we have to face and acknowledge. If we face and acknowledge it among ourselves, then we'll do far better than if we don't.

The other reality that concerns me within this act — and it concerns me in a lot of acts, but probably none more so than this one — is that the act is in effect, for all its fine words, a blank cheque. All of the regulations that will make the act work, the gas that will make the motor run, the drivers who will drive it and the rules and regulations by which they operate, by and large, aren't in this act. Many of the things that were raised by my colleague — and I would raise the same concerns and could add to them more — are in information that

was put out outside of the act. This indicated that some of the regulations which are already in place, and others that may be forthcoming and for which as we raise the issues, could be changed. To me, had all the regulations been available at the same time with the act, then we would have been in a better position to debate them.

I have some of the same concerns and uncertainties when we come to the issues within the act. Time limits are of concern. You can get a pardon even if you have committed murder without intending to do so. You can go back to the community. But if you're convicted of fraud here, for whatever reason, there is not necessarily a pardon. That's a concern. Not only is it a concern in that particular instance, but it implies a stance that pardons will not be available for many other instances.

I think of the person whose court case I attended many years ago: a young mother with children that she was trying to maintain. So she did babysitting in order that she could feed them and get the clothing and the things that her children needed. She was brought to the court for fraud. The judge said: "I have no alternative but to convict you for caring for your children. The legal route is not the best route to solve our problems."

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time is expired. Would you please complete your remarks.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Fortunately, the windup. I'll have a second go with the next bill that comes. Thank you.

J. Kwan: As the member for Vancouver-Langara has said, this is perhaps one of the most important bills this Legislature is faced with to date. It's one that has significant ramifications for many, many British Columbians.

We live in a nation that we proclaim to be one that is compassionate, which we cherish because it is one that looks after those who are in greatest need. But when we have the bill that is before us, I have to ask and question the intent of the government and the approach in which government has undertaken to, quite frankly, attack the poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable British Columbians.

Before I get into the details of my comments around the act, I have to first make a comment about this government's approach, a government that campaigned on the notion that they would be open, accountable, transparent, accessible and consultative. In reality what we have seen is the opposite. It's highlighted by the process this government has embarked on with respect to this bill. This bill was introduced yesterday. In less than 24 hours we're into second reading debate. I have no doubt that what the government will try and do by the end of this week is pass this piece of legislation so that the broader community would not have an opportunity — an adequate opportunity, the appropriate opportunity — to review this significant bill and the impacts to individuals in British Columbia.

We researched what the then Opposition House Leader and now Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance, had to say when there was, in his view, insufficient time for members to review the bills that had been introduced in the House, insufficient time for the community to review the bills that were introduced in the House. This is — and I quote for the record — what the then Opposition House Leader, the now Minister of Finance and Government House Leader, had to say. This was in Hansard dated April 28, 1998, on Tuesday.

This was a bill regarding mortgage brokers. It was introduced on Thursday, and then the debate for second reading happened on the following Tuesday — about mortgage brokers. The government now, the opposition then, had thought there ought to be more time for debate, for the community to absorb the impacts of the legislation that was being brought forward by government.

What have we today? We have a major piece of legislation, acknowledged by a government member himself, the member for Vancouver-Langara. He said this will have huge ramifications and that there needs to be time for people to review this piece of legislation, find out exactly what the impacts are, ask those questions of government, hold the government accountable.

What we have now is the introduction of the bill yesterday, and in less than 24 hours we're into second reading debate. Where is the theory from the current Government House Leader today that applied for mortgage brokers, when he was arguing that there needed to be more time for legislation to be debated in this House? He's completely silent. Why is that, hon. Speaker? Is it because the people which this bill impacts are insignificant in the eyes of this government?

J. Kwan: There's some grunting noise behind me from a government member. If he wishes to get up to speak, then rise up.

Is it because this segment of the community are people that this government does not give a hoot about? They are people who are dispensable, that you can just throw away, cast away, because they are not the people who back this government on the finance campaign trail. Is that why they can be dispensable? Is that why a bill as significant as this, which has ramifications that change the way in which income assistance has been provided to British Columbians for the last…? God, I can't remember when the last time was that there were such significant impacts on income assistance recipients introduced in the House. I cannot remember when that was, and here we have a major bill that will impact people's lives significantly — cutting people off income assistance after a time restriction, as an example; impacting single moms in their qualification, as an example.

These bills will impact the most vulnerable people in British Columbia — the people this government claimed they would protect. Here we have a significant bill, and in less than 24 hours the government is trying to rush through the bill — ram it through with a large majority, all 76 members of them — so that the impacts and the thorough analysis that need to be done on this legislation will be curtailed. That's what I anticipate, because the government feels that these people are dispensable. They're people that are not of any significance in their minds.

That's my analysis, hon. Speaker. The haste in which this government tries to bring forward legislation that sometimes, in some instances, could render people homeless and could have huge impacts on the community in terms of children at risk, our health care system, our criminal justice system and our economic system…. In every realm that you can imagine, in every corner of B.C., British Columbians will be impacted significantly by this bill. And the government does not even have the courtesy to give the community time to review the bill, to analyze and make comments on it and attempt to hold this government accountable.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? I say shame on the 76 members, the majority of whom I anticipate — maybe one or two may not — will rise up in this House and ram this bill through. They will just walk away, and I would have to ask for every one of the members on the government side to check and see if they have a conscience and, if they do, to go and find it and bring themselves into this House and enter into debate and speak for the people who are the most vulnerable and who will be very negatively impacted by the passage of this bill.

I have to say that I reviewed documents of what the government — the current Premier now, then in opposition — had to say with respect to cuts to income assistance rates. During the election the now Premier was clear that welfare cuts were not on the agenda. The Georgia Straight reporter Charlie Smith had asked: "What's the likelihood that a Liberal government will reduce welfare rates?" The now Premier responded: "We have no intention of reducing welfare rates." Reported in the Georgia Straight, asked by the reporter Charlie Smith, and answered by the now Premier, who was then the Leader of the Opposition. "We have no intention of reducing welfare rates." This is a direct quote. I didn't make up this quote. It's directly from the Georgia Straight.

What happened since the election? On October 5 the Human Resources minister sends 100,000 welfare recipients letters that ask recipients to seek work as he tried to cut 20 to 50 percent from the $1.7 billion budget that is spent annually on income assistance. The Minister of Human Resources says the cuts will be made by rapidly moving welfare recipients to the workforce by giving them job training along with short-term financial assistance. He says: "We need to get young people into the workforce and not relying on the government for long periods of time. I want to move from a culture of entitlement to a passport-to-employment system." That was what the minister said on October 5.

We will engage in the debate, particularly in the committee stage, to ask the minister more precisely what plans he has with respect to the training component. During the estimates, when those questions were asked of the minister, he did not know a lot of the answers. He did not have answers to income assistance recipients who would be cut off with the passage of this bill. Questions were asked in terms of the set-up time. Questions were asked in terms of accountability. Questions were asked about where the jobs are going to be coming from and who's going to make sure that people will get access to them. Lots of those questions were asked, and the minister was unclear on a lot of those answers.

Here we have today the rushing-through of this significant piece of legislation impacting people's lives significantly — by this minister, by this Liberal government — when they don't even know what the answers are, when they know themselves that the system, on the employment side and the training side, has not yet been set up. The time line in which all of those training employment initiatives would be set up…. Even then, the minister could not give a precise answer when asked those questions during the estimates process.

Then, on October 6, the minister tells the province that he's looking at cutting rates which now give individuals only $510 a month and parents with dependent children up to $1,500 a month. He proposes welfare-to-work training programs with mandatory work experience components. People on disability will also be expected to work, although not full-time.

Prior to the election, you have the Premier saying: "We have no intention of reducing welfare rates." As early as October 6, after the election, the Minister of Human Resources tells the Province paper that he's looking at cutting rates — a broken promise by this government yet again. Another broken promise.

That's not all. On October 10: "A time limit will be imposed on payments to people who are capable of being employed. Legislation will be introduced in the spring."

On November 7 in another open cabinet meeting, the minister says he's considering forcing single mothers off welfare after their child turns one. Currently, there are 62,000 single mothers who are eligible until their child turns seven. The number of people on welfare actually dropped dramatically in recent years from a high of 375,000 in 1995 to 250,000 today, the lowest rate in two decades.

On the income assistance side, if you're a single mom, yes, the minister had changed his perspective by saying that if your child turns one, we won't cut you off right then. But when your child turns three, we will. Make no mistake about it. Is that contrary to the promise about no cuts to welfare rates? I would say yes.

I can't wait for the minister and the members who campaigned with the Premier on these promises to rise up in this House and give an explanation, to answer to the inconsistencies that I'm now pointing out with respect to this legislation, this government's policy and what they promised during the election. I can't wait to hear, because on every single promise that they have made to British Columbians, they've gone about breaking them — the significant ones, particularly. Here we have, yet again, another promise broken by this government. I'd really like to hear, and I suspect that British Columbians would like to hear, from the government members in this House who campaigned on this — for them to get up and answer to their broken promise, for them to answer and say to their constituents: "Oh, I'm sorry I broke that promise. I really didn't mean what I said during the election." Some would say that it would be a lie. Others would say that it's a completely dishonest approach that government has embarked upon — promises made, promises broken.

The community feels very strongly about this, particularly those who advocate for those who live in poverty. These are some of the quotes of what they've had to say. End Legislated Poverty is quoted in the Vancouver Sun, October 6, 2001, after they'd learned of some of the intentions of government. I quote Nikki Maier: "This is totally heartless. You're going to see more people on the streets and an increased crime rate. The impacts of this are far-reaching." Here's what Jean Swanson, a person who's well known in the advocacy world for those who are poor, had to say in the Vancouver Sun on October 8, 2001: "Where are people supposed to find jobs? In the softwood lumber industry? In the airline industry? They [the Liberal government] gave the rich a tax cut. And now they're telling the poorest people in the province to find nonexistent jobs."

I have to wonder: where does the government get these extreme right-wing decisions and policies from? I have to wonder. Do they dream them up at night? Do they sit up all night and think: "Okay, let's go out there and say we're going to protect the most vulnerable, protect the poor and children who are risk"? And then do they wake up in the morning and come up with an approach completely opposite to actually protecting the most vulnerable and the poorest of the poor? Where do they get this from? I have to wonder. Do they just dream it up at night? I suspect not. Well, maybe some do, but I suspect not.

I came across this article and was dumbfounded when I saw it. I picked it up and read it, and I thought: oh my gosh, here's the blueprint for the Liberal government. What is it? It's the Fraser Institute's review for public policy in Canada, January 2002 edition. The article I read that nearly floored me, when I was reading it, was headlined "Helping the Poor: What Doesn't Work." There are different segments in it. There's a paragraph that talks about people who are in poverty, and these are their proposed changes…. But perhaps most important of all is the paragraph that states the premise that the poor in British Columbia are not poor. That's the thrust of their analysis.

I'll read a paragraph of it into the record. There are several serious problems with the line of reasoning in suggesting that…. Sorry. This is not a quote. I'm adding some words. Let me just read the paragraph before, and it'll put this paragraph into context. The proposal is: "Significantly Increase Social Assistance Benefits."

This is the premise on which the Fraser Institute is suggesting how income assistance should be defined and the approach with which to help those who are in greatest need — that is, to understand that those who are now on income assistance, living in poverty, are, generally speaking, not poor. This, I believe, is the policy that this Liberal government adopted when it formulated the legislation that's before us. It's the approach with which this government is going to attack the poorest of the poor: by justifying in their own minds, with the support of the Fraser Institute, that they are in fact not living in poverty, are not poor.