Hansard -- Tuesday, April 16, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 9 (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		2863

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2863
	Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 35) Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2864
	Referendum on treaty negotiations B. Bennett Anxiety disorder awareness E. Brenzinger Law reform B. Suffredine

Oral Questions		2865
	Impact of interest rates on B.C. economy J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Powers of municipal governments J. Kwan Hon. T. Nebbeling Hon. G. Campbell Mining industry in B.C. D. MacKay Hon. R. Neufeld Reduction of government regulations K. Johnston Hon. K. Falcon Medical Services Plan coverage J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills		2868
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued) J. Kwan J. MacPhail

P. Nettleton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some important people from an important town in British Columbia, Fort St. James. The mayor of Fort St. James, Jim Togyi, is here today, and Councillor Kathy Bessette and her husband, Norm. Please join me in giving them a great big welcome.

B. Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce, in the precinct today, Mr. Jim Mann. Mr. Mann represents an organization called YouthQuest, which provides educational outreach to groups and individuals, as well as drop-in centres for gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgendered kids. It is important that these adolescents have a safe place to go. Thanks for the work you do, Jim. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, today I'm sure members of the Legislature recognize that it is the Mining Association of B.C.'s Mining Day here in the Legislature. There are literally dozens of people who are involved in the mining industry who have joined us in Victoria. I hope the House will make them welcome as we build the mining industry back to the strength it had in the past so that we have a brighter mining future in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I've known Dave and Lee Holmberg for many years and in that time have been the recipient of much sage advice from Dave, in particular. I remember him telling me to hang on to my eight-track tape. I remember he told me not to place too much stock in a young upstart golfer by the name of Woods.

Probably the most dubious advice he ever gave was to a then Leader of the Opposition when he suggested that a young lawyer from Matsqui might make an appropriate MLA for the area. I'm glad for all their support and the fact that Dave and Lee are here today. I hope all my friends in the House will make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: Today in the gallery I have two very good friends. Jane Shackell and Joe McStravick are joining us today. I hope the House will make them welcome.

We have another young man who I met in the hallway for the first time today and persuaded to join us for question period. Roland and his mom and dad, up in the left-hand side of the gallery, are joining us today. I hope people will make them welcome as well.

Hon. G. Hogg: Last week 12 Canadians participated in a major international sporting event, an event considered the world's toughest foot race: the seventeenth Marathon des Sables, a seven-day, 240-kilometre race across the Sahara Desert in temperatures up to 55 degrees Celsius, going over 200-foot-high sand dunes and facing sandstorms.

There were 615 participants representing 30 countries. Four British Columbians, including three from Surrey–White Rock, participated in this: David Secord, Gerry van der Wint and Ferg Hoch, all members of the Peninsula Runners Club. Ferg Hoch was the top North American finisher. He finished in eighth place, a remarkable feat by a remarkable young man. I'd ask you to please join me in providing congratulations to these valiant and some would say crazy British Columbians.

Hon. L. Reid: It's my pleasure to introduce someone in this gallery who has been a friend of mine for more than 25 years. I'd like the House to make very welcome Alice Mann.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the gallery today are members of a group of 75 delegates of the mining community representing B.C. cities and towns, the industry and mining suppliers, who are meeting in Victoria today. The day was sponsored by the Mining Association of B.C. Russ Hallbauer is the chairman and Gary Livingstone the president and CEO. They're making their rounds and visiting MLAs through the building to talk about how important mining is to the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: Visiting the precincts this afternoon are approximately 60 grades 7 to 9 students from Mount Slesse Middle School in Chilliwack. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Anderson, and, I believe, five adult chaperons. Would the House please make all of these people welcome.

J. Wilson: Today I see in the gallery a very familiar face, none other than the mayor of the city of Quesnel. I ask that the House make Steve Wallace welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to introduce Bill 35, the Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2),

2002. Bill 35 amends several statutes to remove 250 unnecessary regulatory requirements and cut red tape for the public and private sectors and for individuals dealing with government.

This is our second deregulation bill this session and another important step towards meeting our new-era commitment to reduce unnecessary red tape by one-third within three years.

For the edification of members of the House, we define red tape as nonessential procedures, forms, licences and regulations that add to the cost of dealing with government and anything that is obsolete, redundant, confusing or that diminishes the province's economic competitiveness and stands in the way of job creation or wastes taxpayers' time and money.

Bill 35 cuts red tape for individuals, businesses, colleges and universities by amending the Barbers Act, the Cosmetologists Act, the College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Society Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Home Owner Grant Act.

Bill 35 also cuts red tape in the forest, mining and oil and gas sectors with amendments to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act.

Bill 35 also repeals obsolete or unproclaimed provisions in the Motor Vehicle Act, the British Columbia Health Research Foundation Act and the hospital foundation provisions in the Hospital Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35 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.

B. Bennett: I have five simple points that I want to make today in support of the referendum on treaty-making. Before I make my five points in the short time I have, I want to say that I consider this a very serious and important topic. It's a topic that I've been speaking on a lot in my riding. It's a topic that will shape the lives of everyone alive here in B.C. today and everyone yet to be born who will live in B.C. after we are gone.

1. The referendum is not about whether the province should negotiate treaties. This government sincerely wants to negotiate treaties, but the process is stuck and must be reinvigorated. Getting the general public engaged in thinking about treaty-making will start that rejuvenation.

2. The cost of the referendum is reasonable. The treaty process has already cost $500 million with not one treaty signed yet. The cost of not reinvigorating the process is far greater than the $10 million cost of the referendum.

3. The referendum is not the majority telling the minority what to do. There are three independent parties to treaty negotiations: British Columbia, Canada and the aboriginal people. B.C. cannot tell the aboriginal negotiators what positions they should take on behalf of the people they represent. Similarly, B.C. has every right to develop its own negotiating mandate in consultation with all the people of the province — aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

4. The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently ruled that the referendum does not threaten constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. The referendum is not illegal. It is not racist. It is not disrespectful. It is a transparent attempt of the provincial government to find out what those to whom we are responsible and accountable think about the province's bargaining position.

5. The referendum provides all British Columbians with their first-ever opportunity to respectfully engage in a conversation about the treaty process. The referendum has already begun to stimulate a lively discussion that will help energize treaty-making in B.C.

I say to the people in my riding of East Kootenay and to other British Columbians: don't believe the naysayers who claim the referendum will harm the treaty process or will lead to deadlock. With $500 million spent and not a treaty signed, we already have deadlock. Don't believe those elitists who claim the people of the province do not have the right or perhaps the intelligence to state their respectful views. I say: move the treaty process forward.

E. Brenzinger: Did you know that some type of anxiety disorder will affect approximately 400,000 British Columbians over the age of 18? A hundred thousand British Columbians will be faced with a chronic or seriously disabling condition as a result of an anxiety disorder. It is estimated that over 54,000 children in B.C. between the ages of five and 19 will also be affected.

Anxiety disorders are a group of conditions that are characterized by a sense of foreboding and impending doom. Although anxiety is a normal emotion — humans could not survive without it — a problem may exist when the emotion becomes excessive or is activated by inappropriate triggers like a crowded place or leaving the house.

There are different types of anxiety disorders: panic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, phobias, generalized anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders. A panic attack is a sudden rush of intense fear that is accompanied by things like heart palpitations, dizziness, sweating and nausea. People often fear

that they are about to have a heart attack, go crazy, lose control or do something embarrassing as a result of the panic attack.

The most important point I would like to make today is that anxiety disorders can be effectively diagnosed and treated. I know from experience in my family that anxiety disorders can be overcome. I encourage people to seek treatment and to talk openly about the issues of mental illness.

I understand that the Minister of State for Mental Health has arranged funding for the anxiety disorders strategy, a report that has been completed and presented to the minister by the Anxiety Disorders Association of British Columbia. I encourage the minister to continue towards finding ways to improve services for people with anxiety disorders.

Anyone who wants more information should check out the webpage for the Anxiety Disorders Association of British Columbia at anxietybc.com.

B. Suffredine: Today I'd like to speak briefly about the importance of law reform and the good work being done by our B.C. Law Institute. Since the 1980s this group of volunteer professionals has provided us with a wealth of information on a variety of topics where we need statute reform. They've provided advice on changes to commercial tenancy, municipal law, condominium corporations, personal property security, debtor-creditor legislation, trusts and estates, contract law, co-ownership of land, floating charges on land, vicarious liability of the Motor Vehicle Act, reciprocal enforcement of judgments and much more.

I have here a stack of reports that contains a wealth of information and knowledge. Some of their advice was acted on, but, sadly, most of their recommendations were not used and stayed on the shelf. The need for reform of much of our statute law remains. Some of the wording is archaic. Sometimes procedure is outdated or impractical. One example is the recommendation for legislation to assist creditors in forcing judgments against securities like shares. Currently, the procedure is governed by the English Judgments Act of 1838, adopted when British Columbia became a province. The procedure is to obtain a charging order, something most judges or lawyers are completely unfamiliar with. There are many more examples.

I know that our Attorney General is supportive. He showed that support when he attended a meeting of the Law Institute on March 14 in Vancouver. I know that he looks forward to working closely with the B.C. Law Institute in the future. I encourage all the members of this House to review the work done to date by what was the Law Reform Commission, now the B.C. Law Institute, and to encourage recommendations to enact their recommendations. I also encourage members to express their support for law reform to the B.C. Law Institute members so they may know their work is valued.

J. MacPhail: The B.C. economy has taken some very hard hits in the past few months. Our unemployment rate is now at 9 percent, one of the highest in the country. Today, in spite of all that, the Bank of Canada is raising interest rates, further threatening B.C.'s very fragile economic situation.

We know that in the past, B.C.'s economy has been hurt by central Canada's indifference to our economic situation. My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he support the premise that the Bank of Canada's decision to raise interest rates comes at a very bad time for British Columbia? And can he tell the House what action we can take to persuade the bank to change its course?

Hon. G. Collins: It's no news to anyone that the Bank of Canada rate is at 40-year lows presently. It's gone up a quarter-point. I want to advise the member opposite that I met this morning with Sheryl Kennedy, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, and gave her my impression of British Columbia's economy, both our strengths and our weaknesses.

It's not up to me to tell the Bank of Canada how to adjust interest rates across the country, but I think it's certainly important that we convey our messages and the on-the-ground information that we receive as members of the Legislature and as ministers of the Crown here in British Columbia. I've done just that.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be more encouraged if the minister had actually told me exactly what he did say and which way interest rates should go. In fact, it is up to the provinces to advise the Bank of Canada on how their policies affect the provincial economy.

Indeed, there have been some positive economic signs, but those positive economic signs have been driven by low interest rates. It's also true that many of the economic indicators are telling a very bleak story. Thousands of forest workers are out of work. Consumer bankruptcies are on the rise, and B.C. Stats says that private sector investment in B.C. is expected to fall this year.

The Bank of Canada does not seem to understand that our economy, particularly in the interior, is at risk. Will the Minister of Finance please stand up and either tell us exactly what he did tell the deputy governor, or will he stand up now and take a stand on behalf of every unemployed British Columbian and tell the Bank of Canada to reverse its policy of raising interest rates?

Hon. G. Collins: I haven't been in this job nearly as long as the member opposite was in it, but I don't recall

her ever standing up in this House and telling the Bank of Canada exactly what to do.

Hon. G. Collins: …that I gave the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada very strong indications of what we think benefits British Columbia, what our position is in the global economy and the unique position British Columbia has, as a result of softwood lumber and other issues.

I also want to state that the revival in the economy is affected, partially, by low interest rates — those are definitely beneficial to British Columbians, and I conveyed that as well — but also as a result of low taxes and the fact that people have more money left in their pocket, something I know the previous government did very little to correct.

I also want to refer to the fact that the member, while raising the unemployment rate, failed to mention that of the 88,000 jobs that were created last month in Canada, 11,000 were created right here in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, in the past B.C. Finance ministers have taken a very strong, proactive stance against Bank of Canada's actions when they hurt B.C.'s economy. All Finance ministers in the past have done that but for this one. The fact is…

J. MacPhail: …that the low-tax pursuit for the richest in this province has brought hardship to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. Instead of benefit, we've seen the most mean-spirited, hard-hearted policies introduced by this government. We're debating them today here in this Legislature. The interest rate rise will only make those policies even more mean-spirited, as forest workers have to rely on welfare.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This interest rate rise is going to deal a further blow to our softwood lumber industry. Why doesn't the Minister of Finance stand up for British Columbia, tell the Bank of Canada that their made-in-Ontario interest rate policy is harming British Columbia?

Hon. G. Collins: I've been very clear with the Bank of Canada's representative, telling them…

Hon. G. Collins: …what the position of British Columbia is and how their decisions impact on British Columbia workers. I'll never hesitate to do that. I'm not going to tell them exactly what they need to do; I'm going to tell them what the impact is here in British Columbia.

With regard to taxation, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this province they have a government that's putting more money back into people's pockets instead of taking it out. In fact, the people earning $60,000…

Hon. G. Collins: …or less here in British Columbia pay the lowest rate of personal income taxes of anywhere in the country. And this year alone, there'll be more than $1 billion left in the pockets of British Columbians instead of the pockets of the government.

J. Kwan: This Liberal government like to say that they giveth. But you know what? On the other hand, they taketh. Just ask the Minister of Human Resources about all the welfare cuts that this government is imposing on British Columbians.

The Premier says he wants first nations government to be just like municipal government. Yesterday we saw this means a reduced role in land use planning, a crucial issue for first nations. The Premier says the only powers he wants first nations to have are those that are delegated by the province. This would include, I presume, the authority to tax. Will the Minister of State for Community Charter tell us what new taxation powers are to be granted to municipalities and, by extension, to the first nations governments?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: For the third day in a row, for the third time, details pertaining to the charter will be revealed in this House in the very near future. At that time the questions that the member has been bringing to this side will be answered, I hope, to her satisfaction.

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

J. Kwan: This minister doesn't know what he's doing. Yet this Liberal government is telling British Columbians to vote on a question where this Premier has said self-governance is going to be the municipal style

of governance. They don't even know what the authorities are. The authority to tax is based on the consent of those being taxed, and that means representation. Municipalities will be getting increased authority to raise money, because this government will be asking them to pay more for more services — services that this government is cutting.

To the Premier. In his vision of first nations government, tell us: just how will the rights of those who live on first nations treaty lands be represented under a municipal government?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I want to be clear that this government, unlike the previous government, is actually opposed to downloading. The hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that the previous government downloaded onto local property tax payers will not take place.

This government is clear that it believes in aboriginal self-government. We believe that aboriginal self-government should have a municipal form of delegated authority from the provincial Legislature in British Columbia, from the federal Parliament of Canada…

Hon. G. Campbell: …similar to the kind of governance model that we've seen in Sechelt here in British Columbia or that we see throughout the Yukon Territory. We indeed believe that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, deserve the right to vote for governments that are controlling their lives.

Historically, mining has played a major role in both the communities that I represent and across this province. I live in Smithers. It was once a bustling community servicing the mining industry. They looked after those exploration companies looking for minerals in the north. Under the previous administration, mineral exploration dropped by 80 percent in the province.

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what he is doing to reverse this trend and bring prosperity back to the province of British Columbia and the mining industry?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia has a huge challenge, first, to work on getting industry confidence back in British Columbia after spending the last ten years under an NDP administration that basically booted the mining industry out of the province. We have to recognize the importance of the industry in creating jobs, investment and taxation in the province so that all British Columbians — all, including everyone in this House — can continue to receive the health care and education that they receive today — our two top priorities.

Red tape. My ministry is working on that with the Minister of State for Deregulation. He just introduced some today.

Access to the land base from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. This is a new era in British Columbia, and we're looking forward to the mining industry coming back and being the giant it was once before.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has a supplementary question.

D. MacKay: British Columbia is blessed with an abundant supply of minerals that have yet to be discovered and developed for the people of the province.

D. MacKay: Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us how much in investments he expects these changes to bring back to B.C.'s mining sector?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of minerals. We're also blessed with an abundance of parks, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we're going to make that land that's not parks available to the mining industry so that they can go and do the important things that they have to do. In fact, we're hoping that this year, after a decade in decline, we will actually see a doubling — a 100 percent increase — in exploration in the province of British Columbia.

K. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of State for Deregulation. Recent media reports have questioned the need for the government's deregulation initiative. Some reports have suggested that this process will provide very little benefit to B.C. taxpayers. Can the Minister of State for Deregulation tell us what impact reducing the regulatory burden will have on British Columbians?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that as I've travelled across this province and spoken to small business folks from every single part of this province, there's a common message. That message is that a decade of NDP socialism has been devastating in terms of red tape and regulation. That's why I'm proud of the fact

that we're going through a very thoughtful and prudent process of reducing the regulatory burden on small business while at the same time protecting the important values of public health, safety and the environment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has a supplementary question.

K. Johnston: A great many British Columbians are seeking clarification on how the government will determine which regulations to eliminate. Can the Minister of State for Deregulation outline the process?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated earlier, we're going through a very thoughtful process. Each ministry has prepared three-year deregulation plans to, in a very thoughtful way, lay out how they're going to reach the targets within their ministries, keeping in mind of course the fact that they're going to be consulting with interested stakeholders. That process is underway, and I can tell you that at the end of the day we in British Columbia are going to have a smarter, more effective regulatory climate that's competitive with the rest of Canada and North America. That's going to be good for British Columbia, good for the mining and forest industry and the oil and gas sector, and we're going to get this province moving once again.

J. MacPhail: Last November the Minister of Health Services said that it was fearmongering to suggest that he was planning to increase MSP premiums — strike one. In January seniors told the minister that increases to Pharmacare deductibles would reduce access to important medicines, and again he called that fearmongering — strike two. This minister is way behind in the count, and now for the third pitch. We have reason to believe that in the coming weeks the minister is planning a major push to delist more MSP-covered health services. Would the minister like to take another swing and a miss?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question concerns future government policy and is out of order. The minister may answer if he wishes.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have an ongoing process of trying to address the needs of British Columbia patients to make sure that we get the best value for health services delivered in this province.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have an ongoing process of reviewing what is covered in the $10.4 billion Health budget, and we will continue to do that. We will make sure that we have the most effective — cost-effective and medically effective — services available for British Columbians.

J. Kwan: Just prior to the lunch break I was quoting a paragraph from the Fraser Institute's Fraser Forum article from January 2002, which in my view highlights the Liberal government's approach to addressing income assistance. The philosophy around it centres around the paragraph which states that the Fraser Institute believes, at least from this article, that the people who are on income assistance are people who already have their basic needs met. Therefore, they're not poor enough to be on income assistance. In fact, people who need government assistance need to be poorer than they already are. That, hence, is the problem with the income assistance approach or model.

What we have today in this Legislature is two pieces of legislation. Although this is Bill 26, Bill 27 will be debated at a later time — today or tomorrow — for second reading. The whole approach is to look and see how government could cut income assistance recipients off. In other words, this government actually believes that people who are on income assistance, people who live in poverty, are not poor enough. They need to be poorer; they need to be more desperate. They need to be, perhaps, living on the streets before they could qualify for assistance from this government. That is the Fraser Institute's analysis. It is the Liberal government's analysis in spite of the fact that, before the election, the now Premier said he would not cut welfare rates. He's broken that promise. We've seen that since the election. He's broken many promises since the election. This is yet another one.

The right-wing ideology has now become the underpinning of this piece of legislation — legislation that is looking to be punitive to the people who are in greatest need in British Columbia. The analysis, if you will, or the ideology this government espouses in this piece of legislation is very flawed. The people who have done research in this area will tell you that people living in poverty, people who are on income assistance, are suffering great hardships because they don't have the means to support themselves.

In fact, a study was done with respect to those who are falling behind. This is a study done by the group called SPARC-BC. They sent out a press release on the

work that they have done with respect to income assistance and those who live in poverty.

Their new report was released on December 6, 2001. The Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., SPARC-BC, shows conclusively that income assistance — that is, welfare rates in B.C. — is not sufficient to meet recipients' needs. The report, entitled Falling Behind: A Comparison of Living Costs and Income Assistance Rates in B.C., calculates the gap between welfare benefits and what it really costs to live in this province. It provides detailed costs for food, clothing, personal care, transportation, shelter and other costs of daily living. According to the report: "Welfare benefits only cover 45 to 65 percent of the cost of daily living," depending on the family type. "Reductions to income assistance of any kind — whether in rates, types of benefits or eligibility — must not be considered by the provincial government, as the government is already failing to meet its obligations to these citizens."

According to Michael Goldberg, who is the research director at SPARC-BC and co-author of Falling Behind: "The findings in the report show that the poorest of the poor are getting even poorer. In 1982 a single recipient received $175 a month to cover food, clothing, transportation, personal care and other non-shelter costs. In 2001 the benefits for a single person are only $185 to cover those same costs." Says Goldberg: "Taking inflation into account, a single person would now require $339 a month to be able to purchase the same goods and services as in 1982."

Based on the analysis that SPARC-BC has done, SPARC-BC recommends that the Liberal government immediately raise income assistance benefits to meet the minimum costs of living for all recipient groups, as outlined in the report; create a single overall benefit that allows recipients to make their own spending decisions by eliminating the separation between the shelter and support components of income assistance; extend enhanced medical coverage to all recipients of basic income assistance; establish and empower a public review committee with responsibility for developing an adequate income assistance rate structure, with the operations of this committee being transparent and open to scrutiny; fully index income assistance rates to cost-of-living increases between each review of the overall adequacy of the rates; recognize that single parents have the same privacy requirements as couples with children, and shelter allowances need to take this into account; recognize the fact that the cost of raising children increases as they grow older and that the rate structure needs to take this into account; and immediately raise the asset levels in determining eligibility for singles and couples without children to the previous minimums of $2,500 for singles and $5,000 for couples without children.

The government, instead of moving forward on changes in income assistance that would reflect the current study — this study was released on December 6, 2001 — and in a direction that would relieve hardships, is going the other way. They are looking at cutting benefits, they are looking at cutting rates, and they are looking at making eligibility even more difficult so that people who are the poorest of the poor would not be able to gain access for government support when they need it the most.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I assume that for the purposes of time, you are the designated speaker.

What is the rationale behind this move of the government? Is it that they believe that the people currently living on social assistance are not really poor, that how you define "poor" would be the definition that has been put out by the Fraser Institute and that that is the preferred definition, focusing on a basic-needs approach, which leads them to the conclusion that those on welfare are generally able to cover for the basics and are not poor?

If that's the case, I challenge any member in this House to live for one month on the rate of a single person on income assistance. I challenge them to do that and then come back to this House and say that the poorest of the poor, living on welfare, have too much money given to them by government and that their life is one that provides for more than the basic needs. If members in this House take on this challenge and go live such a life and could come back in this House and still say and believe in the Fraser Institute's definition of poverty…. If they're able to do that, then we can engage in a different kind of debate. I suspect that members of the House would not and could not live on the rate which income assistance recipients receive, especially with the reduced rates that this government is now imposing through this piece of legislation.

I grew up living in poverty, although my family didn't collect income assistance when we immigrated here. We didn't know there was such a system as income assistance. For the first while when we first came here, my mother worked as a farm worker for a family of eight. She made $10 a day to support a family of eight, while my father went out to gain ESL training so he could try and get employment in his field. He's now retired, but his training was in the tailoring business. When we first came here, he couldn't get employment because he didn't speak the language.

I come from a traditional family, and in Hong Kong when we were growing up, my mother took care of the six kids, managed the house and took care of the seven of us, including my dad. When we first came here, we had no financial support in any way, shape or form, so my mother went out and did the work that she knew how, which was essentially the work of a labourer. She went out as a farmworker. She would pick strawberries in the summertime. She would plant vegetables in the springtime. She would work 12 hours a day, and she would bring home $10 to support the family.

We were often on the verge of not getting enough to eat. On the issue of housing, we lived in a two-bedroom basement suite of 700 square feet, and we would just all pile on top of each other. That's how we lived; we lived in poverty. I've experienced it, and I've experienced what it is like to be hungry. I'm glad my family no longer lives in poverty now. I can tell you that for people who are on income assistance, with the rates they get from government, it's hardly sufficient for them to meet their basic needs.

Here we have a government bringing forward legislation that will further slash the rates and cut off benefits, impacting adults and children alike. I have to ask: what is the logic behind that? Why is government doing that, and why aren't members in this House speaking up, saying: "That is not acceptable. That's not why I ran for office. That is not why I'm here"?

Why wouldn't the Minister of Human Resources rise up in his own caucus and say: "You know what, Premier? I am not going to bring this piece of legislation in. I used to be a social worker. I understand how hard it is for people to be on income assistance and how hard it is for them to survive. The fact of the matter is the rates and benefits they get now hardly support their day-to-day living. As a minister who understands these issues, who has spoken with the people in the community and who has worked in this field, I will not bring in a piece of legislation that would devastate the support, the income assistance, that individuals and families need in British Columbia."

It isn't just the issue of being compassionate or understanding what it is like to be in poverty. I know the member for Vancouver-Langara said this earlier. He was saying someone had made a comment to him suggesting that the issue around compassion centres around where your heart is. It is good that your heart is in the right place, being on the left side and in the right place, but if your head is also in the same place as your heart, then you're in trouble.

This was the comment the member for Vancouver-Langara made, a suggestion from a friend of his who tells him that if your head is in the same place as your heart, then you're in trouble. The member for Vancouver-Langara, to his credit, rose in this House and said: "Hmm. I don't know about that. I'm not sure that if your heart and your head are in the same place, it somehow leads to trouble." He made that comment.

I will go on to say further that if your head and your heart are not in the same place and if you just want to use your head for the purposes of analysis of the impacts of this bill on people on income assistance, then let's look at something financial. Perhaps only the bottom line matters with this government. Then let's look at some of the financial aspects of this bill.

Most recently, there was a study done in Toronto. The report looked at welfare recipients who could not afford to meet their basic nutritional needs because of the lack of support they were getting from government by way of assistance. The report came to this conclusion. It is by Valerie Terasuk, a University of Toronto nutritional scientist, who cites the results of the study. She advises that many people can't scrape together — and in Ontario they receive $160 a month — what it costs for an adult to eat well, as outlined by the province's own Health minister.

From her perspective, she states that welfare has become a health problem. She goes on to say that to try to maintain people on benefit levels below basic needs ultimately has to jeopardize people's health. When people have to dole out much of their welfare benefits for shelter, they have to scrimp on healthy food and therefore their health is jeopardized.

When their health is jeopardized, what happens? They end up in the hospital. They end up in the emergency room. They end up costing the health care system more money than otherwise. There is such a thing known as preventive health, but when people cannot take the necessary steps to keep healthy and stay healthy because they haven't got the resources to do it, then it has the ripple effect of impacting and costing our health care system.

It's not just the health care system that would have an impact. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, when people get desperate and they're unable to feed or clothe their children, what would they do? Some perhaps may well resort to criminal activities. As an example, they may well have to break into somebody's car to steal what they can so that they can put food on the table.

In my own personal experience with my mom and dad, with six children and $10 a day to support us, I know what they did. My parents often didn't eat just so the children could. We didn't get a lot to eat. We got a bowl of rice, but my parents would sometimes forgo that. We could see them getting unhealthy. The children could see it. We would get worried about mom and dad not having the strength.

That's what happens when people get desperate. They'll forgo food, and then they may become sick. They may resort to other ways of getting some kind of support. That may mean criminal activities. When that happens, what does that mean? It's an increase in costs for our judicial system, for the policing system, for the community on the whole, for insurance support for the people whose car or house has been broken into.

That is not thinking about what is right, what your heart tells you is the right thing to do, but rather looking at it from a fiscal responsibility point of view. How does that make sense? It makes no sense that the government is introducing legislation, when they said they would not cut welfare rates during the election. It has now brought into the House dramatic cuts to welfare. It doesn't make any sense.

Those who are advocating for the government to act differently….It's not just from myself. I know many of the members in this House are perhaps thinking: "Well, of course she would say that. She's a bleeding heart." Maybe I am. It's okay. I don't mind being labelled as such if I care about people's well-being. I've said this in the House before. Call me whatever you

want. I don't really care. I don't. What I care about are the people who are going to suffer. What I want — and that's why I got into politics — is to make sure that as best as we can, as a society as rich as we are, we provide support for those who are in need, to make sure that we break the cycle of poverty and to make sure that children who grow up in poverty have the opportunity to break out of that cycle.

I was granted that opportunity, and I thank my parents for that. I owe everything that I am today to them. But you know, there are a lot of people who don't necessarily have that support.

Government does have a role to play. The government's job is to make sure there is fair and equal opportunity for all and not just for the privileged. The government's responsibility is to make sure that those who are in greatest need receive the support they need and not have government come around, cut those supports and be punitive, as we'll see in this piece of legislation. That is exactly what this government is doing.

The economists in our community have called on this government not to cut. There was an open letter from B.C.'s economists to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance. It was dated February 7, 2002. I'll quote a little excerpt from the letter: "Now is not the time to cut spending…and it is certainly not the time to cut access to welfare and welfare benefit rates. Such income support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic stabilizer."

Who are the economists who signed this letter? Charles Blackorby, professor, department of economics, University of B.C.; Paul Bowles, professor and chair of department of economics, University of Northern B.C.; John Bratton, associate professor, school of business, University College of the Cariboo; Maxwell Cameron, associate professor, department of political science, University of B.C.; Nancy Clegg, instructor, department of economics, Kwantlen University College; Ronald Correll, economics instructor and college liaison, Contract Training and Marketing Society; David Donaldson, professor emeritus of economics, UBC; Gregory Dow, professor, department of economics, Simon Fraser University; Sigrid Ewender, instructor, department of economics, Kwantlen University College; David Fairey, economist and director, Trade Union Research Bureau; David Green, associate professor of economics, UBC; Marjorie Cohen, economist and professor of political science and women's studies, SFU; Michael Goldberg, research director, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C.; Robin Hanvelt, assistant professor and health economist, department of health care and epidemiology, UBC; David Hay, VP of the B.C.–Yukon Canadian Council on Social Development; Terry Heaps, associate professor, department of economics, SFU; Stuart Jamieson, professor emeritus of economics, UBC; Seth Klein, director, B.C. office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Marc Lee, research economist, B.C. office, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Phillip Legg, director of policy development, B.C. Federation of Labour; Fiona MacPhail, assistant professor, department of economics, University of Northern British Columbia; Stephen McBride, professor and chair, department of political science, SFU; Christopher McDonnell, economics instructor, Malaspina University College; Alan Morris, Capilano College; Graham Riches, professor and director, UBC school of social work and family studies; Edward Shaffer, professor emeritus, department of economics, University of Alberta; Linda Welling, associate professor of economics, University of Victoria.

These are just some of the people — economists — who have signed a letter written to the Premier and the Finance minister asking the government not to make these cuts to welfare and welfare benefit rates and to recognize that such income support is needed by those without jobs and represents an important automatic stabilizer.

These people, I presume, are using an argument that comes from the head, from their training in the area of economics. They're coming forward to say to this government that this approach to welfare cuts makes no sense. It hurts the poor, and it hurts our economy in the long term.

You might be wondering just what exactly are these cuts. If you listen to the minister's statements, you wouldn't necessarily know that there are cuts. This is the way the Liberal government has engaged with all of its major policy changes, with all of its major policy announcements. They don't tell the public what it is that they're cutting. They dress it all up in fancy and euphemistic language to sound as though these policy changes are somehow really good for the people who bear the brunt of these cuts in the end.

What are these cuts? Let me just go through them for you. Shelter allowances for families with two or more will be reduced. Shelter allowances will be eliminated for adult recipients living with an adult relative. This will increase the risk of homelessness, of course, for vulnerable individuals whose lives are improved through sharing accommodation with a relative. There's no regard for that. Their shelter allowance will be eliminated.

Support allowances for employable welfare recipients between the ages of 55 and 64 will drop between $47 and $98 a month. This amount is a 20 to 35 percent cut in the non-shelter portion of social assistance for elderly recipients.

Low-income seniors, those over 65, will also see cuts in their small incomes, because subsidized transit passes, of course, were scheduled to be taken away. Their medical prescription subsidies will also be reduced due to cuts to the Pharmacare program. Now, the government will say, "We gave back the seniors bus passes," but all the government has done on the seniors bus pass issue is off-load that expense to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, saying to them: "You tax the people and then pay for that service so we can turn around and say we didn't cut the seniors passes." That's all the government has done in this regard.

Welfare benefits for employable single parents will be cut by $70 a month. This is an 18 percent reduction in the support portion of social assistance, which will affect families. There are approximately 60,000 children in this category who will be impacted. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the members of this group are single women with children. I don't hear the Minister of State for Women's Equality rising up to speak on behalf of single moms with children whose rates are being reduced by this government by $70 a month.

Of course we don't see that from this Minister of State for Women's Equality, because we've heard, in other instances, that what she's said is: "Go and make more money." That's her answer to people who are faced with cuts by this government: "Go and make more money." Those were the words of the Minister of State for Women's Equality who is supposed to, in this government, be the advocacy voice for women in the province. We can see by her comments earlier that she's no advocate at all. Perhaps that's why, in this House as we debate this very important bill that would impact single women and their children, we see the Minister of State for Women's Equality completely silent — completely silent.

The family maintenance exemption will also be eliminated. All child support paid will be deducted dollar for dollar from income assistance benefits. Until now, if a single parent on income assistance was receiving child support payments from a spouse, they were entitled to keep $100 of these payments. With this piece of legislation, all of that will now be deducted.

I fail to understand how taking money away from children would help children develop. I fail to understand how taking money away from single parents would help single parents break out of the poverty cycle. I fail to understand how that is affording all British Columbians equal opportunities. I fail to understand how this minister and this government and this Premier can get up in this House and say they're protecting the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable. Tell that to the children from whom this government is picking the pockets of $100 of their maintenance payment.

Earnings exemptions. Earnings exemptions will be eliminated for employable recipients. This exemption allowed people on welfare to work and keep $100 if they are single and $200 if they have children or are in a partnered relationship. The earnings exemption is meant to be an approach which provides incentive for income assistance recipients to make a little bit of money, to engage in the workforce, to gain some experience, to gain some self-esteem and, hopefully, to assist them to move off income assistance. Now that incentive is gone completely — completely gone. This government claims that their effort is to assist income assistance recipients to move from welfare to work, but they have taken away the incentive that would assist income assistance recipients to do exactly that.

It isn't just the left wing who argue for income assistance recipients that their earning exemptions should be there. Even some members of the right wing argue that. Recently, at SFU, I spoke with a business person who belonged to the chamber of commerce, and he said: "I don't understand why the government is doing that." They will do what they can to try and lobby the government to change its mind. Obviously, they have not succeeded.

In total, these measures mean that some single mothers could see a drop of as much as $370 a month. In the income of a single mother with one child, this would represent a 46 percent cut to the support allowance available to her.

As mentioned earlier, the Social Planning and Research Council, SPARC-BC, in its December 2001 report on living costs and income assistance in B.C., concluded that before the cuts announced by this government, social assistance met only 45 to 65 percent of the minimum monthly costs of single-parent families and single adults for food, clothing, household supplies, personal care, transportation, child care, shelter and other basic costs. And that's not it; I've only just begun to list the cuts that income assistance recipients are facing with the imposition of this bill.

Single parents will now be considered what they call employable after the youngest child reaches the age of three, down from the age of seven. Advocacy organizations for children and youth report that this change will affect the care of approximately 15,000 young children. This change comes just after the government of British Columbia repealed legislation whose goal was universal access to affordable, safe child care. The government is saying: "Get out there and work." But you know what? The universal child care program that the former government had brought in is now gone. There won't be child care support, but get out there and work anyway.

The government will introduce welfare time limits. Employable people without children will only be allowed to receive income assistance for two years during any five-year period. After two years they'll simply be cut off. If you can't find a job, too bad. You're on your own. If you have no support, perhaps a street corner is your option. That's what this government is doing with this piece of legislation.

Similarly, employable parents with children older than three years will only receive full benefits for two out of the five years, after which time they'll see their support allowance cut by 25 percent. Even if you have children, you're not exempted from the punitive approach of this government. Their right-wing, ideological approach thinks people on income assistance have too much money. This government thinks the more punitive they are, the more they can get income assistance recipients off welfare.

Of course, to our knowledge, no government in Canada has ever imposed a flat time limit on eligibility for income assistance. This would mean that some British Columbians will simply be refused social assistance, quite frankly, regardless of their need.

Full-time post-secondary students will no longer be eligible for welfare. They have to turn exclusively to

student loans, which are not adequate to support full-time study. In addition to the criminal penalty for fraud, those found guilty of welfare fraud — which might include failure to report, perhaps, a gift — will be banned from receiving welfare.

Before even being able to apply for assistance, individuals will have to undertake a three-week self-directed job search. This will apply to everyone, including families with children.

Most people have exhausted all of their avenues of survival before turning to welfare and appear at the welfare office having no income, assets or any other means of support. Many will be on the verge of losing their housing. The three-week rule increases the risk of homelessness, illness and extreme psychological stress for people. I've seen it in my work as the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

People who go to the welfare office have run out of all options. They have no hope whatsoever. They have no ability to get support from anyone anywhere, so they have gone to the welfare office. They're being turned away and told, "Come back in three weeks, and then maybe we'll help you." Where does the minister think the people will go? What options do they have? Is it underneath the viaduct that they can find shelter? Is it in the garbage bins that they'll be able to find food? Where should these people go?

The government intends to start the welfare application process with an assessment of whether or not an applicant is expected to work. An individual's entitlement and treatment by the ministry will depend on this assessment. Those in the community are concerned about the quality of these assessments. They are concerned for the hidden unemployable who will fall through the cracks — for example, survivors of abuse or trauma in residential schools, refugees or adults who have undiagnosed mental illness, intellectual impairment, fetal alcohol syndrome, learning disabilities or substance-misuse challenges.

These hidden unemployables — what will the government do with them? How will they be assessed? In the estimates process I asked the minister this question. He said there would be special provisions for them, yet he didn't know how, on the ground, those would apply. He didn't have answers for these people who will be faced with these challenges. Now the government is making changes before they even have answers. What will the options be, then, for these individuals? Quite frankly, the street.

Young adults 19 and over will have to demonstrate that they have lived independently of their parents for two years before being eligible for welfare. The concern, of course, is that the youths, the young people, who are perhaps escaping violence or abusive family homes would have to go without support because they would not qualify for income assistance. People are very concerned about that.

What kind of message is this government saying to young people? Maybe they're just saying: "Stay in the home in which you're faced with abuse. Live there for two years or become independent." To become independent, if you have no skills and you're unable to get a job…. What does that mean? I've seen it in the streets of the downtown east side in my own community. The alternative may be for young people to sell their bodies just so they can get some financial support so that they don't have to sleep on the street.

Is that the option? Is that what this government is saying to young people today? Politicians, the Liberal government members, say: "You are the future of our tomorrow." Yet, at the same time they're saying: "We're not going to provide you any support, even for those who are most vulnerable, who are at risk."

Individuals who have left jobs voluntarily will be ineligible for income assistance. Voluntarily — what does that mean? People are very concerned that individuals may be considered ineligible for welfare even if they have left jobs because of sexual harassment at the workplace, unsafe working conditions or labour standards violations. Any one of those could happen to a person, and they may well quit their job because they feel unsafe in their workplace. What happens to them when they have no income to support themselves or perhaps their family, and they show up at the welfare office? The government is saying they're not eligible for income assistance because they quit their job voluntarily.

Refugee claimants, who are not currently allowed to work without special authorization, will no longer be eligible for assistance. Refugee claimants whose status has not yet been determined are a particularly vulnerable group. They are poor, and they are socially isolated. Many of them may well have language barriers, but the government is not there to support that segment of the community.

The Disability Benefits Program Act will also be repealed, and we'll engage in those discussions with the minister in this Legislature under Bill 27.

Others may identify other categories of individuals who will be ineligible for assistance. Reduced shelter allowances for families with two or more children, combined with reduced support allowances and time limits on eligibility for social assistance, will predictably result in increased numbers of homeless people in British Columbia, increased numbers of people living in overcrowded, inappropriate and desperate conditions.

The government's approach rests on assumptions that the majority of social assistance recipients are employable people who choose not to work and that work is available for them. However, British Columbia is currently experiencing a downturn in its economy, due to various factors. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings mentioned in question period just today that the unemployment rate is up to 9 percent — the highest. We see the resource sector economy faced with a downturn. What happens? The official unemployment rate is going higher and higher.

At the same time, training programs across government, including those designed for young, low-

income people…. Some of them, quite frankly, are scheduled for termination. I know from the Ministry of State for Women's Equality, who has employment training programs to help women to transit, a bridging program for women faced with violence to transit into the workplace…. They have no assurance from this government that their funding will continue. We have an environment in which training programs are being eliminated — many of which are uncertain in terms of whether or not they will get continuous government support to continue their programs. New programs that the minister claims are slated to be in place are not yet in place — criteria unknown, effects unknown.

In spite of this uncertain environment, the government is bringing forward legislation that says: "Get out there and find a job, and if you don't, we'll cut you off."

The community groups have gotten together to raise their concerns not just with this government but beyond. They've brought the matter to the United Nations. They've written a letter to the United Nations asking them to look at what the B.C. government's doing, asking them to pay urgent attention to the massive assault on the social and economic rights of the poorest people in British Columbia, asking them to make a judgment on whether or not the British Columbian government, the Liberal government, has violated the UN covenant on human rights and on issues around poverty.

The community groups have written to the UN on this matter. I state from their letter to the UN:

That was dated back on February 11, 2002. There are a number of organizations who have signed on to this. They are very concerned. Who are they? The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., End Legislated Poverty, United Native Nations, B.C. Human Rights Coalition, B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, Seniors Network B.C., Alliance for the Rights of Children, Justice for Girls, B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, Social Planning and Research Council of B.C., Working Group on Poverty, West Coast LEAF Association are just some of the groups who have voiced their concerns.

The women's centres across British Columbia have come forward to condemn the changes to the income assistance legislation. This is just released. It is hot off the press. The women's centres — here's what they have to say. And I do hope the Minister of State for Women's Equality would pay attention to what the women's centres are saying. She is the minister, after all, who is responsible, Mr. Speaker. She is supposed to be the advocate for women, so I hope she does pay attention. I'll read the press release into the record, and I hope she'll get up and respond. I hope she'll get up and respond and tell people what she's thinking.

I hope the Minister of State for Women's Equality will rise up and respond to the women's centres across the province. I hope she will have more to say to the women who are being pushed off of income assistance by this piece of legislation than to say to them: "Go make more money." I hope this minister understands the plight of women who are in poverty today, what they're faced with and the ill effects this government is going to cause them as a result of this piece of legislation.

Media reports, leaked documents and the estimates process have said over and over again that the Ministry of Human Resources will be emphasizing employment over assistance. However, it has become abundantly clear that this emphasis on employment is at the expense of the well-being, safety and security of the most vulnerable people in the province. Employment is undoubtedly a desirable goal for most British Columbians. Unfortunately, the introduction of this legislation repeals all of the previous supports and incentives to seek and maintain employment. Even Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun has put it this way: the new act is "all stick, no carrot."

The Minister of Human Resources has said over and over again that "getting and keeping a job makes all the difference. Having a job that gives a sense of accomplishment builds hope and self-esteem and provides economic security for the individual and the family." However, the minister doesn't address what it means for a family when they are unable to find sufficient or suitable employment. How is their self-esteem and economic security affected when the government no longer provides assistance?

A warning from Dr. Marge Reitsma-Street, professor of studies in policy and practice in health and social services at the University of Victoria. Here's what she had to say:

Dr. Reitsma-Street has more to say — more analysis on the changes that the government is putting forward: "Significant increase in the use of for-profit firms determining eligibility and enforcing cuts and restrictions." That's one of the things that the government has installed.

In other words, businesses profit. They profit on the reduction of welfare and the diversion to employment in an insecure job market. That is a feature of the proposed B.C. legislation.

Significant increase in punishments. If you should be found to be defrauding the system, the punishments on applicants are particularly severe: no benefits and cuts in benefits if incorrect information is supplied or late or if a condition of the employment and assistance agreement signed by the applicant is not met.

When the professor investigated the first year of enforcement of the harsh Ontario Works law in Sudbury in 1996, one-third of the persons were cut off welfare each month because forms were not completed correctly or on time, a finding corroborated by other research on reasons people "exit" or are forced off welfare.

The worst punishment, one that in other jurisdictions is being litigated as cruel and unusual punishment and against constitutional rights to the security of people, is that B.C. citizens convicted of welfare fraud — whatever the amount, whatever the reason, whatever the condition — will face a lifelong ban from assistance.

This punishment is not used against those convicted of income tax evasion, a more sophisticated and costly form of welfare fraud. Not just applicants for welfare but employed people also face repercussions for inadequate conduct according to the proposed law. Workers may lose their jobs, managers their bonuses and small firms their profits if performance targets are not met. Those workers with professional degrees risk losing their professional membership if they make decisions contrary to the value basis of the profession.

These come at the expense of people who need the support for advocacy. The Attorney General, as we know, has cut legal aid support by 38.8 percent.

The study goes on to list those people who are categorized as receiving no assistance. Those are young people over 19 living away from a family or a foster home or a substitute home for less than two years. They are ineligible, as mentioned earlier. Whether they left parental homes by choice or were forced out by abuse or neglect, young people are ineligible for income assistance until they have lived independently somewhere for two years.

If fortunate and able, young people may get a job that pays more than $6-per-hour training wage — the training wage this government has brought about, reducing the minimum wage from $8 to $6 an hour. If able to work 40 hours a week, they could afford a $600-per-month small apartment, with $600 left for food, transportation and other necessities, or they may win a bursary, go to school and live in a residence or post-secondary educational institute. If less able or interested, youth may have to couch-surf or live on the streets.

For young people under 19, current practice already places severe restrictions on their eligibility for assistance. Only 1,000 in the province were eligible in September 2001. It is, of course, expected that these restrictions will continue and become more onerous.

As mentioned earlier, under this "voluntary departure from the workplace," persons who leave work are ineligible for whatever reason; whether faced with harassment in the workplace or unsafe working conditions, it doesn't matter. When you leave your workplace voluntarily, you, too, could face punishment by the government when you seek income assistance.

People who are employable receive income assistance for two years. After that, they are not eligible. This will affect over one-half of the 246,000 persons who, as of September 2001, need assistance. "With this provision for ineligibility, British Columbia takes a regressive, uncivilized path." As mentioned earlier, it's the first time in a Canadian jurisdiction that a government has put forward a time limitation with respect to income assistance.

I do wonder whether or not this government is acting in violation of the federal transfer payment agreements. The federal government provides dollars through transfer payments to provincial governments to provide for health care, education and social services. By putting a time restriction on eligibility, is the government acting in violation of the transfer payment act of the federal government? Is this government going to create yet another scenario whereby they're being challenged in court?

We have seen in the short eight months that this government has been in office how many court cases are arriving at their doorstep. In this first year of their mandate — before the completion, even, of the first year of their mandate — court case upon court case is being brought for consideration because of this government's ill-thought-out approach to government policies. Is this yet another scenario whereby the government will be faced with a court challenge?

Is it only by this means, when someone challenges this government on issues around violation of a Charter right, a violation of the government's obligation and responsibility…? Is it only under such circumstances that government would start to consider and reconsider their approach?

So far, this government has displayed that they're not listening to anyone. They're plowing ahead. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly. Their skin must be so thick. They can get up and say: "I'm protecting you. I'm acting in your best interests." Meanwhile, you can see the attack, the draconian measures this government is bringing forward. I don't know how they do it, quite frankly.

Does it take a court case challenge before the government will back down and admit that they were wrong and that these ill-thought-out policies are not the way to go? Is that the only way in which people will get representation and be heard by this government?

If you think these cuts are bad, that's not all of the story. If you look at what's going on with government, the Ministry of Human Resources is not only just cutting the benefits and the rates for income assistance recipients; they're also closing welfare offices.

I know that perhaps some members think the debate here is unimportant. The member for Vancouver-Burrard is busy working on his computer, as it's beeping away in violation of the House rules. Perhaps he doesn't think the changes brought forward by this piece of legislation impact his constituents, which I know is false because I've met some of his constituents. I know many people on income assistance in his very own riding of Vancouver-Burrard are very concerned.

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's not appropriate for you to criticize the other member. I would caution you to proceed with your debate.

J. Kwan: I apologize, hon. Speaker. I was wondering if the member for Vancouver-Burrard will rise up and speak in support of his constituents — the people who need this government to provide support to them and not cut welfare rates, benefits and eligibility for those who are in greatest need. I wonder if the member for Vancouver-Burrard will rise up in this House and make those comments. I wonder. It would take a moment of his time to rise up in this House and speak in support of his constituents and not just toe the party line.

With the office closures that this government is imposing, there are significant impacts in the community where access to a welfare worker would be curtailed because the offices would be closed. What would happen in those instances when an individual cannot access a worker to assist them in getting support? Now that support is not going to be there, because of these cuts. Still, if someone needed to talk to a welfare worker, would they be able to get access to one?

Let's look and see what offices are being closed. We see the office on West Broadway, the employment services centre, is closed effective March 11, 2002. The Via Rail employment services centre closed effective March 11, 2002. The Kingsway employment services centre closed March 11, 2002. Commercial employment services centre closed March 11, 2002. The Mount Pleasant West employment and assistance centre closed March 29, 2002.

These are offices in Vancouver which provide employment services to income assistance recipients. This government claims that they want to help people get off income assistance and find work. How exactly will closing access to employment service centres help the recipients who are seeking support and assistance to get off welfare?

The child care service office on East 41st will be closed effective January 5, 2003. In the lower mainland, the Canada Way employment and assistance centre closed effective March 31, 2002. The Squamish employment and assistance centre will close effective March 31, 2003. The Burnaby West employment and assistance centre will close effective September 30, 2002.

In the Fraser North–Upper Valley area, the Agassiz employment and assistance centre closed effective Feb-

ruary 28, 2002. The Abbotsford employment services centre is closing soon, on April 30, 2002.

In the Fraser South region, the King George Highway employment and assistance centre is closing effective June 30, 2002. The White Rock employment and assistance centre is closing December 31, 2002.

In the Kootenays and the Okanagan, the Invermere employment and assistance centre is closing June 28, 2002. The Fernie employment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. The Kimberley employment and assistance centre is closing December 31, 2002. Creston employment and assistance centre is closing December 31, 2002. Castlegar employment and assistance centre, March 31, 2003.

In the central British Columbia area, the Bella Coola employment and assistance centre closed March 28, 2002. Ashcroft is closing June 28, 2002. Clearwater employment and assistance centre is closing June 28, 2002. Lillooet employment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002. Revelstoke employment and assistance centre is closing September 30, 2002.

In the Prince George and northern B.C. area, Dawson Creek employment services centre closed March 31, 2002. The Hazelton employment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Chetwynd employment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Fort St. James employment and assistance centre is closing June 30, 2002. Houston employment and assistance centre is closing August 31, 2002. Terrace employment services centre is closing March 31, 2004.

In the North Vancouver Island area, Nanaimo employment and assistance centre closed February 28, 2002. Port Alberni employment services centre closed March 31, 2002. North Island contracts for child care subsidy and vocational rehabilitative services closed March 31, 2002.

In the Victoria area, Sooke employment and assistance centre closed March 31, 2002.

Regional services. The Vernon and the Penticton suboffices will close effective March 31, 2003.

We see income assistance rates being reduced, income assistance benefits being cut, access to employment services being reduced and welfare offices closing. Many of them have already closed.

Particularly in the smaller communities, travel is often difficult. I have travelled the province in my years here in my Legislature, gone to the different communities and seen their different, unique needs. One of the biggest issues for community members outside the lower mainland, they often say to me, is that they have to travel from community to community. In the winter months the travel is particularly difficult because of the weather and road conditions.

Here we have the people who are most vulnerable, who need to get access for employment support, government support, income assistance support and welfare support. They will no longer be able to access some of the offices in their local community. Those in Terrace — where will they have to go? Those in Houston, Chetwynd, Hazelton, Port Alberni, the North Island, Lillooet, Revelstoke, Ashcroft, Bella Coola — what kind of distance will they have to travel in order to get some information, to get some support for employment services and welfare? Will they be able to make those trips? Will they have the resources to make those trips? If they don't, what happens to them? Are they left there on the streets on their own, without any support? That's what this government is bringing about with respect to income assistance cuts — cuts to benefits, cuts to rates, cuts to and closures of offices.

One of the discussions that we engaged in with the minister during estimates was issues around part-time employment and how part-time employment is something the minister wants income assistance recipients to move off so they'll be into full-time employment. Then when I asked the question during estimates about what the minister considers to be part-time, he made a suggestion that part-time employment would mean someone who works perhaps four or six hours less than full-time employment. That was the example he used. If you were working part-time, here's why you need to get off welfare and work full-time and how it would be better for you. However, if you look at the statistics on who is working part-time right now, what their income levels are and how they're trying to manage…. Yes, some people on part-time income assistance worked to get their income supplemented by welfare because the amount of money they made did not even reach the income assistance level. That doesn't mean that they're not working and trying hard to transit out of welfare; it just means that's the situation they're faced with.

There are other people who may be working part-time because they have other obligations. For example, they may have to take care of children for whom they're unable to find affordable child care to place their children in when they're working. Therefore, some of them could only work part-time.

Some people may be going to school part-time because they want to move beyond the minimum-wage scale. They want to enhance their employment options in the future by upgrading in the educational system.

While the Minister of Human Resources may see full-time employment as a desirable alternative to income assistance, the statistics for B.C. show that part-time employment is a reality for many of the people of this province. In fact, in 1997 B.C. had the highest part-time rate in Canada. The share of all employment in B.C. that is part-time increased from 15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in 1999. Part-time employment rates are consistently higher for youth aged 15 to 24, with 43 percent of male youths and 54 percent of female youths involved in part-time employment.

On average, women have a higher participation rate than men in part-time employment, with 30 percent of all women 25 and older participating, while less than 11 percent of men aged 25 and older participate in

part-time employment. The female-dominated retail trade and accommodation, food and beverage services sectors accounted for nearly a third of all part-time employment in 1999.

The Infoline report states that the service sector is subject to uneven levels of demand which provide a strong incentive for utilizing part-timers. This also means that part-time employees are subject to less stability than full-time employment. The reality of the economic situation in B.C. requires that the Minister of Human Resources be flexible with people of B.C. in order to provide for the security and well-being of each person, who is not always available, through participation in the labour market.

Some 73 percent of all women working part-time say that they're doing it because they have to. They choose this option because, as I mentioned earlier, they want to accommodate their studies so that they have better employment opportunities in the future. Some may be doing that because of personal illness or disability, because they can only work part-time hours; others are caring for their children or other relatives, even.

For many, part-time employment provides an option for people who have a variety of responsibilities beyond paid employment. In some instances, those individuals would need a top-up from the government. Does that now mean to say that the government is not going to be valuing those who work in the workforce on a part-time basis and, in fact, they may even be penalized? What will the minister tell the individual who is at home to take care of a sick relative, an older person? Is the minister going to say: "You have to get out there and work full-time, otherwise you'll be cut off welfare"? That's what this legislation does. Let's make no mistake about it. After two years the person will be cut off, irrespective of the person's circumstances — irrespective.

It was reported in the media, in fact. There was this woman who had a child. The child had a minor surgery. As a result of the surgery, something went wrong, and there was brain damage — severe brain damage. The woman, who is a single mom, could not enter the workforce because she had to stay home to take care of her child. Now the minister's going to be saying to this woman and her family, after two years on income assistance: "You have to get out and find a job. If you don't, we will reduce your assistance by 25 percent." That's what this legislation does, and that's the approach this government has chosen to adopt.

Part-time employment. The share of all employment in B.C. that is part-time has increased from 15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in 1999. While the minister would like people to get off income assistance, to be working full-time, the fact of the matter is the availability of work in the labour market. Where it is increasing is actually in the part-time sector, not the full-time sector, as reported by StatsCan.

Then, when we talk about impacts of finding work, even when you have children and when your child turns three, you're forced to get out into the workforce. All in the midst of that, the government's cutting child care support. Even for people on income assistance, the subsidy for child care support is being reduced by this government. The reduction is significant. Just one example: for a family of two people, formerly the threshold for income level to be qualified for subsidies was $1,582. Under this government, with the changes that are being put forward and imposed by this bill, that would reduce to $1,297 — over $300 of reduction.

This government has cut the universal child care program. So where will people go when they need child care? Where will they go? Just for the information of members of this House, for those who have children…. Perhaps some of them know this — how difficult it is to get good child care. These are just some of the rates in British Columbia — how much it costs. For an infant of zero to 17 months it costs them $650 a month to support child care. For toddlers 18 months to three years it's $547. For preschool it's $460 — that's a month in terms of the rate. The costs are significant for people who are faced with child care needs, and they may not be able to get child care support. If they don't, they'll be cut off welfare because they have to work full time.

Hon. Speaker, I have much to say with respect to this bill and the impacts of this bill. At this time I'd like to move that the motion for second reading of Bill 26, intituled Employment and Assistance Act, be amended by deleting the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

J. Kwan: Why did I move this amendment? I move this amendment because this government, this Liberal government, is trying to ram the bill through in less than 24 hours in a second reading stage. The bill was first introduced yesterday — yesterday, for the first time. The opposition saw the bill after it was introduced. Community groups, affected British Columbians, many of whom would not even have access to this bill just yet, would not have had the opportunity to see what this bill is about and how it is going to impact them. They want to provide input into the government. They want to provide their perspective on the changes that are being proposed by this government.

The very least that this government could do is abide by what they promise in their New Era document, and that is it would be open, transparent, accountable and consultative. The very least they could do is let British Columbians have an opportunity to see what the bill is about, what the proposed legislation will be and how it would impact British Columbians. The Government House Leader was the critic then on many issues relating to the former government, not the least of which was for the government to step back once it introduces legislation so that people would have time to review it.

The government complained about a mortgage broker bill that was introduced on the Thursday and then later on was debated on the following Tuesday for second reading. The then critic and former Opposition House Leader, now Minister of Finance, complained that there was insufficient time for people to respond to this bill, to review this bill. Now we have less than 24 hours. This government introduced a bill yesterday and wants to bring it through the House, through second reading, so that the public would not have the opportunity to make comments on it. Is it because the government is ashamed of this bill? Is it because the government really doesn't want the public to know how draconian they are in their attempt to treat income assistance recipients?

Hon. Chair, I see that the red light is on. I seek your advice with respect to my opportunity to engage in debate on a motion for amendment. How much time am I allotted?

Member, you had the two hours as a designated speaker and basically just an opportunity to introduce the amendment. Your time has expired.

J. Kwan: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I seek your advice. After the amendment has been introduced, I was under the impression that I would have 40 minutes to speak to the amendment. I seek your advice on that issue.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. We'll just get some counsel here on this.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking in a moment. May I just confer one minute with my colleague? Thanks.

Just to clarify for the House, speaking to the amendment as a designated speaker, you have two hours.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for clarifying that. We appreciate your guidance on this.

My colleague has moved what, in the parlance of this chamber in sometimes an arcane way, is called a hoist motion. For those of us who are new to this chamber, let me explain what it is so that every single Liberal MLA can understand the opportunity afforded them right now, an opportunity that can assuage their conscience and allow them to consider what has been a debate raging within their own caucus, we know, about this legislation.

This hoist motion gives an opportunity for six months for the Liberal caucus to work out their own differences on this matter that we know have spilled…. It's certainly raged internally in the caucus and has also just spilled out into the public in the shock and horror of this legislation.

This government now has the opportunity…. It's not even a face-saver. We don't even have to consider it a face-saver. It's a legitimate motion to thoughtfully consider the legislation that now is before us for a further six months. That's what the amendment says.

We can all go back to our constituencies. Believe you me, every single — and I say every single — MLA in this chamber is being inundated, and has been since April 1, about the unbelievable draconian changes made to welfare — every single MLA. We know it to be true. Some of you only have your answering machines on — in fact, the majority of you only have your answering machines on — and some of you have your doors locked so that you have to access by a buzzer. But every single one of the Liberal MLAs knows that your offices are being inundated with the most vulnerable in society saying: "How am I supposed to survive on these cuts?" That goes true for every MLA, whether it be the member for Vancouver-Burrard, the member for Burquitlam or the minister himself.

Now, with this hoist motion, you have the opportunity to serve your constituents properly, as you promised to do and as your Premier said he was going to do when he said: "Don't worry, I'm not going to cut welfare rates." Perhaps those of you who sit in caucus, where this debate rages, could explain how your Premier stands up in caucus and explains that what he said then doesn't apply now. Perhaps you at least have the ability to stand up and say: "Here's why my Premier misled you people who have to rely on welfare before the election, and here's why these changes are necessary." You could take the next six months to explain it to your constituents.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would just remind you to address your remarks to the Chair.

J. MacPhail: It was a generic "you," Mr. Speaker, but I certainly take your advice. It was an absolutely generic "you," because in fact each and every one of you, particularly the Minister of Health Services…. Even though he comes from an upper-middle-class constituency, even he is being inundated with calls from constituents, so perhaps he could pay attention as well. Perhaps he could actually represent his….

J. MacPhail: It's so interesting to note that the Liberal members of this chamber, when indeed they know they're so wrong, go on a personal attack. They sink to the lowest level ever, on a personal attack. When I asked the Minister of Health Services to represent….

J. MacPhail: Oh, let me explain to the Minister of Health Planning what the difference is between representing your constituency and a personal attack. Shall we do that? The Minister of Health Services represents one of the highest-wage constituencies in the province. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I represent a constituency that is one of the lowest-wage constituencies, and I represent it well, and I represent it completely according to the needs of the community. That's all I'm asking the Minister of Health Services: for him to stand up and represent the….

You know what? The upper-middle-class constituency of the Minister of Health Services is as deeply concerned about these cuts to welfare as are those who collect welfare. That's why he's receiving calls over and over again from his own constituents, people who voted for him, saying, "What is your government doing?" — let alone the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who actually represents the most vulnerable affected by these cuts. There's the two points of the spectrum: well-off British Columbians in the Minister of Health Services's constituency who are outraged by these cuts, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard, whose constituents are so harmed by these cuts that they're flooding his office, saying: "Why don't you stand up and speak for me, not against me?"

J. MacPhail: And the member for Vancouver-Burrard suggests somehow that every single person in this province who is condemning these cuts is a fearmonger.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me just quote, then, what Rafe Mair has to say. Let's just see what Rafe Mair has to say about these cuts. This was this morning:

It is unbelievable what this government has done. Commentators who are not known to be socialists…. In fact, Mr. Mair rightfully describes himself as a fiscal conservative and a social progressive, and with both of those guiding his head and his heart, he says that this government has let down the most vulnerable in society. It is unbelievable what this government has done. Mr. Mair is saying exactly that to this government — that it is a shame what this government has done through these changes.

In the paper today, as my colleague has already quoted: "All stick, no carrot," says Vaughn Palmer, a fairly balanced columnist, one could say — give him the benefit of the doubt — in his approach to policy. "The change managed to offend critics on the right as well as the left as being both counterproductive and mean-spirited." Where's the howling now by the Liberal MLAs? Where's the howling of personal attack now by the Liberal MLAs, somehow challenging that my colleague and I perhaps don't represent our constituents? We represent our constituents. It's about time each and every one of these Liberal MLAs got up and represented their constituents as well.

The Minister of Skills Development and Labour is being inundated with calls. How do we know this? Because they call us and tell us that they can't get a response from their MLAs. That's what they tell us — that their complaint, their plea, goes to a voice mail, and they don't get a return call. So maybe, because my colleague and I have all of those messages, we could go through them one by one. Every single one of these Liberal MLAs can get up and tell us how we're wrong, that they are representing their constituents, how the Minister of Health Services is responding to those people in his constituency who say: "I had no idea that when you gave me my tax cut, you were going to attack the poor." That's what the calls are from his constituency, and they didn't vote for my colleague and me. Who knows whether that's even important at this stage? But they want my colleague and me to know that they care and that they see these cuts as mean-spirited as they could possibly imagine.

The shame with which they view the Minister of Human Resources is quite stunning. They had actually hoped that the Minister of Human Resources's compassionate liberal views would prevail at the cabinet table. They're in shock, as a matter of fact, that somehow he lost the battle — that he lost the battle to the most mean-spirited government that's ever been elected in this province. Did he lose it to the Minister of Health Services? Did he lose it to the Premier? Did he lose it to the Minister of Finance? Did he lose it to the member for Cariboo South? How about to the member for Burquitlam, who mocked my colleague disgustingly when all she was doing was defending the poorest in this province? He didn't lose it to the will of the member for Vancouver-Langara. At least, we assume that he didn't lose it, because the member for Vancouver-Langara at least had the ability to stand up and put on record his views about this legislation.

You know, let's see. Isn't this interesting? Isn't this interesting, when my colleague and I stand here and have abuse heaped on our heads for our words from the member for Vancouver-Burrard? Let me just read to you about a constituent of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. This was a call today, made public, by Ryan. He lives in Vancouver-Burrard. He's a person with a disability 2. He's HIV-positive.

I know some members may say, "Oh, that's the next bill," but frankly, both bills have to be read like this,

because the cuts imposed by this legislation, the Employment and Assistance Act — boy, is that Liberal newspeak — affect people on disability 2, as well as the legislation entitled Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act — more newspeak.

Here's what Ryan said, from Vancouver-Burrard — wherever you are. He'd been approved for extra funding for bottled water, and when he met with the member for Vancouver-Burrard, he said he wouldn't be affected by the changes in the Ministry of Human Resources. Ryan had to be told, not by his member for Vancouver-Burrard, but by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities that people with disabilities are going to be reassessed, and many of them will lose that very benefit that the member for Vancouver-Burrard said was not at risk.

In fact, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities says that there's a section in the legislation that deals with the appeal process and talks about how former decisions made by the tribunal process are open and that the government does have the ability to reassess. So, member for Vancouver-Burrard, there's one of the constituents from the riding of Vancouver-Burrard saying: "Why didn't you tell me? Why did you tell me I wasn't at risk?"

Today in the Legislature, less than 24 hours after this bombshell was dropped on the province, the ministers had to introduce amendments. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Why not take six months and get it right? It's unbelievable that in less than 24 hours they're already having to correct their legislation. Are they just minor amendments? No, they're not, as a matter of fact. They're substantive amendments, because already after this bombshell legislation was dropped on the most vulnerable in the province this government immediately started backtracking. Here we are with amendments right in there already.

All my colleague's amendment of "take six months to consider this legislation" is saying is: "Hey, you've had to admit within 24 hours that you've made mistakes, so why not take six months?" Talk to people in this province about what these cuts mean. Go home and talk to your constituents, I say, and find out. Answer some of those phone calls. Go home to Nelson. Check in with Castlegar. See how they're reacting.

You know what? Let's talk about what's happening in Nanaimo. The member for Nanaimo will be very interested in this, because I'm sure the member won't get up and tell the truth about what's going on in his community.

I believe one of the underlying tenets of this bill is that people have to become more responsible for themselves. Is that not one of the underlying tenets in this bill? Government shouldn't be just helping those who need welfare. Get out there and help yourself. Communities need to do more to help the most vulnerable. Well, guess what. The communities are stretched to the limit because of the cuts in welfare and social services that this government has made to the most vulnerable.

By the way, we did hear from the Minister of Finance that tax cuts are working — didn't we? We heard that tax cuts are working, and what's everybody complaining about? I asked him that question in question period today: isn't he concerned about higher interest rates dampening the economy? "Oh no, our government made tax cuts." Now, let me see. A child whose mom is on welfare…. How would that child benefit from tax cuts? Hmm. Not. How does that child become more self-sufficient? Does that child take his or her diaper and tighten the belt on the diaper? Gee, I guess that child should have known that.

Maybe the community needs to step forward a bit more. Let's see how the community can help in Nanaimo. This was from the Daily News in Nanaimo today:

Oh my God. I digress from the article, Mr. Speaker. Why aren't the tax cuts that the Minister of Finance was lauding today working for those people? Gosh. Could it be that the tax cuts for the rich in this province haven't done one whit of good for the lowest income and the most vulnerable in British Columbia? Could that be it?

I tried to get the Minister of Finance to lobby on behalf of those very British Columbians who used to donate to the food bank and now have lost their jobs. I said: "Stand up for British Columbia. Tell the Bank of Canada that its higher interest rates are going to hurt the softwood lumber industry even more." Maybe the Minister of Finance needs an economics 101 lesson, but when interest rates rise, the dollar goes up and the cost of our exports goes up, so fewer exports leave the province. More jobs are lost. That's the chain.

Instead, what does this government do? He denies that there's anything wrong, and then, for the people who are losing their jobs, they cut the social safety net.

Do you know that there are going to be some forest workers who won't be able to claim EI and will have to go right on to welfare? But it'll be a cut welfare.

Because of the cuts to EI, people in this province — perhaps forest workers who have worked all of their lives or some new families just starting out — are not eligible to claim EI. Now this very government is yanking the social safety net that they have in terms of welfare away from them.

Does this government stop for a moment and say: "Oops, maybe this isn't the time to rip a big hole in the social safety net"? No, they proceed. They don't even stop to think; they ram it through. They ram it through like they're afraid of something. I wonder what it is they're afraid of. I wonder what it is. Maybe if they allowed people to contemplate this legislation, the people would rise up and say: "No, don't do this." Is that what they're afraid of? I'm sure it is.

What's happening in Prince George? I was in Prince George this weekend — a very, very strong community-minded town. They are hurting, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday morning I got up and went to St. Vincent de Paul Society — a group of volunteers like you have never met before. Well, actually, we meet them in our communities every day. They're the Brent Cawleys that I just read about. They're the people who run the St. Vincent de Paul in my community. They're the people who run the food bank in Nelson. They proudly showed me around their new centre that is able now, because of expanded kitchen services, to serve three square meals a day and have snacks in the evening. They run a thrift shop. They do grocery bags for families who need it.

Here's what they told me. In the 20 years that one volunteer had been working in this St. Vincent de Paul centre, she could remember two seniors who had to come in for groceries — in 20 years. She said they were two wonderful older women who needed to go to a funeral in Kamloops. They'd used their monthly budget for transportation costs to go to the funeral, and therefore they ran out of money to buy groceries.

Those were the only two seniors that she could recall in 20 years. Then in February 2002 a couple of dozen seniors showed up for groceries. She was in shock. Then in March double those couple of dozen seniors showed up for groceries, and in April the pace continues.

That's what these cuts have done to this province. And somehow I hear from the member for Vancouver-Burrard that we're fearmongering. Perhaps he'd like to go to the St. Vincent de Paul and accuse them of fearmongering as they're handing out groceries for the very first time to seniors — the very first time.

It's not like this government didn't have notice that this could happen, even though the Premier said before the election: "Don't worry. We're not going to cut welfare rates." Gosh, I wonder what this bill is, if this bill isn't a cut in welfare rates. I can hardly wait for those yelling and catcalling and heckling us to stand up and tell us how this isn't a cut in welfare rates and what the Premier meant to say. I can hardly wait.

But it's not like they weren't put on notice when there were rumours of cuts. Here's what the police officers were telling them in February, when there was still lots of time to hesitate before bringing in these draconian cuts. I'm just quoting from an article in the Vancouver Sun. It's dated February 23, 2002.

Oh, wasn't that the day there were thousands of special interest groups out on the lawn of the Legislature protesting the government's cuts? The Premier and the AG said: "Oh, they're just special interest groups. What are they complaining about?" I think they said labour activists, didn't they? Oh, gosh. I wonder who's joined amongst those special interest groups. Now, would it be the 250,000 most vulnerable on welfare? Would it be the 45,000 people with disabilities that are now a special interest group?

Well, here's what Vancouver police inspector Ken Frail said. I don't think we could write him off as a special interest.

J. MacPhail: Or fearmongering. Oh, maybe. Yes, definitely not fearmongering.

This government was forewarned. Instead, they come in with these draconian changes. In fact, I think the changes are more draconian than Inspector Frail could have known about when he made those comments in February. He didn't know that tens of thousands of disabled people, many of whom live in the

How prepared is this government to actually implement these changes in a way that doesn't exacerbate the harm on those most vulnerable simply by them being ill-prepared? Well, my colleague has already addressed the issue of the cuts in child care.

Let me just tell you a personal experience of one person. A single mom with a four-year-old, she's now been forced to attend — what is it called? — job search assistance. Everybody has to go to job search assistance, even when they've got a four-year-old. Now, here's the Ministry of Human Resources's own PowerPoint presentation. "Remember, looking for work is a full-time job." Okay. That's from the Minister of Human Resources.

They're booting single moms with kids over three, now, off welfare. They have to go to look for work. The ministry also knows that looking for work is a full-time job. Are they prepared? Are the job search assistance centres prepared for this? Well, let's just read about this experience from a young woman. I'm not going to use her name, but believe you me, the minister is well aware of this. She lives in Vancouver. This occurred April 3, two days into the "let's get single moms with young children off welfare and into the workforce." I quote directly from a letter she wrote.

Those changes still haven't been made. Here we go. We're passing legislation, rushing it through, and there's still no support for single parents who have to take their kids to a mandatory job orientation. It's not like this young woman was refusing to go. She understood. She objects to the changes, but she went.

Here's the other factor. She's a single mom on welfare, and she's helping the ministry. She's got the big enough heart to help the ministry put in place supports so other single moms don't have to go through what she had to go through. My gosh. Here's what she's saying, this same young, courageous woman:

And what has the ministry done? Absolutely nothing. They say looking for work is a full-time job. This young mom takes that to heart, but what does the ministry do to provide for the single parent? The key word here is single. There isn't anyone else to help her — or him, if it's a single dad. They're on their own for finding child care, because that's how draconian these cuts are.

Not only do they not have any child care for the mom who's getting kicked off welfare, but if the mom takes her job so seriously that she shows up at the employment assistance centre, the child gets abused, gets treated absolutely disgustingly. And still no changes. Here we are, rushing through the legislation.

Here's what another single mom said. Isn't this interesting? This came many, many months ago to this government about what the effect of the cuts would be. I'll just read it. It speaks so eloquently for itself.

You know, it's quite interesting. This government, when they were in opposition, stood up day after day and said: "Hey, look at Alberta. Look at Ontario. There are the models we want to follow. We're going to give the tax cut to the rich and the powerful and the corporations on day one, and then we'll take it from there. We'll figure out how to pay for it."

That's what this government did — day one, schlep hundreds of millions of dollars to the richest in this province, to the biggest corporations. Then, as far as I can tell, the rest of the new-era agenda is to figure out how deeply they can cut from the most vulnerable, the poorest and the seniors to pay for those tax cuts. That's the agenda that is going on.

It was the Ontario way. "Oh," said the Minister of Finance and the Premier, "don't worry. Tax cuts pay for themselves." Well, guess what. Even in Ontario, now that the bloom is off the rose in the economy and we actually get to examine in isolation the effect of tax cuts, it turns out tax cuts don't stimulate the economy. It's economic growth from the United States that stimulated the economy in the United States, not the tax cuts. Now that that bloom is off, Ontario is facing a $5 billion deficit. In fact, we have a new Premier there who is reconsidering, substantially, the commonsense revolution that led to radical tax cuts and then attacking everyone after that.

I know that this government probably doesn't read anything that's critical of their agenda, but let me just read what's being said about their ideological mentors in Ontario, their great tax-cut agenda that this government lauded and that's been their whole reason for existence: "We just want to do what Ontario did for the rich." That's what this government's agenda has been. Let's see how it's going. Here's the editorial from the Globe and Mail today. It's entitled "Common Sense Returns":

It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that even in Ontario there has been, finally, a recognition that the tax cuts for the wealthiest didn't work to stimulate the economy.

Mr. Eves will be facing a $5 billion deficit, and he's backing away from the confrontation day after day, but does this government back away? No. No, they accuse anyone who is harmed by them as being a fearmonger or a special interest group. Isn't that great?

All I'm saying is: why don't the Liberal MLAs support my colleague's motion to put this legislation away

for six months and reconsider it? Ontario's doing it. Their role model's doing it. The people to whom they have slavish devotion are reconsidering their commonsense revolution because it failed in Ontario, and that was during a boom economy. We're in an economy here where forest workers are about to have to go on welfare — tax cuts aren't helping them — and where private sector investment is predicted to decline this year, where bankruptcies are pretty close to an all-time high, where the unemployment rate has gone from 7 percent this time last year to 9 percent now.

The Minister of Finance says: "Oh well, we created 11,000 new jobs." Really? That really helps the people who are part of the 9 percent who weren't unemployed merely a year ago. But oh no, even though the rest of the world that has followed this draconian, extreme agenda is backing away from it, not this government — not this government.

Let me read from a letter to the editor — I guess today — in the Times Colonist. It's public. It's written by Dave Cross, Times Colonist. Where is that member for Victoria-Hillside, when he raised a whole bunch of questions that couldn't be answered and then said: "But I support the direction of my government"? Here's one of his constituents commenting:

I'm going to read parts of this. Believe you me, the parts I'm leaving out are as harsh as the parts I'm including.

I want to give you another analysis about the proposed Employment and Assistance Act. This is a policy analysis from Dr. Marge Reitsma-Street, professor of studies in policy and practice in health and social services from the University of Victoria. Dr. Reitsma-Street wrote this on April 1, 2002 — days ago. I read from it:

Oh, that's not me saying this. I digress, Mr. Speaker. Isn't that interesting? Someone else is onto this government. I return to Dr. Reitsma-Street's analysis:

Did the government listen? That was April 1. They had a plenty of time, but oh no, this government proceeds down that road.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I wrongly addressed a member who addressed the chamber earlier when I said it was the member for Victoria-Hillside raising questions on this legislation. My apologies. It was the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill who raised the questions but still said he was going to support the bill. It will be interesting to hear what the member for Victoria-Hillside has to say on this legislation.

Let me read this letter. Again, this government was forewarned about the hardship that they were going to bring to people who are most vulnerable, but I guess those people were written off as fearmongers. Here's a letter written by a person who made a submission to the select standing committee that toured the province on prebudget consultations. Sally Jeppesen included her submission, but she wrote a covering letter:

Well, not only did Ms. Jeppesen go ignored, but this Liberal government even removed the $100 per month of their family maintenance support payments that women get to keep. Poor Ms. Jeppesen was not only ignored, but this government went even further and said: "No, don't you think, single moms, you're going to benefit from any child support that comes from the parent to you."

Let me read this. This is a letter that was sent to me yesterday. It's about changes that have been announced under this legislation that directly affect people with disabilities. It was sent to me.

He describes the way the system was until recently, and I'll quote from his letter:

So there you are. I heard the minister yesterday saying: "Oh no, this is good news for people with disabilities. Before they could keep $200; now they can keep $300." He didn't come clean. He didn't admit that the other changes that he forgot to mention make that person with the disability far worse off, or maybe the minister wasn't aware. It's a complex portfolio.

We know lots of ministers who aren't aware of what plans there are for their own ministries. We know the Minister of Health Services didn't know that the government was going to jack up MSP premiums. The Minister of Health Services doesn't know, or refuses to come clean, that they're going to delist MSP services. We know that. But once again, we're going to have to either make documents or sources public because the Minister of Health Services won't come clean. He knows full well they're delisting services. He knows full well he's promised the doctors that they'll delist services from MSP, or maybe he doesn't know what's going on in his own ministry. That's possible, because there have been several other times he hasn't known.

Maybe the Minister of Human Resources doesn't know what's going on in his own ministry. Somehow, yesterday, he tried to tell people with disabilities they were better off with the earnings exemption. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's give the Minister of Human Resources the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't know what's going on. It's all the more reason to support this amendment to take six months and figure out the effect of this legislation — figure out and correct the real harm to the most vulnerable.

Oh, I know what. Maybe there could be a return on those tax cuts. Let's see. Even though it's well past the fiscal year, maybe what the Premier said — that tax cuts pay for themselves — might actually come about. It didn't happen in Ontario; it didn't happen in Alberta. But maybe there'll be an economic miracle here in British Columbia, and they won't have to attack the most vulnerable to make up for those tax cuts. Let's take the six months. Let's take the Premier and the Minister of Finance at their word that tax cuts pay for themselves. Just wait six months. That's all we're saying.

Maybe my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant actually had that in her mind. She didn't tell me that because it would probably give credence to the Premier saying that tax cuts pay for themselves. Maybe that's what my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was really intending. She just wanted the Premier to deliver on his word. I wonder. When I get a chance, I'm going to ask her that.

If that's the case, then every Liberal MLA should be able to support this hoist motion. All they need to say is: "You're right, Premier. You said they'd pay for themselves. So let's just wait. Let's not cut welfare and attack the poor, the mentally ill and people with disabilities. Let's just give it six months."

"I'm sure, Mr. Premier," the Liberal backbenchers can say, "that when you said you weren't going to cut welfare, you meant it. I'm sure when you said tax cuts pay for themselves, you meant it. So let's just take six months, and we'll have you, Mr. Premier, proven right on both points." Maybe that was what was in the back of the mind of my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. If that's the case, she's been brilliant in her strategy, because every Liberal MLA can support that.

Just this morning — not before the election; just this morning debating this legislation — the member for Vancouver-Langara said this: "We said — because we were in opposition — that can't happen." He's referring to rushing through the bill. He's referring to when the now Minister of Finance got up in great defence of mortgage brokers — those underpaid, lacking-in-resource mortgage brokers that wouldn't have time to examine legislation — and said: "Oh my God. You can't rush through a bill. No time to contemplate it."

I expect that very sage advice is exactly what provoked my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to give every Liberal member the opportunity to do what they said they'd do in opposition: take six months, discuss this bill amongst the community, discuss the bill with those high-income earners who got a tax cut and now join with Rafe Mair and say: "If I'd known this is what it meant, I wouldn't have wanted my tax cut." I'm paraphrasing him — my apologies, Mr. Mair, wherever you are. That was the gist of his comment this morning, and that's what the constitu-

ents who are not directly affected by this legislation are saying to each and every one of these MLAs. And they know it.

I actually predict that if these MLAs would come clean, they would admit they've received more phone calls on these draconian cuts than on any other issue. Even their own supporters are in a state of shock about the mean-spiritedness of these cuts. It's interesting. Where are the rural MLAs now? Where are the rural MLAs that say they're the defenders of the rural economy and that thank God they were elected, so that someone could pay attention to the rural economy?

Well, the rural economy in British Columbia is struggling like never before. In Prince George I was told that the unemployment rate has skyrocketed in the last few months. In Prince George I was told by students now either at college or university — I heard both from university students and college students — that they're desperately trying to find work in Prince George for the summer to pay for their tuition fee hikes — and from being cut off from first-year grants. They can't find a job anywhere — this government who was going to eradicate youth unemployment. Well, maybe the members from Prince George want to explain to those students: "Sorry, we thought the economy was going to turn around. It turns out it didn't. Oops, we made a mistake. Sorry you can't get a job."

Well, the students I talked to said if they can't get a summer job, they can't afford the increase in tuition, and they won't be going back to school. I guess they'll be going out in the job market. They'll be out there competing with the single moms being kicked off welfare. They'll be out there competing with the people with disabilities who are getting kicked off welfare. Gee, isn't that a nice new era? Isn't that nice?

Public employees, teachers and nurses laid off. Post-secondary students can't get a summer job, can't afford the increase in tuition. Forest workers…. Wow, there's the new era. They're all chasing the few jobs left in this province, which has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. My gosh, what a new era. Isn't that great?

Let's just have a look at what it means to be poor in British Columbia. Let's just look at this. This is from Statistics Canada. You know, my colleague and I understand that responsible governments have to take responsibility for the effects their policies have. We know there was much left to be done to eradicate poverty in this province when we lost the election. We knew that. It was the single most important thing left undone.

But this government doesn't even understand what it's like to be poor in this province. It is unbelievable how this government ignores every single statistic that demonstrates that they shouldn't be attacking the poor but should be supporting the poor. Maybe I could circulate this document. Maybe this would be a good one to actually circulate to the members of the Liberal caucus. It's called Behind the Numbers: Upstairs, Downstairs and In Between, the Assets and Debts of British Columbians. It's by Steve Kerstetter. It's a closer look at three distinct groups in British Columbia based on data from Statistics Canada's recent survey of financial security: the poorest 20 percent of family units, the middle 20 percent and the richest 20 percent.

Just to look at the poorest 20 percent, in terms of their family assets. It's a very detailed analysis. Here's the overriding conclusion about the poorest 20 percent: "Overall, the poorest 20 percent of family units had debts that were larger than their assets. Average assets worked out to $10,806, average debts were $21,052 and average wealth was minus $2,759. Everyone had assets of one kind or another, but only 64 percent of the group also had debts."

The sample size of homeowners amongst the poorest 20 percent of family units in B.C. was too small to report. For Canada as a whole, 3 percent of the poorest 20 percent of family units were homeowners, and the vast majority of them were mortgaged to the hilt.

It's a very, very interesting article. My colleague and I know that even after ten years, with the introduction of the family bonus, with the huge entitlement for youth to training now, with Youth Options, with the introduction of B.C. Benefits, with people with disabilities finally getting recognized for catastrophic illnesses and episodic illnesses…. Even with all of those positive changes, we knew that there was much, much more to be done. But never once did we think that the first people to be attacked as viciously as they have would be that same group in our society: the poorest and the people with the fewest resources to support their family.

What did the Liberals say in opposition when changes were made to welfare under the previous government? This was Gordon Campbell commenting on the fact that a $4-per-month deduction in the federal tax credit for people on welfare was part of the B.C. Benefits. The previous government reversed that and added the federal tax credit back into the welfare package. But initially, there's no question that the changes my government introduced had said the federal tax credit would not be passed on.

We heard from the public, and we heard that this was wrong. Here's what the now Premier said at the time. "Four dollars may not seem like a lot of money to a minister who lost $250 million, but it is to people on welfare," said the now Premier. That was in reference to the then Minister of Finance, who had recently announced a $250 million shortfall in forest revenues.

Four dollars seemed like a lot then to the Premier, but $600 million in cuts to welfare is nothing to this Premier now. Well, let's see what the Minister of Forests said. He's always got a lot to say. He's pretty chippy in here. He's always got a quip, doesn't he? Here's what he had to say at the time about the budget shortfalls of the previous government.

I quote the now Minister of Forests: "…they are really attempting to make up significant budget short-

falls on the backs of people who aren't well equipped to defend themselves, it's a question of priorities." Gosh, I can hardly wait for him to come in here and explain how that was then and this is now. What are the priorities the Minister of Forests is advocating now?

Would it be the tax cuts for those rich people? Would it be those tax cuts for the large corporations that aren't even going to invest in the province this year? Private sector investment is going to fall this year in British Columbia. Gosh, those corporate tax cuts did a lot, didn't they? Oh, that's the good news, but even though the corporations aren't going to deliver on their agenda, welfare recipients have to buck up and take responsibility for themselves.

Here's what the member for Vancouver-Langara said. Oh, I'm sorry. There's one before that. This would be the Minister of State for Women's Equality. It was a then B.C. Liberal opposition press release entitled: "NDP Fails to Help Single Moms Off Welfare." Oh, I wonder what that says. That was dated February 11, 1997. "We should be encouraging single mothers who want to get off welfare," said the now Minister of State for Women's Equality. "How does removing the child care subsidy help single mothers get off welfare?"

Now's the time to stand up and answer the question. All those years of issuing those press releases — attack, attack, attack. They're in government now. They can get up and answer all those questions. Actually, you know what? They could support the hoist motion. They can take six months to come up with their answers, and then they can get back to us. That's what they can do. They can get back to us.

The member for Vancouver-Langara, who I must say has been courageous in putting the debate the fine-edged points that need to be debated in this Legislature, has joined with my colleague to put those questions that need to be answered squarely into this Legislature. It will be interesting. I look forward to seeing how the member for Vancouver-Langara votes on the principles of this legislation at second reading or how he votes on this hoist motion.

Here's what the member for Vancouver-Langara had to say in January of 1992. He said that the government's announcement of welfare rate increases was only a small step in the right direction, one that didn't even cover the cost of the GST. He said the provincial income assistance program needed a complete overhaul to allow welfare recipients to keep more of their earnings. Oh, I wonder if the Minister of Human Resources was aware of that.

The member for Vancouver-Langara in 1992 said that welfare recipients needed encouragement and work experience even on a part-time basis and that the Social Services ministry should increase the exemptions for allowable spousal support.

Well, there is no question that the member for Vancouver-Langara put that squarely to the Minister of Human Resources again today — again today.

Here's what's actually going to happen in our society, I think. These are comments from 1996 by the now Liberals, who were talking about people who defraud the welfare system: "We already know there will be greater attempts to get around these draconian rules, because people need to get around these draconian rules just to live. Even though welfare fraud has plummeted in this province, that's all probably going to reverse now. It won't be intentional fraud or intentional swindling, but when you've got to feed your kids or when you're a person with a mental illness and can't keep a job, you're going to have to figure out some way."

Here's what the Premier said in '96, commenting on a one-time amnesty for people who have committed welfare fraud: "If you steal from taxpayers and you steal from those in need, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and no longer be eligible for community support." He said that in Vancouver.

Who's doing the stealing from those most in need now? Who would that be? Maybe it's the now Premier himself.

I am the designated speaker on this hoist motion. I have much more to say, and therefore I move adjournment of this debate.