Hansard -- Wednesday, April 17, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 10 (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		2891

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2892
	Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (Bill 23) Hon. G. Plant Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 30) Hon. G. Plant Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 36) Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2893
	Organ donations R. Nijjar Community crime watch program P. Wong Funding for hearing-impaired D. Hayer

Oral Questions		2894
	Health care facility closings and layoff of nurses J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Effectiveness of referendum on treaty negotiations J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant Use of closed courthouse buildings D. Chutter Hon. S. Santori Aboriginal services B. Belsey Hon. G. Abbott Disabled access to parks J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray

Point of Order (Speaker's Ruling)		2897

Petitions		2898
	R. Sultan R. Hawes

Tabling Documents		2898
	Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, annual report, 1999-2000, 2000-01

Second Reading of Bills		2898
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued) J. MacPhail T. Christensen S. Orr J. Kwan

Tabling Documents		2919
	Job Protection Commissioner, annual report, 2000

Second Reading of Bills		2919
	Employment and Assistance Act (Bill 26) (continued) Hon. M. Coell Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) Hon. M. Coell J. MacPhail

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2934
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued) Estimates: Legislation Estimates: Officers of the Legislature

Hon. G. Plant: We are joined in the gallery today by a distinguished former member of this assembly who was also at one time the Attorney General of British Columbia. In fact, I've known him for many years, which means he could tell stories about what I was like as a kid in the neighbourhood. I never got up to any bad things, I can assure you. I can say this: he did tell me that I was taking on a challenging job. He's been absolutely right. I'm sure that all members will welcome Russ Fraser to the precincts.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure all Members of the Legislative Assembly would like to join with me today in recognizing what the historic occasion is on April 17, 2002. This is the first day of the trek of the Vancouver Canucks to winning their first-ever Stanley Cup.

Mr. Speaker: I suppose, then, that the House will adjourn at 4 o'clock. [Laughter.]

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce nine representatives of the sight-handicapped community who are visiting in the gallery today. They are Janet Erikson, Don Noble, Betty Noble, Peter Bourne, Julie Caudle, Linda Bartram, Gary Peister, Richard Marion and Theresa Andrews — and their guide dogs, Milicent, Jo-Etta, Kirsty, Gina and Finch. Would you please make them welcome.

S. Brice: I am pleased to have guests in the gallery. I would like to introduce my brother, Ron McMicking; his wife, Linda; and their grandsons Travis and Jordan Heemskerk. I ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Wong: I'm very pleased this afternoon to introduce two groups, with a total of 83 grades 11 and 12 students of history and social studies, from Sir Charles Tupper School in Vancouver, led by their respectable teachers, Mr. David Dougall, Ms. Smith, Ms. McBride, Mr. Williams and Mr. Trask. Will the House please make them most welcome.

B. Suffredine: Yesterday I had the pleasure to speak on the importance of law reform. Today in the gallery we have Greg Steele, the chair of the B.C. Law Institute, and Arthur Close, the executive director. Arthur was the mainstay of what was formerly called the Law Reform Commission for a decade or more.

I also have a rather dedicated constituency assistant, Ms. Caroline Rushton, who has come down to see how Victoria works. Would the House please all welcome them.

Hon. G. Campbell: In the gallery today is Dr. Paul Tennant. Dr. Tennant has been the éminence grise of the legislative internship program in British Columbia for a number of years. All of us, regardless of our political background, have been privileged to work with a number of young British Columbians who are interested in government, who are interested in public policy and who have been a huge support to us over the last number of years in the legislative session. I'd like to thank Dr. Tennant for his leadership and thank the legislative interns for their commitment to public life in the province, and I know the Legislature would like to make Dr. Tennant welcome and say thanks.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm always delighted to see students in the gallery of the Legislature, and I, too, would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the students from Sir Charles Tupper. I would also like to, in particular, single out Ajay Sharma, who is with the group today and who I know has been very active in politics and is looking forward, we think, to a great career ahead of him one day in politics as well. I hope the House will make him and the whole group welcome.

B. Penner: It's my honour today to introduce Prof. Don Alper and his class of, I believe, approximately 26 students from Western Washington University in Bellingham. This class is studying Canadian government and politics, and I had the privilege of speaking to them earlier today and fielding their questions. This bright and inquisitive group is now in the gallery, and I ask that the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray: I'm very pleased today to introduce two hard-working volunteers from my riding executive who join us today in the gallery. Would the House please welcome Lisa Karoway and Stephanie Smith.

R. Sultan: Accompanying her brother, the former Attorney General, in the gallery today is Joan Fraser, the former chief reference librarian at the University of Victoria. Would you please make her welcome.

I. Chong: Today I'd also like to welcome two young individuals, two very energetic Young Liberals who not long ago managed to get me out on a night of bowling, something I haven't done for a long time. One has already been introduced — that is, Lisa Karoway. She's the University of Victoria president of the B.C. Young Liberals. Along with her is Dallas Henault.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 23, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

This bill is designed to make it easier for families to get support orders when only one of the parties lives in British Columbia. The bill streamlines the process for obtaining or changing a support order when only one of the parties lives in British Columbia by reducing the number of court hearings required from one to two — from two to one. For a moment there I was afflicted by NDP math.

This bill also updates the process for registering support orders made in other parts of Canada. Once these Canadian orders are registered in British Columbia, they will be able to be enforced just like orders originally made in British Columbia. This bill enhances access to justice by improving the way family law works for all British Columbians.

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 23 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.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 30, the Trustee Investment Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

This bill, which is based upon a report of the British Columbia Law Institute on trustee investment powers, is designed to modernize trustee investment powers in order to enable trustees who are not acting under a sophisticated trust instrument to invest efficiently and productively under modern circumstances. The bill will also allow the standards of performance required of trustees to better reflect modern standards and conditions.

The limited list of authorized trustee investments that currently exists in section 15 of the Trustee Act will be replaced with a provision that will permit trustees to invest generally, subject to the terms of the particular trust. In so doing, a trustee must exercise the care, skill, diligence and judgment that a prudent investor would exercise in making investments.

There are also amendments to other statutes to bring the provisions relating to trustee investment powers into accord with the amendments to the Trustee Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a step forward in the implementation of this government's commitment to private law reform and is, I think, a tribute to the work of the B.C. Law Institute towards ensuring that we have a modern and effective system of civil private law. I congratulate the Law Institute for their hard work in preparing the report that underlies this bill.

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

Bill 30 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.

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes several minor amendments to four statutes: the Coal Act, the Oil and Gas Commission Act, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act and the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

The amendments that I am introducing today illustrate our commitment to cutting red tape and creating a thriving private sector economy that supports high-paying jobs for British Columbians. The Coal Act will be amended to create certainty for coal tenure access by removing the references to higher-level plans. It is also being amended to remove duplication of regulation and costs that discourage the use of on-site materials. These changes demonstrate to the mining industry that we are listening, as these have been long observed as issues that stood in the way of coal development.

The Oil and Gas Commission Act is being amended to reduce regulatory burdens on industry by making the rules and processes clear and more effective. There will also be changes to the executive structure of the commission, which include having the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines serve on the board as director and chair. These changes will increase the commission's accountability and help ensure that its operational practices and processes reflect government's priority and interests.

Amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act aim to improve the industry's ability to assess resource potential by eliminating depth restrictions. This will promote the exploration of new resources like coalbed methane.

Changes to the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act establish a cost-recovery framework for the use of roads, bridges and other works used during energy, mineral and petroleum exploration and development. These changes lead the way for creating public-private partnerships that promote greater access to the province's mineral, oil and gas resources and lead to the creation of new jobs.

We need to move from process-based prescriptive regulations to results-based regulations and from performance-based compliance to enforcement models. We need to show industry that we are doing what we can to foster growth and restore investor confidence while maintaining high environmental health and safety standards. These changes are a positive step in that direction.

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 36, 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.

R. Nijjar: Next week, the week of April 21, is Organ Donor Awareness Week. I wish to make every member of this House and the public aware of the importance of considering registering for organ donation. In British Columbia over 500 people are waiting for life-enhancing or life-saving organs, and many of them will die waiting. These deaths are needless. For example, we have two kidneys; we need only one. We can live healthy, regular lives with one kidney. If we can find it in our hearts to give one kidney to a fellow human being, we will have saved a life. We will have done one of the most personally rewarding acts. Please consider this. The chances that you will require an organ transplant far outweigh the odds that you will ever be a potential organ donor. Less than 1 percent of all deaths in B.C. result in potential organ donation. Relative to many other countries, British Columbia has a very low rate of organ donation registration. Based on a public opinion survey, 75 percent of British Columbians said they support organ donation and intend to register, yet only 11 percent have done so.

With the national organ tissue donor awareness week fast approaching, now is the time for British Columbians to act. Registration has changed from putting a decal on your driver's licence or CareCard to completing a simple on-line form at www.transplant.bc.ca or by calling 1-800-663-6189. Tomorrow I will be giving every member of this House a green ribbon pin to wear during Organ Donor Awareness Week. Please wear this pin and promote organ donor registration and help save lives. Thank you.

P. Wong: The last few months have been a very busy time in my riding. Families are working hard to make ends meet and pay the bills. Students are planning to work throughout the summer holidays, and a number of people in the riding are giving up their time to make our communities and streets a safer place for all of us.

Vancouver-Kensington residents take great pride in their neighbourhoods. In our community one such group is the Dickens Community Crime Watch formed by volunteer residents in response to an increase in neighbourhood prostitution, drug dealing and associated crime around the two Dickens elementary schools. They do this through police-sponsored patrols and street garbage and graffiti cleanup, contacting small businesses and neighbours and working on long-term solutions. They know that safe streets and closely knit communities don't just happen. They are built over time with the commitment of dedicated volunteers. They also know that great communities must take action at the grass-roots level. Safety and community are too important to be left solely to the government.

I am so proud to be affiliated with this group that has worked so hard to make Vancouver-Kensington a better place for all of us. I am proud to have marched with them to signal to drug dealers that it's not acceptable to do drugs on our streets. I have picked up garbage with them and have worked with the city of Vancouver and our community policing centre to develop and implement real solutions to the problems facing our communities.

I would like to thank the members of the Dickens group for setting such a good example for other neighbourhoods in Vancouver. I know that this partnership would benefit all residents of the riding and will help to make a safe and vibrant community.

D. Hayer: I rise today with some good news. Last week in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead the Minister of Children and Family Development presented cheques

totalling $650,000 to help the children of British Columbia who suffer from impaired hearing.

The British Columbia Family Hearing Resource Centre in Surrey-Tynehead helps more than 325 children and their families from across British Columbia to deal with this devastating condition. I know from personal experience how hard this can be on families, as my own nephew suffers from a severe hearing disability.

With one of the cheques, for $175,000, presented last week to the centre, it can now replace outdated equipment, which will assist the exceptional and dedicated staff members to improve the children's ability to communicate. I must also say that remedial training and support that children and families receive at the centre is outstanding. I should point out that the Minister of Children and Family Development also presented a one-time cheque for $475,000 for the building of a new facility, in addition to the $175,000 for equipment. The centre also receives $600,000 a year in operational funding from the ministry.

There are many other contributors, including the Variety Club, corporations, foundations and individual donors. There are also many others who help out, including those who volunteer their time.

In closing, to all these groups and individuals and especially to executive director Susan Lane, I want to say thank you — and recognize last week's grant by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. This was not only good news for all the hearing-impaired children of British Columbia, but it will make life more exciting and much brighter for them and their parents in the future.

J. MacPhail: The Health minister has admitted that he's getting ready to make a big announcement next week that will inalterably affect health care delivery in this province. The back bench have been given their lines, told what to say, and the plans are now signed off.

Every single community in this province is extremely anxious about what's going to happen to their community. Yesterday at a meeting with nurses, the Health minister only added to every single community's concerns by saying that every single community would be affected.

I'll give the Minister of Health Services an opportunity to put British Columbians' minds at ease. Will the minister stand up today in the House and assure every British Columbian that no hospital will close?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can give the assurance to every British Columbian that we're actually fixing a health care system so that it's going to start to work for patients in every part of British Columbia. I can give assurance that we're going to go from what has been a disjointed system that hasn't met the needs of patients and communities to a system that's actually integrated, where you've got hospitals that work in conjunction with each other so that patients know exactly where they can get the care they need, when they need it, in every community throughout this province.

J. MacPhail: Well, that isn't any assurance whatsoever that there will not be a hospital closing.

Yesterday the Minister of Health Services was confronted by nurses at the highest level of our health care system. He also seemed to suggest to those nurses that he had plans to lay off nurses. That came as a complete surprise to many British Columbians because here's what this minister had to say recently about laying off nurses. This is a quote from the Minister of Health Services: "I don't think that nursing layoffs are in the future cards for B.C. for some time."

The Premier also said that he doesn't believe that hospitals will be forced to lay off nurses.

Can the Minister of Health Services stand up today and provide the assurances today that he couldn't yesterday that he has no plans to lay off nurses as part of next week's radical health announcement?

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to be clear with the member, and I was very clear with the nurses who confronted me yesterday in the hallway as I was exiting the hotel. There are going to be changes in the way facilities get used in British Columbia. There may be some nurses in certain locations that will be laid off. I also stressed to them that there are tremendous opportunities in nursing not only for those RNs currently practising in British Columbia but for students who are in the training programs in British Columbia today to become our future nurses.

The nursing strategy that was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Health Planning last August addressed the issues around training. We have an additional 99 nurses in training today that would not have been there without those changes. We have new certification programs to upgrade skills. At the time when that nursing strategy was brought in, we had 1,000 nurse vacancies in British Columbia. We've managed to reduce that to 750. As a direct result, there are tremendous opportunities for nurses in this province today, next month, next year and in the years to come.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services is admitting that he will be laying off nurses, but somehow, when he's confronted by the highest nurse-managers in the province, he thinks everything's going to be fine. Nurses will be laid off here, but don't worry, there'll be vacancies over there. But this Minister of Health Ser-

vices cancelled the only agency that could train and reassign those nurses: the Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency — gone. It's gone, with Bill 29. He throws the system into chaos and then deletes the very service, the very agency….

J. MacPhail: His health plan will be throwing the system into chaos, and the very agency that could train and reassign nurses is now gone. What possible substitution does this Minister of Health Services now have for retraining and reassigning nurses that could possibly replace the well-functioning Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency?

Hon. C. Hansen: It was not good enough for a $10 billion organization in British Columbia to say that somehow there's this little bureaucracy on Broadway Avenue in Vancouver that's going to manage all of their training needs. We have given that responsibility for in-service training…

Hon. C. Hansen: …and for human resource planning to the six health authorities, because it is the CEOs of those health authorities that I want to make sure are responsible for training needs and to make sure that their future human resource needs are met.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General has returned from yet another leg of his "yes" tour. Before leaving, he wrote a letter to the editor that succeeded only in adding to the confusion about what a yes vote is or what a no vote means. In his letter the Attorney General says that a yes vote means that the government is not necessarily bound by the principle, and he says a no vote means a position not necessarily linked to a principle.

The fact is that this government is going to do whatever it wants. The member for Prince George–Omineca describes the referendum as a "non-event." Can the Attorney General tell us just what the point is of spending $9 million of taxpayers' money on this meaningless non-event?

Hon. G. Plant: For what the member calls a non-event, I think the fact that as of today, we've got over half a million returned ballots should tell us something.

Here's what I said in the letter: "As a matter of law, the answer to the question on each principle is binding on the government if more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots vote the same way." If more than 50 percent of the validly cast ballots are cast yes, the government will be bound by the result. If more than 50 percent of the validly cast votes are cast no, the government will be bound by the result."

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

J. Kwan: It has always been clear that private property is not on the treaty table. First nations know it. The federal government knows this, and the people of British Columbia know this as well, yet question 1 asks if there should be. When asked about this in Nanaimo, the Attorney General said that one answer to that question is "so what?" Perhaps the Attorney General would like to read the ballot again. "So what?" is not an option.

Again to the Attorney General, just what is the point of a referendum if yes doesn't mean anything, no doesn't matter and "So what?" is not an option?

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, listening to the member's question, I'm not surprised she's having a hard time reading the ballot.

The first principle reads as follows: "Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements." If the voters of British Columbia believe that the province's negotiators should be at the table, bound to advocate that principle, they vote yes. If they don't want the government to be bound to advocate against private property expropriation, they vote no. It's pretty straightforward. It's very important, and the people of British Columbia are telling us that they are glad that we have given them for the first time…

Hon. G. Plant: …a direct input, a direct vote on the fundamental issues that affect the province's participation in treaty-making.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for Yale-Lillooet has the floor.

D. Chutter: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. A number of courthouses in my riding were recently closed due to the fact that they are not being fully utilized. These buildings are important landmarks in the communities I represent and hold great potential for use by either the public or the private sector. Now that court services will no longer be provided in these buildings, can the Minister of Management Services tell my constituents what he is doing to ensure that they remain a contributing part of these communities?

Hon. S. Santori: I thank the member for his important question. B.C. Buildings Corporation realizes the pivotal role that courthouses have played in communities. I have directed the corporation to work closely with communities to look at the possibility of purchasing the buildings from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation or finding alternate uses.

B.C. Buildings Corporation will not engage in any private sector sales for a period of 90 days after being offered to the municipalities. We feel very confident that we can work out creative solutions to ensure that the courthouses continue to play a pivotal role in the communities where there are closures.

D. Chutter: There have been reports in the media that both lease costs and for-sale costs…

D. Chutter: …of buildings owned and operated by the B.C. Buildings Corporation are excessively high. Can the Minister of Management Services assure us that BCBC always benchmarks these costs against fair market rates?

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I am totally confident that BCBC consistently benchmarks with the private sector both in terms of lease costs as well as sale of properties. As a matter of fact, two recent studies by independent agencies have found that, in fact, in most cases we are getting a lower rate. Also, with respect to properties for sale, assessments are done by a third party, and I can assure you that the rates are market-driven as well as benchmarked on a regular basis.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. This government made a number of new-era commitments to aboriginal peoples of British Columbia. The service plan of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services further details these commitments. Can the minister tell us what progress he has made to turn these well-intentioned words into action?

Hon. G. Abbott: We did, in the last election campaign and in our service plans, set out some very ambitious commitments in relation to aboriginal communities in the province, including aboriginal languages and support for young aboriginal people and so on. I am delighted to say we've made great progress, and in some cases we've actually completed our commitments. The important thing that's allowed this to happen is that we have set up opportunities, over the last several months, on an ongoing basis to speak to aboriginal leaders throughout the province and to aboriginal communities. It has been remarkably successful, and we look forward to completing even more of our commitments in the months ahead.

B. Belsey: The new-era commitment was to double the First Citizens Fund. Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell us what progress he has made to keep this promise? How will it benefit aboriginal people in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. We did make the ambitious commitment to double the First Citizens Fund over the term of our government from $36 million to $72 million. I'm proud to say today that as of April 1, 2002, we will be halfway there. We will be halfway to doubling the fund. The kinds of things that will be completed or that are ongoing through the First Citizens Fund are, for example, student bursaries and the operation of aboriginal friendship centres throughout the province. Important economic development opportunities are provided by the First Citizens Fund. Of course, in the area of language and culture and so on, we can do some important initiatives, as well, through that fund. It's been very good, and we look forward to completing it.

J. Kwan: The Liberal member for Cariboo South continues to lobby the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection to overturn the government's mean-spirited decision to take away disabled park passes from people with disabilities. No one in this government is listening. Should the member's constituents infer from the minister's refusal to even consider this request that the government doesn't care what he thinks? Could they conclude that the member for Cariboo South is just another interior Liberal MLA who has been written off in the next election by the Premier, similar to the member for Yale-Lillooet and similar to the member for Nelson-Creston?

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to remind the member that I've answered this question previously, in that this government has maintained camping subsidies for seniors and for the disabled. The disabled subsidy is now focused on people that need it the most, but I'm very pleased that we're maintaining this at a time where we have a lot of fiscal challenges and that this is the only disabled camping subsidy in western Canada and the best program in Canada.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for my remark to you saying that I'm in order. I withdraw that, and I apologize.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on April 15, during the course of debate on second reading of Bill M201, intituled Fisheries Act Amendment Act, 2002, the Government House Leader rose on a point of order stating that in his view the bill was out of order on the grounds that the proposed section 13(5)(a) "requires that a person pay a fee to be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, therefore this bill is out of order."

Before dealing with the substance of this point of order, certain events occurred at the opening of the morning session on April 16 which bear comment. Firstly, the Government House Leader rose on a point of order which turned out to be a second submission on the issue raised on April 15 relating to Bill M201. The submission should not have been made nor heard. It has been a longstanding tradition in this House and in Commonwealth parliaments that once a point of order has been made, and appropriate replies heard and the Chair has reserved its decision, further representations by members on the matter are inappropriate.

Having heard the Government House Leader, the Chair was obliged to listen to representations by the Leader of the Opposition. As it was inappropriate for the Government House Leader to make a further submission, it was equally inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to discuss what advice she had received from an officer of this House. Furthermore, to imply that there was some nexus between an opinion expressed by an officer of the House and the fresh submission made by the Government House Leader is not only inaccurate but improper.

To the extent that the Chair was in error in hearing these additional submissions from either side of the House, the Chair apologizes. I do note, however, that at the time the additional submissions were made, the Chair observed that the points raised were well known, that the matter was in hand and that the decision would be made on an impartial basis, relying on long-established precedents of this House.

Let me assure all hon. members that the decision on the original point of order as raised on the 15th has not been influenced in the slightest by these additional submissions, which — apart from the comments I have made above — are being treated as a nullity.

When the status of a bill or motion before the House is raised on a point of order, it is the Chair's duty to consider the points raised and, in addition, to examine the bill or motion in all its aspects and apply the appropriate parliamentary law. I ask the House to bear with me, as this matter is one of some complexity.

A key standing order of this House affecting the propriety of bills and motions is standing order 67, which reads as follows: "It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed." I should add that the wording of this standing order is virtually repeated in section 47 of the Constitution Act of British Columbia.

On examination of the questioned bill, the proposed amendment to section 13 of the act has two paragraphs: paragraph (a), which repeats verbatim section 13(5) of the existing act, and paragraph (b), which presents a novel proposition, which I quote: "A licence shall not be issued or re-issued under this part for the purpose of finfish aquaculture unless that operation is a closed containment facility."

The key question for the Chair to consider is whether or not the proposed section 13(5)(b) as quoted above amounts to an impost and, in the absence of a message, is out of order by virtue of provisions of standing order 67.

In this regard the Chair has found considerable assistance in the decision of Mr. Speaker Whittaker, reported in the Journals of this House on November 29, 1939, page 77. In that case Speaker Whittaker was required to make a determination as to whether a bill before the House requiring provincial mines to provide certain accommodation to employees was in order. The learned Speaker examined in considerable detail the distinction between impost and tax, as contemplated by standing order 67, and concluded that the requirement to provide accommodation under the proposed bill "would undoubtedly involve a charge upon a section of the people."

The view, as stated by Speaker Whittaker, was adopted by later decisions of the House, including a decision by Speaker Irwin reported in the Journals of the House on October 17, 1953, at page 72, and a further decision by Speaker Hartley reported in the Journals of this House on April 3, 2001, at page 42. I note

that standing order 67 in 1939 is identical in wording to standing order 67 today.

1. Is the Chair obligated to examine the bill as a whole notwithstanding that the point of order raised does not identify with exactitude the potential flaw in the bill?

2. Does the proposed subsection (b) of the bill create an impost as contemplated by standing order 67?

Conventions relating to the duty of a presiding officer and precedence of this House produced an answer in the affirmative to both questions.

The practical effect of enacting subsection (b) as proposed would be to require those engaged in finfish aquaculture to convert to a closed-containment facility. The result would, to quote the words of Speaker Whittaker, "involve a charge upon the section of the people." Therefore, the bill is out of order in the hands of a private member, and I so rule.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition. These three loose-leaf booklets contain signatures collected from 10,548 British Columbians from North Vancouver to 108 Mile Ranch, from Comox to Prince George. These petitioners ask that the government find some way by which the audio books program, on behalf of the blind and the seeing-impaired, may carry on.

R. Hawes: I rise to present a petition from 242 elementary students at Edwin S. Richards Elementary School in Mission around health care issues.

Hon. J. Murray: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-01.

Hon. R. Coleman: In Committee A, I call the estimates of Attorney General. In this chamber we'll be debating second reading of Bill 26, the Employment and Assistance Act.

Mr. Speaker: On debate on the amendment to Bill 26, the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, could I have advice, please, as to how much time I have left?

I'm addressing what we call the hoist motion brought in by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, which speaks to the issue of taking this bill off the agenda for debate for six months and allowing the community to go out and examine this bill. Then, perhaps, the government could seek the advice or at least have the input of the community on this bill.

Even knowing how difficult it is to make any points in this Legislature about anything, every night my colleague and I go home to do our research. Overnight, after we've prepared for debate, we listen to the people who call in, write and e-mail us about the debate that's taken place.

One person who is going to be deeply and negatively affected by these welfare cuts said that she went to the New Era document, and she couldn't find anywhere in the New Era document where they talked about these changes to welfare. She read it — and this, of course, she knows is the bible of this Liberal government and that everything they do is supposed to be outlined in this New Era document — because she didn't believe that they'd actually mislead her, a welfare recipient, about their plans around welfare.

She believed the Premier when he said before the election that he had no plans to cut welfare. So she went to the New Era document thinking that maybe she had missed the announcement of the government about these welfare cuts, and she went through the letter from the now Premier that's headed "We Can Work Wonders." There was nothing there, absolutely nothing. Well, actually here's one line that she wondered if she had misinterpreted. It says: "We can restore the sense of hope and prosperity that defined B.C.'s past, to build a future in every community that is ripe with opportunity for our children and families." That didn't seem to her to mean that she was going to be cut out of the agenda.

She looked further to see where there was any mention of welfare in this document — any mention whatsoever. She flipped through all pages: the slagging of the previous government, the talking about how tax cuts would pay for themselves, how health care is in trouble but there's a new era for it, a new era for students. She kept on searching. You know what? She called, and she said: "Never once did this government come clean about the draconian cuts they were making to welfare — never once."

And why was that? Why did this government deliberately mislead the most vulnerable in our society? Instead of saying that we have no plans to cut welfare, why didn't the Premier write in the New Era document: "We're cutting welfare for single moms. We're forcing single moms into the workforce, even though there are no jobs, when their child is three. We're kicking people with disabilities off their pensions. We're cutting child care subsidies for people with low incomes and people

on welfare so that when they're forced to look for work, they can't find any." Why didn't the Premier say in the New Era document: "Oh, and by the way, to pay for that tax cut for the wealthiest, we're going to take $600 million out of the welfare system that supports the most vulnerable in our society and give it to the big corporations"? Why didn't this open and accountable government just say that?

Was it that they didn't have enough paper? Or was it because they didn't want British Columbians to know how they were going to attack the poor and people with disabilities in this province? Is that what's really going on here?

If it's not, why doesn't this government say: "Oh, do you know what? You're right. We didn't tell British Columbians how much we were going to cut welfare. In fact, it's not mentioned in our New Era document, so maybe we should rethink this and give it six months to be examined before we pass this legislation"? That would be the decent thing for every Liberal member of the Legislature to do: to see whether it's welcome in the community and whether the community has a different view on this legislation. Maybe the community would like to rethink future tax cuts, which were allotted and quite nicely outlined in the New Era document. Maybe this government wants to actually support this hoist motion and give consideration for the bill to be hoisted and taken back to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that there's a quorum present. I'd like to call for a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have counted the members in the House, and there is a quorum present. Thank you.

J. MacPhail: It is interesting how little attention this debate is getting, given the fact that it's the first time ever that British Columbians have had any discussion of this legislation.

It's interesting to note how important this issue is to so many MLAs in this province. I look in my own town, Vancouver. My colleague and I are looking at the density of income assistance cases in region 1 — in fact, that's Vancouver. Yes, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant represents the constituents who have the most need of income assistance, but the second most populous need for income assistance is in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard. Where is the member for Vancouver-Burrard on this issue? His constituents, after Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. The greatest number of income assistance cases — those are real human beings — reside in Vancouver-Burrard, so I can hardly wait to hear why the member for Vancouver-Burrard suggests somehow that anyone who has concerns about this is fearmongering. If he had any gumption about representing his constituents, he'd get up and speak against this bill. In Vancouver, it's his constituents that are going to be more adversely affected than anything else.

Here are some other concerns that people have written in. It comes as a complete shock, as a result of this legislation, and it's why people need to have time to consider this. This is new. Placing a lien on a family home can now occur if a family is in receipt of income assistance for more than six months in a 12-month period. Wow, all those forest workers. Won't they feel wonderful knowing that even if they've owned a home and had a job for years, if they need income assistance now for more than six months, their home will be placed under a lien?

Where's that in the New Era document? Is that going to be part of the softwood lumber dispute summit that the Premier has? Is he going to announce that his way of helping forest workers is to say, as he did to airline workers: "Go on welfare"? I think that's what he said, didn't he? His job training program for airline workers was: go on welfare. Is that what he's going to say to forest workers? "Go on welfare, and oh, by the way, if you take more than six months of welfare in a 12-month period, your home's under a lien." I can hardly wait for the Premier to announce that as the way he supports laid-off forestry workers.

We have time now to do exactly what the member for Vancouver-Langara suggests. We have time for the minister to come clean with the regulations. We have time. Just support this motion to delay the passing of this bill for six months. What better reason? The devil is in the detail, although I must say that this act is the work of Satan, if you ask me. The devil is in the detail. All the minister has to do is say to his own colleagues….

Even the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill had a series of questions about this bill that were stunning. At the end of it, even though we asked a series of very detailed questions that have no answer in the legislation, he then did say that he would be voting in favour of it. Unbelievably good questions were raised by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, and yet they go unanswered.

I am going to suggest that this House now vote in favour of this motion to suspend the passing of this legislation for six months. Add a page to the New Era

document. The government can come clean and add a page to the New Era document that explains what they're doing to welfare, to explain to people on welfare why this government was silent in the New Era document about these draconian changes.

Mr. Speaker: Further debate on the amendment to Bill 26? Division is called.

Could I ask all hon. members to please take their seats as quickly as possible to aid the Clerks in preparing the list.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is defeated. We are now moving on to the motion of second reading of Bill 26. Those in favour say aye.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were going to let it clear. I was just waiting to see whether anyone else was going to speak. I'd like to speak to Bill 26, second reading.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please. We'll just pause for a moment while members make their way elsewhere.

T. Christensen: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 26, as I do believe it really is important legislation for the province. It is legislation that comes in an area of government policy that I think all of us undermine the challenges and difficulty of dealing with.

In general, I certainly support the intent of Bill 26, although I do have some specific concerns in relation to particular sections of the bill. Some of those concerns I will canvass in committee stage. I do want to say that I strongly support the government's stated intent behind Bill 26, and that is to encourage and support people to find and maintain employment rather than having to rely on income assistance.

It should go without saying that being gainfully employed is preferable to being reliant on income assistance. The vast majority of people who receive income assistance, or who at one time in their lives have found that they needed to rely on income assistance, would agree with the fact that they certainly would prefer to be employed. There's a strong need to focus on employment and to commit to supporting people in finding long-term employment or developing the job skills to have long-term employment.

The numbers do tell us that the jobs are out there. There are vacancies around the province. The Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, which tracks those things, reconfirms that on an ongoing basis. There are a number of government programs that identify that jobs are available. Often the problem is that the jobs and the people looking for jobs aren't necessarily in the same place. More often the skills that people have to offer don't necessarily apply to the jobs that are readily available.

We do know from programs like Job Wave that connecting assistance recipients with jobs and working to equip income assistance recipients with the skills to pursue those jobs does result in people moving into employment.

As I said at the beginning, this is a very difficult area of public policy. I can in no way claim to be an authority on what programs will and won't work to assist people in moving from income assistance to employment. I know from looking at the statistics for the Ministry of Human Resources offices in my own constituency that there is quite a significant turnover in the number of families dependent on income assistance. That suggests to me that a good number of people are finding means to no longer be reliant on assistance, whether that is by gaining employment or otherwise.

Unfortunately, I can also see that many individuals and families are finding that they are dependent on income assistance for a prolonged period of time. In looking at the statistics from the Vernon office, which indicate the number of case files open for more than eight months, I found that for single-person income assistance recipients — and I'm not dealing here at all with people that fall into the disabled categories — 44 percent have been reliant on income assistance, or their case files have been open, for more than eight months. That grows to 63 percent among couples. It grows to 65 percent among two-parent families. I think it's most alarming and concerning that it grows to 75 percent among single-parent families.

I don't think there's any question, and I think all members of this House would agree, that the government needs very much to address that prolonged dependence.

While I agree in general with the intent of Bill 26 and the philosophical shift that the minister has indicated from a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment, I do have a number of areas of concern that I will be monitoring closely as changes are implemented. These concerns relate primarily to changes to income assistance that have already been implemented as of April 1. They arise from my own review of the regulations, as well as feedback from various people in my constituency. Most of that input from my constituency comes from very dedicated people in my community whose work often brings them in contact with people receiving income assistance and who as a consequence can see firsthand the impact of changes. Most of those people certainly agree that at this stage of the game, it's too early to really see what impact these changes are going to have. Nevertheless, the concerns are heartfelt and very real.

I do want to speak briefly on where those concerns arise. Certainly, in terms of dealing with single parents in particular…. As I noted, a very high percentage of single-parent income assistance recipients have been dependent on income assistance for a long time or certainly more than eight months, and that needs to cause us all concern. I know that the minister is pursuing some policies that the government believes will address some of that prolonged dependence by encouraging people to enter the workforce sooner rather than later.

One of those policies has been the reduction from seven years to three years as the child's age at which a parent is expected to seek employment. If we think about that for a moment, it does make inherent sense in that if somebody has been out of the workforce for seven years, there's little chance they have any of the skills to get back in. If we look at other areas of society, we know that employment insurance, for example, allows a parent to be out of the workforce for a year before that insurance scheme disappears. Certainly they have a job to go back to, so it's a very different situation than for somebody on income assistance. The point is that we should be encouraging people as soon as possible to get back into the workforce and to assist them. We should be assisting them in getting back into the workforce.

I do want to clear up some of what I think has been misinformation surrounding this particular change. It seems to be suggested that the day the child reaches age three, all of sudden, the next day, the parent needs to be at work. Certainly, if a job is available, that is desirable. But on my read of the legislation and in my discussions with the minister, it seems clear to me that once the child reaches age three, the expectation is that the parent be pursuing employment or be involved in an employment program with the goal of obtaining gainful and long-term employment. That's a vast difference than simply, on day one, that's the end of the story.

Around single parents, I'm also concerned that obviously child care is a very major issue. You simply need to have reliable, safe, trustworthy child care if you're going to be at work during the day or the evening. I do have concerns that we need to be working towards ensuring that adequate child care is available. I know that the Minister of State for Women's Equality is working on a broad government policy in this direction to replace what was the so-called universal day care program that had been introduced by the previous government, and I'm looking forward to the government's new policy under child care.

I think we all recognize that around a universal day care policy, some of us who have children would certainly think, "Hey, that's great, and we'd love for the government to be paying for our day care," but I think it's not particularly realistic at this juncture to expect the government to pay for child care for those of us who can in fact afford it. I'm very pleased that this government is looking at a new child care policy that is going to focus those resources on the persons least able to afford it otherwise.

As well, in dealing with single parents, we need to ensure that there are suitable employment opportunities. When you combine this with the day care pressures, we can't necessarily expect single parents to be working evenings, for example, when day care often isn't available. It's difficult to expect them to be working overnight. I think the practical reality there is that if you're a single parent, your options for employment, simply by virtue of your need to care for your child, are much more limited than they would be if you did not have children.

Again, we need to take those factors into account. I myself will certainly be looking at various options and bringing any information I can find myself to the attention of the minister to ensure that as policy in this area evolves over time, we can do the best job possible to meet the needs of single parents in getting them back into the workforce.

Really, at the end of the day, that is by far the preferred route for both the parents and in particular those children. I do struggle with this myself, as I said. They're difficult areas of government policy. I strug-

gled with the rationale behind decisions that have been made in the past, and I will struggle, I'm sure, with the rationale behind decisions that are made in the future.

Another area where there has been a change is in respect of income assistance recipients aged 55 to 64. One reaction, I think, is: with the assistance that is provided to you by government and intended to be on a short-term basis, why should that change all of a sudden as you reach your fifty-fifth birthday? Really, I don't have an answer for that. I think the need for the assistance of government does not necessarily change from the time you're 54 to the time you're 55, so I think it's an arbitrary distinction.

I do see, though, that there are obviously some challenges around finding suitable employment for people who are older and may have been out of the workforce for a long time or may have very limited skills. Again, I'm really looking forward to the unveiling of the job training and employment programs the minister will be working on. I look forward to seeing how those programs are going to address some of these specific needs.

One of the areas of interest for me, one that I certainly commit to speaking to the minister more about — and he's well aware of this — is the issue of financial incentives to try and get people back into the workforce. I understand that the research behind financial incentives is far from conclusive as to whether or not they do provide assistance in encouraging people and providing an incentive for people to find more full-time employment.

From a gut-reaction standpoint, it seems to me that getting into the workforce — even on a part-time basis, even if it's a few hours a week — and being able to retain some of those earnings is a good way to transition people into employment. Particularly in the area of single parents, I think we need to study very carefully what opportunities there may be to assist single parents in getting into the workforce by allowing them to retain some measure of their earnings.

In many communities around the province, I don't know that the opportunities for full-time employment are there for single parents, given the child care options and given the particular job options in those communities. It's an area that I think requires more study, certainly. I think, in particular, it requires probably some different pilot programs around various parts of the province to see what works. It may very well be that there are policies we could follow in more rural areas of the province that will work there but aren't necessarily appropriate for more urban areas.

We need to perhaps look very carefully at pursuing different opportunities or different policies in various parts of the province to see what does work for each of our communities, because as has often been said before, one size does not fit all. I think that's particularly true in a province as diverse as British Columbia and in a province where the economy and the economic drivers in various parts of the province really do differ very much from one community to another.

I do want to thank the minister for accommodating a number of discussions with me over the last number of weeks to discuss these concerns. I know the minister takes this area of policy very seriously, and he truly desires to see that people who are on income assistance do find themselves in a better position through finding employment. I certainly hope that we do see some considerable improvement in that area.

As I've said, these are not at all easy issues to deal with, and I know that the minister has consulted very widely over the last number of months in trying to come to terms with what might work and what might not work in respect of income assistance. I know that in the estimates debate, the question was asked of the minister as to who he had consulted with, and I think he listed somewhere in the neighbourhood of just under 50 different organizations that had been spoken to in respect of the needs of the Ministry of Human Resources and the challenges it faces.

I sincerely want to see improvement for people that currently find themselves on income assistance. I'm going to be monitoring very closely what happens over the next number of months, and I certainly will be speaking to the minister on a number of occasions. I will be looking to other jurisdictions for successful models, and if I can find something that perhaps the ministry hasn't considered, I will certainly bring it to their attention.

As I've said, I think it's a critically important area of public policy and a very difficult one, and I certainly wish the minister the best of luck in pursuing these policies. I commit to him that I will certainly continue to work with him in trying to identify opportunities and bring to his attention perhaps unintended consequences that may arise in the next number of weeks and months.

Having said that, those are my concerns. They are concerns I hold very strongly, but at the end of the day, certainly the overall intent of the legislation is strong. I think focusing on getting people back to work and finding employment opportunities that are beneficial to them and their families is really the only way we can go in this area of government policy. The trick is: how do we get there effectively?

Deputy Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside speaking to Bill 26, second reading.

Before I start I want to make it very, very clear that I have had many meetings with the minister. This has been a very open process. I can say unequivocally that his door has been open, and he has been very, very forthright in everything he's been doing. He's talked very, very clearly to me about what he's trying to do.

I recognize fully that he has 251,000 people on employment assistance, and that's a lot of people. We have financial challenges that are almost unbelievable.

I also recognize that the minister has $300 million that he will be spending on job placement and job training programs. We have talked at length about those training programs, over and over again — his ideas and my ideas.

I am the sort of person that tends to, when I'm presented with a situation, try to go at things in a very proactive way as opposed to a reactive way. I have been involved in many social issues on the streets and right on the ground in my community, and I have done a lot of work with a lot of people. It certainly was not a picnic for the last ten years. I can tell you that. I have spent hours with single moms and going to meetings. What we had certainly was not workable. That's just in my opinion. All I can say is that I was just an on-the-ground worker. That was volunteer working; that wasn't paid work. Let's be very clear that I did this because I have a passion for it.

Again, I'm looking at this and saying: what can we do to make things work — again I have to say — given what the minister has presented here in his bill and with the challenges he has? I'm very, very cognizant of that. However, in saying that, I have to make it very clear that it is very important for me and it is very important for my constituents that I register my concerns about what this bill means and maybe — and I just say maybe — some of the unintended consequences that could happen.

You know, I represent a community in the South Island that is home to many, many of the people who will be affected by the changes that are going to be made in this bill. They're concerned, and their concerns are legitimate. It immediately affects their means to live. One of the concerns that is a worry to my constituents is the lack of any sort of independent appeal provision for whatever employment plan they're given. The employment plan is a very good thing. I think there's nothing better than having people sit down and say: "We can get you back to work. Let's talk about a plan." This is a very proactive thing. This is something that shouldn't be constantly batted. It's good for two people to sit across from each other and say: "You know, look, we can help you. Let's work out a plan."

A concern that I and my constituents have is that if that plan doesn't work for that constituent, then the appeal provision won't be there simply because they wouldn't agree with what their plan was. Their only option is to accept an employment plan if they don't agree with it. If they don't agree with it, then they could have some problems. I believe in my heart that when we sit down with these employment plans, their skill levels will be looked at and they will find suitable things to help them complete those employment plans. But it is at this stage, this employment plan stage, that I and my constituents have deep concerns.

The concerns are for those people that could possibly fall between the cracks. I say that those are the people who have barriers to getting back to work. These aren't the barriers you and I or probably the general public think about. That is, you can sometimes visibly see people that have barriers to get back to work. I'm going to talk mainly about older women, women who have been in the workforce in some job that has no pension plan — probably a job that didn't even allow them to pay into CPP. Or maybe they did get a little bit of CPP, and then when they hit 65, they get a very small old age pension.

These women are at a stage where they weren't very well educated, but they were the backbone of our society. They raised their families, they worked hard, and they built our communities. I look at them as heroes. They're not employable. By the time they're 55, they're just not employable. They don't have the skills that are required today. So I worry about those people.

Again, I say that in my heart, and with what the minister has told me, there will be a one-on-one. These people will be worked with, and there will be an employment plan put in place for them. But I have concerns about that. I worry that if we can't find an employment plan for these people, it'll make them feel even worse than they already do. I have to make those comments, because it's these older vulnerable women that I'm very concerned about.

However, I must say that listening to the minister's comments yesterday about how the programs are going to work, it has given me some confidence. The minister made a speech yesterday morning on his plan. Again, I've spoken to him a lot, and I have to take that confidence. I'm going to reiterate that those plans have to be well thought out between two parties — that's my constituents and the ministry staff. I can say that I'm going to be keeping a very, very close eye on that process. It's that process that is going to make this program work.

I have other concerns, and this is really where vulnerable children come in. In the bill we talk about verification of information. My concerns on that portion are to do with the vulnerable children. Vulnerable children could be the unwitting victims of parents' pure stupidity for not giving correct information. That happens, and I wish it didn't, but it does. They not only give incorrect information but probably do it because they mean to do it. That causes the whole family to lose their benefits. The stupidity of the parents causes the child the problem. That bothers me.

The other part that bothers me is that the bill has contradictions in it. A contradiction is where a family who meets its employment-regulated obligations does get protection. So I want to put that out there. There's that part of it that I'm concerned about. Again, this is specifically to do with children that are in a family.

I recognize that most of the power in this legislation is going to be done through regulation. It's important to my constituents that these regulations are fair and reasonable and do not cause undue hardship. I've gone through all the regs — well, not all of them, but as many as I can — and some of the regulations that were there from before. There are many that were there from before which I feel weren't very well laid out. Again, I'm going to say that I really feel that it's through the

Some regulation changes have already occurred. That already has had a negative impact on some of my single young moms. I'm working with these moms, particularly single young moms with kids, who will see their cheques reduced this month. Again, it's the children that suffer because of this. I have great concern.

I'll say it over and over again. I'm cognizant of what we have to do with finances. I realize that. I'm trying to get my head around how we're going to work with these young moms to get them moving in the right direction.

What I would like to have seen is maybe a phasing-in of young moms that are already in the transition to work. These are moms who have already done quite well, and they're already there and moving along. We would have been able to protect them for at least a year, so we could have readjusted their…. They have financial plans, and we're having an impact on them. I'm sure you can see where I'm going here. I'm really going into day care subsidy rules.

For some of the moms I'm working with right now, it's a very positive thing. We've got them into our office, and we're working out plans for them to go back to school. We've got some terrific success stories. We've laid out their finances, and certainly they are ahead of the game. The minister said that, and I've done the math. I do accounting, and I've done the math. I've sat there, and they are ahead. There's no question that they are. But it's the moms that are already in the workforce that worry me. Their portion has gone up. It's made it a little bit harder for them.

Again, I have to say that the moms I've worked with, where we're laying out plans right now, are ahead. That is better. When the moms I'm working with now move forward, there are things they're going to find difficult, although they're ahead. There are things that happen when you go to work. You have to buy a few new clothes. You buy a bus pass. You have a cup of coffee with your workmates. All these incidentals cost money. So we're balancing.

Now, with that, I have to say that where we've really had our constituents get excited is when we've talked about their future, when we've said: "Okay, we're going to go in now, and you've got this amount of money, and you're a little bit ahead. You're not a lot ahead, but you're a little bit ahead. But you can progress. You can get an increase. You can do well. You can take courses, and you can get better, and you can move along further." That really, really excites them, but immediately it's a worry.

I have to say that the reason I really understand a lot of what I'm talking about is because I lived in subsidized housing for six years. When I lived there I had three young children, and we struggled. My husband and I really struggled. And I had a husband, which really helped. I don't mean that that's so terrific for the single moms who don't. I'm just saying that it helps with the workload. Gosh, I hope he isn't listening today.

We worked, and we got ahead. We lived on very little, but we worked and worked, and we did get ahead. There's no better way to live your life than to feel good about yourself. I agree 100 percent with the minister's philosophy on that. There's nothing better in the world than going from subsidized housing, where I lived — young children, working hard and then getting ahead. There's no better feeling in the world. I really believe that the moms I'm working with get that when I talk to them.

I do genuinely believe that the minister's strategic shifts are good ones. I know what he's trying to do. I just feel it's very important for me to point out some of the things in the legislation that are going to cause some hardship at the beginning for some of my constituents. I've made it very, very clear that I'm going to watch this legislation very carefully as it's implemented. If I see unintended consequences, I will certainly be raising those concerns. I don't believe that is the intent, but, again, it's important for my constituents to know that I will be watching for them. Many of the consequences are going to basically depend on the regulations and their application. That is very important.

I recognize that the goal is to get people back to work, not to create unnecessary hardship. I know that the minister is not intending to create a burden for people. The intention is to encourage people back to work.

When I read the legislation…. Certainly under the new definitions — as I read it, anyway — the most vulnerable, who qualify for continuous assistance, are well protected. I have no problem with this at all. Again, I have to stress that it really is my duty and my job to bring forward the concerns of my constituents. As the minister knows too, I have concerns, and it is also my duty and my job to make sure that the shifts that we are making really do work for the people that we have set this up for.

As I say, in closing, I just feel that I know the intention is good. I know we're going down the right path for getting people back to work. I know how that feels, and the people I'm working with know how it feels. It's just that there are sections that I shall be watching. We'll continue when it comes to debate at committee stage.

J. MacPhail: I rise to oppose, with all of my heart and soul, this legislation, Bill 26.

It is interesting to note that the member for Okanagan-Vernon, who made some excellent comments, and the member for Victoria-Hillside, who also made some excellent comments, had serious, serious questions — both of them, who are merely the two previous speakers — about this legislation. I commend them for putting those on the record. They did it in the way that any government MLA has to do in this government. They have to do it couched in the softest of

terms, in the nicest of ways, praising the minister while asking him some very, very tough questions about how this bill is really going to affect their constituents.

It would be nice if the member for Okanagan-Vernon and the member for Victoria-Hillside truly represented their constituents and put an end to this legislation and voted against it. Of course, the questions that the members have asked cannot be answered to the satisfaction of their constituents. We know that.

The same questions that these members ask have been asked by my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in estimates. She'll be doing quite a detailed analysis of that very shortly to show that the minister has no answers, or if those answers are there, they're to the detriment of the concerns raised by both those members. Nevertheless, I praise those members for Okanagan-Vernon and Victoria-Hillside for raising these very important questions.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard said to me yesterday, Mr. Speaker: "If you'd sit down, I'd speak." That's what he said to me. Well, I can hardly wait to hear him speak, because at the very moment he was saying that, one of his constituents was calling in to my office. Let me tell you, I don't even know, as I describe this, whether this will have a reaction of revulsion from these government members, saying, "This is exactly the kind of person we're trying to get off welfare," or whether it will break their hearts.

An 18-year-old young person, who has been living on the streets due to a terrible home situation, can't get any help from the Ministry of Children and Family Development because he's 18. They changed that rule. He's on the streets, and he can't get any income assistance because he hasn't been out of his parents' home for two years. Boy, talk about falling through the cracks.

The first call he made was to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, because that's who his MLA is. That's where he's living on the streets. That office told this young person to go to the job board at the EI office and also gave him the location of a food bank. Now, there's a compassionate government, isn't there? There's a compassionate office — the member for Vancouver-Burrard's. That's why this legislation can't answer one of the concerns raised by the government MLAs. That's the intent: "Go get a job, even if you're an abused young person that had to leave your parents' home, even though you're not eligible for income assistance. Go to the food bank." We heard yesterday about how well the food banks are doing trying to cope with the deep and draconian cuts of this government.

I said earlier today that there are shocking consequences of this legislation that have never been discussed. Stand up, government MLAs, and tell my colleague and me…. When they went into their constituencies and told forest workers that their homes are threatened because of these welfare changes…. That's exactly what this legislation does. If you have to collect welfare for six months — is it? — in a period of 12 months and you own a home, oops, there's a lien going on that home. Which MLA discussed that with the forest workers in their constituency?

Here's a forest worker that was described in the Times Colonist last month. I'm just quoting from the article in the Times Colonist dated March 23, 2002:

There's a government that cares about forest workers. Dismantle the training programs for Forest Renewal B.C. that this forest worker said was good for the forest industry, then say: "You gotta go on welfare, but if you go on welfare, your house is at risk. We're going to put a lien on your house." Well, I bet you Mr. McGonigle feels good. I bet you the 35,000 IWA workers that are at risk of layoff feel really good about these welfare changes.

We are being inundated with telephone calls and e-mails and letters like we have never been before in the opposition. It is truly unbelievable. It brings my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to the verge of tears at every single letter and e-mail we read. They're not make-believe situations. They are real situations of people saying: "I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't know where I'm going to turn." It's very interesting. I haven't heard one Liberal MLA stand up and talk about the effect this is going to have on refugees — not one. Refugees will be cut off, never eligible for income assistance. I guess they'll go to their churches and their food banks. Will they? Is that what they'll do?

I have to tell you that this legislation is so devastating to so many British Columbians that I am going to move the following amendment. I table it, Mr. Speaker. I'll read the amendment. I move:

Deputy Speaker: Member, you can speak for the remaining part of your 30 minutes to this amendment. No?

J. Kwan: I rise to speak in support of my colleague's amendment. The amendment is an important one, and I would hope that the members and the government members in this House would rise to speak in support of it as well.

The issue, of course, for the members who have raised their concerns around Bill 26…. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, the member for Vancouver-Langara, the member for Victoria-Hillside, the member for Okanagan-Vernon — they've all risen in this House and expressed concerns with respect to Bill 26. From what I gather, the underlying theme, if you will, around their concerns centres around the principle that it puts at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance. Bill 26 puts at risk individuals and families in British Columbia who have no other means of gaining support.

If they truly have these concerns, then I would expect that they would rise in this House and support this amendment, speak in support of it and vote in support of it. The thrust of what they said centres around the principle that government has a responsibility as a social safety net to prevent people from being at risk and putting their lives at risk.

In the world of politics, in the work that we do, the value of our words are worth only as much as our actions. That's how we're measured by the public and by our constituents. That's how we're evaluated in our performance. Let's put the words of some of these members who have spoken to the test and see whether or not they truly believe in the principle that government does have a responsibility of ensuring that British Columbians who have no other means to support themselves or gain assistance are not put at risk.

The reason why my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has put forward this amendment is because Bill 26, the way we read it, and the policies that government wants to push through this House with their large majority do indeed put individuals at risk.

I come from a riding that has probably the highest number of income assistance recipients. We're also known as the riding that has the poorest of the poor in all of Canada. We have an area in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant known as the downtown east side. In that area, we have a postal code that starts with V6A. The people who engage in placing advertisements in the community with their junk mail and all of that kind of stuff don't even bother sending that junk mail to the individuals in the downtown east side community or to those who have the V6A postal code. Why? Because the people who live in that catchment area are too poor. The stats tell them so. So they don't even bother wasting their money to advertise in that area.

I actually had done some research with regards to the areas — in the lower mainland, particularly — that have the highest density of income assistance cases. My area, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, shows up as the area that has the highest density of income assistance cases. That was done effective January 2002, so it's current. Then, in this map, it also shows the next-highest-in-density area with income assistance cases. You know what area it shows? Vancouver-Burrard.

Not only that, I also have a map not just for regular income assistance, which shows the people who are disability level 1 income assistance cases. Once again, my riding shows up as the area that has the highest density of disability level 1 income assistance cases. This map — it was obtained from the economic analysis branch of the B.C. Ministry of Human Resources, effective January 2002 — shows that Vancouver-Burrard is the next riding that has the highest density of disability level 1 income assistance cases.

When you look at the third map, which shows the density of disability level 2 income assistance cases in this region, once again my riding shows as the area with the highest density of disability 2 income assistance cases, effective January 2002. The next area…. Once again, the trend is consistent. It shows Vancouver-Burrard as the area that has the second-highest density of disability level 2 income assistance cases.

Why I raise these issues and questions is, of course, that I'm wondering to myself why, so far to date, we have not heard from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. We haven't. I wonder where he is at. Why isn't he in this House advocating on behalf of his constituents? He's silent. His constituents are going to be greatly impacted by this piece of legislation that deviates from the principle that government has a responsibility of ensuring that those who are in the greatest need, those who are most vulnerable and most marginalized in our community, have support and assistance made available to them. This bill puts that principle at risk.

The amendment calls on the government to ensure that no British Columbian is left out, cast aside, deemed to be unimportant and their lives not valued as individuals. We as a society, we as a community and the government have the responsibility to ensure that their lives are not put at risk.

I have to wonder: where are the voices of the elected MLAs who are supposed to be the advocates in their communities who would raise these issues? Certainly, the member for Vancouver-Burrard is not one of them. I have not heard him speak to date on this important matter, advocating for his constituents.

Yesterday when I engaged in the debate, I talked about some of the issues that impact British Columbians with respect to this bill. There was an article I've come across that I'd like to bring to the attention of the members in this House. The article is called Behind the Numbers: Upstairs, Downstairs and In Between — The Assets and Debts of British Columbians. The article was written on March 22, 2002. The reason I want to bring this article to the attention of the members is that I want to highlight for members in this House and give an overview of what it means to be poor in British Columbia. Maybe it will shed some light for some of the Liberal members — the true Liberals — in this House on what it means to live in poverty.

The article is not a long one. It's about six pages in length. It takes 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. The survey showed huge differences

amongst the three groups in terms of their assets, their debts, their wealth and their net worth.

It states that the average holding amount of the 72 percent of the poorest family units that had bank accounts or guaranteed investment certificates was $772. That's how much people have — the poorest family units — and that is those who have bank accounts. I have to say many people in my own riding don't have bank accounts, because they don't have access to banking services.

In an effort to address that, the previous government brought about the Four Corners Community Savings, which was a banking institution that didn't charge fees for low-income people. That's all changed since the election, because as soon as the Liberal government came in, they began to charge a fee for low-income people. Many of them find it difficult to keep the bank account because of the fee that is being levied.

I know that for some members in this House, $1, $2, $3 or $4 may not mean a lot to them. It's just everyday loose change — a cup of coffee. But for people who are desperate, who have very little disposable income, who are on income assistance, a quarter makes a difference for them. Many of them don't even have a telephone, which I know I even take for granted now. The constituents in my riding don't even have access to a telephone, and that's part of what it means to be poor.

This article highlights that overall, the poorest 20 percent of family units had debts that were larger than their assets. The average assets worked out to be $10,806. The average debts were $21,052. The average wealth was minus $2,759. That's what the study found. The study also found that 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.

Now we have a piece of legislation before us where this Liberal government is going to make people who are on income assistance put a lien on their mortgage. The studies show that for Canada as a whole, only 3 percent of the poorest 20 percent of family units were homeowners. That's 3 percent. I don't know how much of that is within British Columbia — probably a smaller number than that. They will now be forced to put a lien against their home by this Liberal government, putting at risk individuals, family members, children, their ability to have access to a safe, secure home — putting them all at risk, putting them at risk for homelessness.

The middle 20 percent of family units invested heavily in housing but also managed to build up a few financial assets, according to the study. The average assets were $180,152, and the average debts were $103,378, with an average wealth of $95,871. Three-quarters of this group own their own homes and also are faced with sizable mortgages. Some of these people, I have no doubt, are the individuals who are going to be faced with a very difficult future because of the resource sector downturn.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had mentioned that the millworkers, the forestry workers, have had to go on EI because they've lost their job because of the softwood lumber dispute. As their EI runs out, they have few options other than welfare. Many, I'm sure, will try and get work elsewhere. I have no doubt about that. Some may be successful, and some may not be successful.

This is the situation that I know one worker is faced with. It was reported in the Vancouver Province on March 24, 2002. It was headlined "Only Way Out Is If I Die":

Sidhu's predicament is one that faces thousands of B.C. families in hundreds of communities. When they have run up the debts — no more assets, no more disposable income, no more income, unable to gain employment — they may well have to turn to the income assistance program. Now the minister will tell them: "You have to put a lien on your house." That's the message from this government. Even the middle-income people will be faced with tremendous hardships.

The study goes on to say that the richest 20 percent of family units were better off financially in every respect than the other groups. The differences were dramatic. The group's aggregate assets were a gigantic $326 billion, about 16 times larger than aggregate debts of under $21 billion.

Not surprisingly, the difference in the assets and debts of British Columbians reflect vastly different degrees of financial security. People on the low end of the wealth scale are least able to withstand any kind of financial crisis — personal financial difficulties, a downturn in the economy or cuts in government programs and services. People in the middle may also have difficulty weathering a financial storm because so much of their wealth is tied up in housing. Only people at the top of the wealth scale have the luxury of true financial security because they have sizeable liquid assets in addition to housing and other fixed assets, and they have little debt.

The lack of financial security for a large portion of the B.C. population does not bode well at a time when the province is going through hard times. People in tenuous financial circumstances are unlikely to spend more on consumer goods, and that makes it harder for the economy to weather downturns and to recover. That is part of the conclusion of this study.

Hon. Speaker, the reason why I raise this study, as I mentioned earlier of course, is to highlight what it means for some people who are living in poverty, who are poor, in our province and to compare that to those who are middle income and those who have the high-

est income. And then, bringing it back to government policies, what we saw with the Liberal government, before they even had the chance to look at the books in the Legislature, was that they made a decision to give the highest tax breaks to the highest income earners in British Columbia. That's what this government has done. Who is paying for that? Income assistance recipients. Six hundred million dollars' worth of cuts.

This is from a government that during the election campaign…. Every single Liberal government MLA ought to take responsibility for this, because they campaigned with the now Premier on the promise that they would not cut welfare rates. They would not make cuts to welfare. That was a promise from the Premier, and every single government MLA who campaigned with the Liberal Party ought to stand up in this House and give an explanation about how it is that they can stand now and break the promise. It is absolutely relevant in every single way to this debate and to the amendment that's been put forward by the member for Vancouver–Hastings. For those who.…

J. Kwan: The member from Chilliwack is asking: what do I know about poverty? Well, let me tell him. Let me tell him what I do know about poverty. I've experienced poverty. I grew up in poverty. I cited that yesterday in this House.

I'll tell him something. If he has not taken the opportunity — and I invite every member in this House to do this — I will personally take him on a tour of my riding to speak to the people. This bill is going to cut off assistance for them and render them homeless. Speak to those individuals. The blood and the sweat they go through to try and survive every single day…. I challenge the members in this House to take me up on this challenge and come and visit my riding and talk to my constituents and tell them that they don't believe these cuts by this government, in this bill, would hurt them.

You know, this member from Chilliwack asks what the previous government did in the last ten years. Well, let me count the ways. Child care. The previous government brought in universal child care, understanding that child care is a cornerstone of providing support to families, low-income or middle-income, and understanding that it shouldn't just be the rich who should get access to safe, affordable, secure child care for their children. The government brought that in.

What did this government do — this Liberal government? One of their first acts was to cut the universal child care program. Not only that, but what the Minister of Human Resources has also done in Bill 26 is cut the subsidy for those who need child care services — on income assistance, to reduce the threshold of eligibility.

Not only that, but for single parents, if your child turns three, you're expected to go out and look for full-time work. If you don't find full-time work after two years, guess what happens to you in this piece of legislation. Your rates are reduced by 25 percent, according to the minister. If you're desperate and can't find work, guess what. If you're a single parent, you can't get day care, because the universal child care program has been cut. The threshold for eligibility has been made higher. Then, if you can't find work and if you're a single parent, after two years your rates will be reduced. It's taking money, quite frankly, away from children.

Tell me: how does that not put at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance? How is that not relevant to this amendment? It is every bit relevant.

I only wish the members would have the courage to stand up in this House and say: "You know what? We, the Liberal government now, were wrong. When we campaigned on this issue during the election, we promised that we would not cut welfare rates. We made that promise, and we want to keep that promise now. Therefore, we will not support this bill."

I predict there'll be very few members — maybe one — who have the integrity to do that. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe there are more members who have the integrity to do exactly that: to vote against a government bill when the time comes. I'll watch for that very closely, but I expect and predict that there may be only one member on the government side who will have the integrity to rise up in this House to vote against a government bill that hurts income assistance recipients, people on disability, single moms, seniors and children — who will rise up in this House and say: "You know what? I made a campaign promise that I would not cut welfare, and I'm going to keep that promise, so I will not support this government bill."

We'll wait and see whether or not there are people on the government side who have the integrity to do exactly that.

Throughout the fall of 2001 and the early months of the year 2002, British Columbians have been presented with piecemeal information about the provincial government's plans to rewrite the province's welfare program. In November 2001 the Minister of Human Resources presented the cabinet with the ministry's core services review. Then on January 17, 2002, the Ministry of Human Resources released its service summary plan for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. January 17 is now known as Black Thursday.

Then on budget day, February 19, British Columbians were promised a more detailed report on the changes to the welfare program. They were told that there would be an introduction of the bill in the spring session, this session, to repeal the BC Benefits Act and bring forward the Employment and Assistance Act. The regulations containing the details of the benefits and eligibility rules would follow in the early months of the fiscal year 2002-03.

The service summary plan released on the 17th, known as Black Thursday, shows that the bottom line is the reduction of the welfare budget by 30 percent over the next three fiscal years. Of course, the minister in his message box, which we've heard him cite over and over again, says that the legislation will shift from what the minister calls a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment. The implication is that the welfare program in B.C. has allowed people to lounge around on income assistance and that this government will give these people the necessary push to go and find a job. The reality is quite the contrary. The number of individuals on welfare had been steadily declining since the B.C. Benefits program was introduced in December of 1995. The welfare caseload had declined 32.6 percent between December 1995 and August 2001…

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm assuming you're the designated speaker on this amendment.

J. Kwan: …when there were 120,700 fewer people on B.C. benefits. I would argue that the B.C. Benefits program contained strict rules of eligibility then. In some cases I would argue that it penalized people as well. That's what brought me into this Legislature. I ran in 1996, and one of the things that I wanted to work on was to make changes to the welfare system so that those who were in greatest need would not be denied assistance and that people would have better opportunities to break out of the cycle of poverty but in a way that is humane, in a way that would not render them desperate, as this bill I know and predict will do.

Given that we already had a lean and, I would say, mean welfare program in this province, how will the government accomplish its goal of achieving a 30 percent cut in the welfare budget? And what will the impacts be? Looking at the announcements to date, there appears to me to be three ways: to prevent people from getting on welfare in the first place…. Before people will be able to apply for welfare, they will have to participate in an employment orientation and a three-week self-directed job search. I know, because I just spoke with my constituency assistant this morning.

Since the bill was introduced, my office has been receiving somewhere between 20 to 30 phone calls a day from recipients who are frantic about what will happen to them. They're absolutely beside themselves, sick with worry in terms of what will happen to them. In my own riding some of the welfare offices are bracing themselves for Monday, because some people who are coming to the office on Monday are going to be in desperate need of assistance. They will anticipate that when they show up at their welfare office, they will be able to receive some financial assistance. Instead, they won't. They'll be turned away, and they'll be told to go and engage in this three-week self-directed job search. They will have to wait three more weeks before they even qualify for financial assistance.

In my experience, both in my capacity as an advocate before I got into politics and since I've been elected, and with the people I have spoken to, I have yet to come across a person who sits up day and night trying to think of ways they can rip off the system. The people I've met with are individuals who don't want to be on the system, but they have no other way of supporting themselves and are forced to be on the system.

Many of them are not proud of it. Many of them are very embarrassed about it, but that's the only way in which they can get support. Of course, they continually look for work, and oftentimes they're rejected time and time again. What does the minister think when he says he's going to put forward this piece of legislation that would require a person to go on a three-week, self-directed job search? Does he think people don't do that already?

The fact of the matter is that people do that already. The minute they don't have work, they're looking for work, and they do it on an ongoing basis. When they are finally out of all resources, then they go to the welfare office. It is only at that moment they go, because they have no other means whatsoever.

Now, with this proposed legislation, people will show up at the office, and the workers will tell them: "I'm sorry. We can't provide you with any support. What you have to do is go on a three-week, self-directed job search, and after that you can come back. Then we can process you to determine whether or not you're eligible." By bringing forward such a policy, I would submit that the government is putting at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance. That's exactly what the government is doing.

If they fail to understand that, all they have to do is go out and talk to the people at the welfare offices, talk to the FAWs who are worried sick that come Monday, when people show up at the office who are at the end of their rope, at the end of their wits and looking for help, they won't be able to get any. They'll be told to go away for another three weeks before they can come back to be assessed.

Applicants aged 19 and over will have to be independent for two years after leaving their parents' homes to be eligible for assistance. This is of great concern to many people, for young people who need assistance now, not two years later. If they can be independent on their own, they wouldn't show up at the welfare office. It's just logical. If people have means, they wouldn't show up there. It is only when they don't, when they have no other option, that they end up being there. Now young people are going to be put at risk because of this change.

There will be no assistance at all, not even hardship assistance — simple things like a referral to a shelter or food vouchers — for certain categories of individuals such as the refugee claimants or people deemed to have voluntarily quit a job without cause. Sometimes

to prove that you've quit a job with cause is very difficult. For those who may be faced with harassment in the workplace, those who may be faced with a dangerous work environment, it's very difficult to prove that.

They may not be able to go to the employment standards branch to make that claim. When they can't, what are their options? Welfare is not an option, because there will be no assistance for them, even the basic minimal assistance of a shelter and food voucher. That's what this piece of legislation is bringing in, and by virtue of that, I would submit that it puts at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance.

Individuals convicted of welfare fraud will face a lifetime ban from receiving assistance. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara put this most eloquently in the House when he suggested that those who've been convicted of murder would have the basic means provided for them: shelter and food and clothing. For welfare fraud, if you're convicted, you'll be cut off.

For those who are cut off — and I would argue that sometimes people inadvertently defraud the system…. They don't do this necessarily with intent. Sometimes a person might have received, let's say, a $50 Christmas gift for a period in which they used it to pay the hydro bill. The individual might not have reported that to the welfare office. That constitutes fraud, and if they're caught doing that, what will happen to them? Will they be cut off? Will they be convicted of fraud and therefore unable to access government support?

I know of people in my own riding who are what we term "dumpster divers." They are people who have been unable to find work, and they are innovative, though. They're innovative. What they do is go out and rummage through the garbage cans — yes. They look for pop bottles and recycle those. What they do then, after they've collected bags of the pop bottles, is bring them to a neighbourhood recycling depot in my riding called United We Can.

They cash in their little cans. Now, if the people don't report those earnings — it's not a lot of earnings, but people do that sometimes all day long…. They work hard, let me tell you. They're up and about, walking around in the rain at 6 o'clock in the morning, working late at night to just make that little extra cash to help them through the month. If they don't report that, that constitutes, under the changes brought forward by this minister, by this Liberal government, fraud. What will happen to them?

You know, there's a success story behind United We Can. I'm so proud of that organization. Ken Lyotier started it. I remember I was on city council when that happened. He was looking for a site to initiate this non-profit organization to give job opportunities to the people who were very marginalized in our community to work at their own pace, make a little bit of money to support themselves and also to contribute back to the community by making the community more green on the recycling of pop cans.

It took him many years to get the city's approval to get a site. They got it set up, and it took a long time to get the depot up and running. You know what? They've now hired 20 people from the community who were formerly on income assistance. People who are what was known as dumpster divers, over time, got a job there. They've now hired 20 people in the community doing that work. I call it low-threshold employment. It's rewarding for the people who participate in it. It's rewarding for the community, and it works. It's gotten people off income assistance in a way that doesn't threaten their livelihoods, that doesn't put them at risk but rather in a supportive way.

Now, some may say: "Well, 20 people is not a lot of people, you know." But you know what? It made a difference in the lives of 20 people. I know one fellow who's working there now. Some years ago, when I first spoke with him, he told me he was so desperate. He had no money. He was so ashamed. He slept in the bushes, and he ate food from the garbage. He picked berries off the bushes in the summertime. Ken found him one day. Ken invited him to come and work with him at United We Can. Over time this person obtained a full-time job there. His life completely turned around because there was an opportunity.

What will this piece of legislation do? It makes the assumption that people who are on income assistance are lazy people and that they don't want to find work. So the government's going to threaten them even more if, in the government's definition, they don't go out and look for work.

If you're a single parent, by the time your child turns three, you'd better be looking for full-time work. If after two years of that you can't find full-time work, we're going to reduce your rates. If you're single, you're going to be cut off. It's as simple as that.

This is how the government is looking at how they can save money on welfare: making it harder for people to get on the system in the first place. It doesn't support people in any way. It's just saying no. That's all.

The provincial welfare is Canada's social safety net of last resort. The proposed changes will exclude thousands of people from the program, notwithstanding abject poverty. For the individuals and families directly affected, this may mean, yes, homelessness, malnutrition, health problems and even death.

Under the current system it takes several days, sometimes weeks, to get through the application, orientation and verification of eligibility. The addition of three weeks before someone can apply for assistance will cause extreme hardship. The two-year ineligibility period for youth will force many youth to live underground, perhaps push young women into prostitution, increase criminalization and health problems.

There was a case that involved a women called Kimberly Rogers. The death of Kimberly Rogers was on August 9, 2001, and her death should not be forgotten. Ms. Rogers was cut off income assistance in Ontario following a conviction for welfare fraud for not

disclosing receipt of student loans. Ms. Rogers started a court case challenging the Ontario welfare regulation as being contrary to sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was outside the legal power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of Ontario.

On May 25, 2001, Madam Justice Epstein of the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, granted Ms. Rogers interim relief, reinstating her Ontario Works benefits pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge. Judge Epstein stated in her decision:

Even when Ms. Rogers's benefits were reinstated, the money was absurdly tight. As a single person she was entitled to receive $520 a month from Ontario Works. However, because of her debts to the ministry, it was clawed down to $468 a month. Her rent, when paid in full, ate up $450 of what was left. From May until her death on August 9, 2001, Ms. Rogers would have had to survive on $18 a month while being confined to her apartment as a result of fraud conviction.

Ms. Rogers's lawyer, Sean Dewart, noted that his client would have been better off if she had committed a violent crime and had been sent to prison. He was quoted in the Globe and Mail: "If sentenced to jail, she would have had the necessities of life. She would have had access to medications. If something had happened to her, it wouldn't have been two days before her body was found."

When asked about how such a tragedy could happen, Harold Duff, the director of the Sudbury office of Ontario Works, said that the changes that the Harris government made to the welfare system in 1997 created an atmosphere in which more people simply slipped through the cracks. "The focus is now on employment. We're not really into the social service side anymore."

This is exactly what this Liberal government and the minister are doing. They're getting out of the business of providing a social safety net, and they're moving into the direction of employment. Not that there's anything wrong with employment. I'm not arguing that people should not work and should all be on welfare — not at all. What I'm saying is that for those people who cannot find work, they should receive the support of government, and they should not be forced off income assistance. That's what the two-year time limit does. If you're a single person, after two years you're cut off income assistance.

If you get caught defrauding the system…. What happens if there's such a case here in British Columbia — another person who's got a student loan, hasn't reported that and is then convicted of defrauding the system and cut off? The minister now is instituting a process whereby every single thing that you owe to the ministry is being deducted, even damage deposits. I'll go into that a little later. When those moneys are cut off of your cheque and after you've paid rent, you have no more money for food. You may be pregnant with a child, and your life is at risk.

You know what? In the case of Kimberly Rogers, her life was at risk, and she died. She paid the highest price there is to pay — her life and the life of her child — because of the government's policy, their emphasis on employment and not social services. That's exactly what happened.

You would think that this Liberal government would learn from that experience, from Ontario. I know they look to Ontario. They worship Mike Harris and Ralph Klein. I know that's where the Premier is at. They wish they could be just like them in every aspect; hence we see Bills 26 and 27 coming in, in terms of the welfare changes. But even Mike Harris learned from the Walkerton tragedy, and he stepped down. He took responsibility as the Premier who had contributed to the deaths in Ontario as a result of the Walkerton tragedy because of the government's policy.

You'd think this government would learn from that. You'd think the Premier would learn from that. You'd think the Minister of Human Resources would learn from that. You'd think the Liberal MLAs sitting in this House who claim that they care about people, who questioned the minister on some of these changes, would learn from that. We'll wait and see whether or not they have. I want to see how they're going to vote and whether or not what they say is worth the air time in this House, see whether or not what they say matches their actions. Or is it just doubletalk, so much of which is what this government is engaged in? Just doubletalk, plain and simple.

Before I do that, I want to put in another quote. It's a statement made by Amanda Chodura of the Elizabeth Fry Society regarding the Ontario case — Ms. Kimberly Rogers's case. "This tragic case is a symptom of a government putting policies into practice without doing any research. What transpired was that she and her child were placed in a dangerous situation. This should never have happened. Two lives are over."

Damage deposits. One of the changes being proposed by this government on damage deposits is that when a recipient receives a damage deposit, which is usually half of your full month's rent, $20 will now be deducted from your welfare cheque to pay back the damage deposit. After two damage deposits, the welfare office won't even lend you the money to pay for the damage deposit. You simply won't get one. As you know, hon. Speaker, if you can't get a damage deposit,

What would that mean? Where will people go if they can't get a place to live because they don't have a damage deposit because the ministry's offices have refused to pay for it because of this government's policy under Bill 26? What happens to them? Well, I suppose, under the viaduct — maybe that's an option. Cardboard houses in back lanes — maybe that's the option. People will have no other option. I challenge the minister to tell this House what those options would be. If you can't pay a damage deposit, you have nowhere to go, and maybe the minister who's responsible for housing will have to get really busy and build lots of shelters.

Welfare recipients, under Bill 26, will be required to sign employment assistance agreements outlining the actions they'll take to obtain employment. Non-compliance with the terms of the employment plan will result in reductions to the income assistance rate. Welfare recipients will be assessed as to whether they're expected to work or not, and persons in the expected-to-work category, as mentioned, are only eligible for income assistance for a maximum of 24 months out of every five-year period. Given the context in which these changes are being made — that is, a bottom-line goal of reducing the budget of the ministry by 30 percent — British Columbians are concerned that the employment plan will not be used as a tool to genuinely provide people with the support, counselling, life skills development and training they need to maximize their potential, but rather it will be wielded as a tool to reduce and terminate people's benefits.

Quite frankly, requiring single parents to find employment once their child turns three, or else they face a reduction in their welfare rate, is absolutely unconscionable. The reductions of welfare rates will impact people very significantly, and I would argue that it would put people's lives at risk — those who are most vulnerable, who are the poorest, who are most marginalized.

Aside from the support rate that would be reduced for some income assistance recipients, the shelter rates will also be reduced for families with two or more children, with payments based on the lower unit rates. The impact of the proposed changes to welfare combined with the elimination of poverty law advocacy from the Attorney General in the area of legal aid by 38.8 percent will, I predict, erode the social and economic stability in the province. Even just strictly from a purely market-economy-ideology point of view, this cannot be good for British Columbia, cannot be good for British Columbia's economy.

I have to wonder sometimes: where did the government get these ideas from? There isn't a Canadian jurisdiction that has brought in a time limit on income assistance. Not one Canadian jurisdiction has brought this in. The only place to look, of course, is in the United States, where they have brought in a version of the time limits.

In the policy analysis done by 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:

I didn't make this up. This is a policy analysis done by Dr. Marge Reitsma-Street.

Yesterday when we engaged in this debate and the member for Vancouver-Hastings and myself rose up and raised concerns and highlighted some of the things that could happen to people on income assistance if this bill goes through, and the hurt and the hardships that this government will cause British Columbians who are in greatest need and are most marginalized, the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member representing Williams Lake, amongst others, suggested that we were fearmongering. Studies that have tracked welfare changes say otherwise.

I wonder if the minister has taken a look at these studies and thought perhaps to himself, having been a social worker before he entered into the life of politics: "My goodness, what this Liberal government is doing will hurt British Columbians and will put at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance." Even if it did get people off to work, it did not help them move away from poverty.

What should government do? Would you think that the minister will then turn around and say, "You know, what we really want to do here is bring forward policies that do not put people's lives at risk, but more than that, bring forward policies that would assist people to break the poverty cycle" — not make it harder for them to try and survive on a day-to-day basis, but a system with a long-term view of how perhaps the parents, the children, the grandchildren, the future generations would have an opportunity to not be dependent on the state and to be self-sufficient, to live full lives. You would think that would be the direction the government wants to go, but that is not the case. That is not what we see before us.

The analysis that was done by Prof. Marge Reitsma-Street gave additional information around the pro-

It is an excellent analysis of what the government is doing under Bill 26. It highlights who the beneficiaries are and who will suffer. It highlights the people who will be at risk with this government.

When we look at some of the other areas in terms of people's lives who will be put at risk, one of the other changes from the minister, through this bill, is the elimination of the homemaker services program. The homemaker services program currently is a means-tested program that provides for short-term emergency homemaker services for people. That program has now been eliminated. This program is eliminated at a time when the government is trying to, as they say, revamp the health care system.

You would think part of the logic of that is to keep people away from hospitals, especially in light of the fact that this government is going to be closing hospitals, delisting services, laying off nurses, putting even more stress on the health care system. Especially in light of the fact that they are doing all those things, you would think the government would actually provide full support to homemaking services so that people don't end up in emergency wards. No, that's not what this government is doing. This minister, this Liberal government through Bill 26, is cutting homemaking services.

For those who might have sustained a temporary injury like a broken leg, broken arm or maybe both, will they be able to have some sort of homemaking support services — not forever but just so they can get through the rough period? The answer is no. Does that put people's lives at risk? The answer is yes. What will that do, ultimately, to the entire system in British Columbia in the area of health care? Increase health care costs at a time when we need to look for ways to decrease health care costs and put less crisis into the emergency wards. Quite the contrary. The approach this government has taken is that they'll go the other way around.

The other piece the ministry is cutting through this piece of legislation is what is known as crisis grants. Crisis grants are only for people who are in desperate need, are on income assistance and had an unexpected cost accrued to them. It could be that they need money for health-related items or materials. It could be that the winter months have come around, and all of a sudden there's really bad weather, the big dumps of snow we have seen on the lower mainland in the last while, in Victoria here and elsewhere. It may be that they endure most of the winter thinking they can manage with the pair of shoes they have that are full of holes. They think maybe they can just manage through this winter, but boom, unexpectedly in the month of February, there's another big dump of snow. Spring is delayed, and it seems like the warm weather is never going to come and the streets are never going to dry up. The person is desperate for — not even a pair of boots — just a pair of shoes to keep their feet dry for the most part.

Formerly, before this bill, people could go to the welfare office and get a crisis grant to do that. Now they won't be. If you have a child who may need a win-

ter coat by way of a crisis grant because, again, this unexpected cold weather is lasting much longer…. You had thought the coat your child had was going to pull through until next year. You've been saving a couple of dollars every month, trying to scrape up enough money to buy a new coat for your child. You go to the welfare office and ask for a crisis grant. Now the answer is going to be no.

Does that put people's lives at risk? I would submit that the answer is yes, it puts people's lives at risk. It puts children's lives as risk.

I asked the minister in estimates about some of the changes this government is going to be bringing forward in this legislation. What do they mean, and what are the answers from the minister? After we got out of the House last night, I went back and looked at Hansard and highlighted some of the areas of what I call don't-knows that I asked the minister and he has no answer for. He's now rushing to try and push through Bill 26 when he himself doesn't have the answer.

Let me just start with this issue. I asked the minister about the question of selecting the appeal process — the tribunal members and the process of selecting them. Would that be broad-based community representation? An independent process? Will the minister be advising members of the public how those appointments will be made? The minister's answer was: "We probably have a number of weeks before the legislation comes. We could have this discussion again after we're looking at the appeal legislation." "We could probably talk about those when we table the legislation." That's what the minister said.

I looked at the legislation to see if it answers the question. The answer is no. I looked at another area on the questions I asked of the minister during estimates — what he knew and what he didn't know. I asked him about the training. He said there would be standardized training for tribunal members because he's revamping the entire appeal process, disallowing income assistance recipients to appoint their representative on a tribunal, which was what was formerly allowed — for the recipient to do that, for the ministry to do that and where they then jointly choose a chair. That's all being taken away because the only people who can be on that tribunal process now are appointments made by the minister.

I asked the minister on the question around training: what kind of training is he envisioning? The minister's answer: "The training component of the new legislation's being developed now." He doesn't know. In the legislation, does it tell people how that training is going to be established? No.

Then I asked the minister another question. When people apply for income assistance, if they're rejected, then they go through an appeal process. If they're being appealed, usually during that period if they haven't been on the program, they get hardship assistance. Let's say if they're moving from regular income assistance into the disability category, they would be assessed on that basis or vice versa. If the ministry is alleging that you're on disability 2 and that you're no longer qualified, they're going to move you off disability.

Usually, while this period of appeal is going on, the person is provided the assistance that they're entitled to until the appeal is over. If you have a higher level of assistance, you would be able to maintain that higher level of assistance until after the appeal.

I asked the minister the question: while the appeal process is in place, if they have been rejected for, let's say, continuous assistance — that makes a huge difference in people's lives — would they still be able to collect the higher rate? Answer: "It's actually a level of discussion I haven't had with staff." The minister doesn't know. Then the minister says he'll be bringing the legislation into the House and tabling the regulations at the same time. Then he later on says that he will be tabling the regulations at the same time or shortly after.

Then I would submit, because there are so many questions that we have: why the rush? Why don't we not rush through the bill, see what the regulations are and answer these questions so the members in this House know what the answers are before they vote? They can make that determination before they decide whether or not the lives of individuals would be put at risk and get that information before the vote is taken. But the minister just now, prior to this debate, voted no. In fact, every single government bench MLA voted no on the hoist motion asking for a six-month extension. Every single member voted no.

Are they certain, then, that people's lives would not be put at risk? I'm not certain. I've highlighted a court case in Ontario where two lives were lost because their lives were put at risk because of the government's policy — the same practice and principles that this government, this MLA, this minister is adopting.

I asked the minister what the anticipated budget was for the training of the tribunal members. The answer from the minister was, "At this point, I don't have that level of detail" — another "don't know." Then I asked the minister this question. It goes central to a piece of the legislation which the government is revamping and is around the training — I would say, according to the minister's point of view, perhaps the most important and significant piece of his bill around the training component. I asked the minister about the contractors who would be paid on the rate of success as the minister defined success, meaning people who got off of welfare and got a job. This is what the government likes to call performance-based. This is critical.

I asked the minister this question: does the contractor have the right to refuse to accept a client for training? In other words, could they cream? The contractor's pay is contingent on the success rate — people who can get off welfare. What about the people who really need the training and have perhaps the most difficult time in obtaining employment? Will the contractors have the right to cream? Answer: "It'll probably be a couple of months before we have those details."

The minister has no idea what his training programs are going to look like, what those contractors are

supposed to be doing and how they are going to help people off of income assistance and help the people who are in greatest need. How indeed will those contractors help them? Even getting up to say: "No, they would not be allowed to cream. Everyone deserves equal opportunity for training, and so those contractors would not be allowed to cream…." The answer from the minister is: "It'll probably be a couple of months before we have those details."

I would submit that for the government to try and rush through these bills, they're being absolutely reckless in their attempt to put people's lives at risk. They're being reckless. It is absolutely stunning how they are able to do something like that and then stand up in the House and say they're acting in the best interests of British Columbians and say to those who are most marginalized that they are somehow protecting them, that somehow this is helping them to get ahead in life. I don't know how they can say that with a straight face. My goodness, it is unbelievable.

Here's another question, another in the list of don't-knows that I'm going to add to. I asked the minister: would the period of time that the client is waiting to get access to a program be counted toward the three weeks of seeking training or employment in which the person would be deemed ineligible to apply for income assistance, while the individual is waiting to get into the course? In other words, you're an income assistance recipient or a person who needs income assistance, and you've gone into the office. You've applied and finished your three-week, self-directed job search. You've met with an FAW. You're on some workplan to get training, but there's a wait-list at the place you're seeking training from, and you can't get on it right away. Would that period of having to wait be counted toward the person's time period they're required to wait before they can get income assistance?

The answer from the minister was: "I'm not sure I can answer that more fully than I did, in that we don't have the details back from the RFP process." Then he went on to say: "I don't think I can answer with any more definition at this time, but I'll give it further thought." The minister has no idea how his act is even going to work. How are the FAWs supposed to implement this act? If the minister himself has no idea, how are the FAWs supposed to follow the policies of this government? Is that putting people's lives at risk? I would submit yes.

There is another case that I mentioned earlier. I mentioned the Kimberly Rogers case. There's another case before the Supreme Court of Canada. This case is essentially about a person who's waiting to get into training and the issues around eligibility. I believe the case is called the Gosselin case. It's before the Supreme Court right now.

The point that needed clarification was that when a person was waiting to get into a training program and that person was not deemed to be in compliance with the government's requirement for going through the procedures of seeking training, the person would therefore be cut off. I asked the minister if he could confirm with me that in fact the person would not be deemed to be in non-compliance with the procedures of the government. The minister's answer was: "Well, that is the intention, but that would be something we would need to discuss when the legislation is introduced."

I looked through the legislation, and nowhere does it say that the person would not be deemed to be in non-compliance. If I'm wrong, I ask the minister to rise up in this House and say: "No, you're wrong. It says right here in the legislation that the person would not be deemed to be in non-compliance with the procedures." The fact of the matter is…. I bet you the minister himself doesn't know, adding to the long list of don't-knows around what the impacts are, what the changes are and how they'll be implemented.

I asked the minister this question. He stated that if you're in a family unit of four or five — or a family unit of any size, for that matter — if one member of that family unit violates the act in any way, the family unit will be penalized. They'll be punished. As an example, let's say you're in a two-parent family unit of four, and one of your children has dropped out of school. If that is deemed to be in violation of the criteria of eligibility for income assistance, then the rate for that family unit will be reduced.

I asked the minister how that rate of reduction would work. Is it the value of the rate for one child that would be reduced? How much, as an example, would people in that family unit be faced with? The minister's answer: "Actually, now I understand the question. It's a good question. It's one that would be set in regulations, and it's one we haven't yet decided on the number for. You do present a question that needs further thought, in my opinion."

Here we have the introduction of legislation that the government is trying to ram through with their majority, when the minister himself could not even answer these most basic questions. How are people supposed to know what the impacts are? How will the FAWs work under these conditions? They don't even know what they're supposed to be doing.

Then there was a warning issued by the ministry on the day when the legislation was tabled in this House. It was a warning to all the FAWs and ministry staff telling them they're supposed to keep their personal opinions to themselves. They're not allowed to talk about it at work. If they do, it's a violation of conduct, and they will be punished for it.

My goodness, if you don't know what the government's trying to do and if you're talking amongst your colleagues, thinking: "Gee, when this comes in, what should we do? Should the person's rate be reduced at this amount? What should we do…?" The answers are not apparent, the government doesn't know the answer, and you're talking amongst yourselves. You're offering your opinions on what should be done, because you have to make some sort of determination in

The list goes on and on with what I call don't-knows from this government. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure if they have thought out their legislation. They're in such a hurry to be punitive to people on income assistance. They're in such a hurry to say to people: "Get off the couch and get a job." They're in such a hurry to implement the right-wing ideology of the Fraser Institute, which believes that people on income assistance are actually not living in poverty. They're in such a hurry to implement this ideology that they fail to provide answers and to adequately evaluate the impacts of their legislation.

By doing that, this government is putting at risk, in my view, the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance. That is those who are most vulnerable, the most marginalized individuals, families, seniors, women, single parents and children. That's what this government is doing, and they're not hesitating — not one bit.

The media have made lots of comments around the draconian changes that government has been planning. Let me just quote some of this. Paul Willcocks writes in the Kamloops Daily News on January 18, 2002. Part of the article states:

Here's what Robert Arnold, who's with the Canadian federation of anti-poverty groups, had to say: "We no longer have a social safety net; we have a business plan. It can be summed up like this. We will give people so little money, they will have to cheat to survive. Then we'll charge them with fraud, and when they're found guilty, we'll kick them off forever. That is economic terrorism."

The Times Colonist, October 17, 2001. The headline: "Cutting Welfare Rolls Creates Problems." Part of the article reads as follows:

This puts, of course, the question to the jobs that will be out in the community, which people will be forced to take. Where are they?

Bruce Wallace, research coordinator for the Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group. That's what he had to say.

Other media comments, more recent ones. We start with this one in February of 2002. "I don't understand how the state can actually refuse to provide assistance to someone who is shown to be in need of food, clothing and shelter if they have no income, they have no support," said Prof. Graham Riches, director of the school of social work at the University of British Columbia. "Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," Riches said. "Article 11 of that convention speaks to the obligation on states who have ratified to ensure adequate food, clothing and shelter. We're talking about basic needs."

Michael Goldberg from SPARC says: "I don't think you can say to someone: 'You're not eligible for welfare.' I don't think it would be legal under our constitution. It would be a violation of the Charter in security of the person."

"Fighting those deficits by nickel-and-diming the poor while giving tax cuts to the well-off is poor politics and poor policy." Times Colonist, January 20, 2002.

Here's what Times Colonist editorialist Paul MacRae had to say on January 21, 2002:

When commentators come forward, they have opinions to share with the government, and sometimes those words are worthy of consideration. In fact, I would say that in most instances those words are worthy of consideration. When you have a situation where there's a chorus of individuals coming forward with their opinions and thoughts, then government should take a second look. That chorus comes not just from the media but from the broader public. We saw it in the big rally here in Victoria, where people were saying to this government: "Your direction hurts people. Slow down. Listen to our voices. You were elected to bring forward a balanced approach to government, and you were elected to represent all British Columbians, not just the elite, not just the privileged, not just the wealthiest."

The government had that opportunity when people gathered here in front of the Legislature and throughout British Columbia — in Nelson-Creston, in Vancouver-Burrard, in Victoria-Hillside, even in front of the homes of some MLAs. They're there because they want to bring a message to government, and they want government to just stop, pause for a moment and give their suggestions some consideration.

The government actually has the opportunity now to do that with the amendment my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has tabled — that the House declines to give second reading to Bill 26, intituled the Employment and Assistance Act, for the reason that the bill, in principle, puts at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance. The government can show that they care about every single British Columbian and that the government will pause and reflect on this bill and consult with the broader public before they move forward.

The rationale which I've highlighted and spoken to…. There were many areas where I said why the government is putting the lives of British Columbians at risk.

I just want to share this information with members of the House in the hope that they'll find it in their hearts to vote in support of this amendment and not put the lives of British Columbians at risk. This is information that's been obtained from the National Council of Welfare on a child poverty, a profile of child poverty.

Hon. Speaker, the legislation that this government is pushing forward is attacking those single mothers and children. They are the people at greatest risk. That's what this legislation will do: push single parents and their children more into poverty, push their lives into greater risk.

Single-parent-mother families have lower average family incomes than poor two-parent families. Poor two-parent families had average incomes of $21,612 in 1998 — $6,493 higher than poor single-parent mothers. As two-parent families likely have more potential earners than single-parent families, this is not surprising.

However, in families with only one earner, children in single-parent-mother families will still have much higher poverty rates than children in two-parent families that also have just one earner — 42.5 percent compared to 27.2 percent. This disparity may reflect the lower wages that women earn and the extra difficulties for single parents of finding and holding a well-paying and demanding job while juggling their responsibilities for their children's needs.

Another reason for the lower incomes of poor single-parent mothers is that they are more likely to rely solely on welfare than poor two-parent families. Poor families that rely on welfare have lower incomes than poor families dependent on earnings only or poor families that have some combination of earnings and welfare or employment insurance. More than a third — 38.1 percent — of poor single-parent mothers depended solely on welfare in 1998, compared to 14.1

percent of poor two-parent families. These single-parent mothers had extremely low average incomes of $13,395 in 1998.

Hon. Speaker, I have more to say about the poorest of the poor, but I'm noting the time. I move that we adjourn debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we will resume debate on the amendment to Bill 26.

J. Kwan: Just before the dinner break I was giving some information with regards to the child poverty profile produced by the National Council of Welfare. I was just going to get into some of the information they have on the category of the poorest of the poor. I'll read this information into the record:

If you look at some of the statistics in terms of where Canadians and British Columbians are at, you get a sense of what this government's bill is going to do, whose lives are going to be put in jeopardy and whose lives are at risk. It is clear. It is children and women by far. As the article puts it, it is the poorest of the poor.

I would like to wrap up my comments by sharing this information with members of the House. I received an e-mail from an individual from Hazelton, not from my own riding, with concerns around this bill. I'll read parts of what the individual stated in her e-mail to me. It was sent on Tuesday, April 16 at 9:41 p.m. It says:

On average, my office is receiving somewhere between 20 and 30 phone calls a day since the introduction of the bill. We've been receiving a lot of calls since January 17, Black Thursday, from people who are concerned. I myself have seen people who have come into the office and sat in my office and cried uncontrollably, and there was nothing that I could do. Calls are coming in from people, both to my office and to my colleague in Vancouver-Hastings. I just want to share a couple of samples of the nature of the calls.

I'd like the members in this House to rise up and respond to these individuals. I won't use their names, for privacy reasons. A middle-aged individual with a language barrier applied for income assistance in late March, was misinformed about his meeting with the FAW, missed the meeting, and the file was closed. Now the individual has to wait three weeks. He has no money and is about to be evicted. Another situation: an individual with barriers to employment — sight issues, also mental health issues — living in a shelter, was told to wait three weeks to conduct a job search. He explained his various conditions, but they do not make any difference. The person is feeling very vulnerable, very afraid, in the shelter.

These are real examples, real individuals, happening right now in Vancouver. These are just a couple of examples which I'm sharing with the minister. As I mentioned, we're receiving 25 to 30 phone calls a day. I expect that those phone calls will increase. The need for assistance will escalate. As these bills go through, there'll be less and less that MLAs can do to assist these individuals. The bills are clear: people will be cut off. They will have to go through the wait period. People's lives will be put at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask every single member of this House to reflect on the comments that my colleague and I have made in this House, to look to their constituents who have raised these issues with them and to listen. All government MLAs have an opportunity now, this very moment in time, to make a difference. The one thing that we all got involved in politics

The amendment before you gives each and every one of us the opportunity right now, at this moment in time, to make that difference and to say no to the passage of second reading of Bill 26, on the principle that this bill would jeopardize and put at risk the lives of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, and to reject it outright and move in a direction that the Liberals had promised during the election, which is that they would not cut welfare. The opportunity is theirs. I urge the government members to exercise that opportunity to make a difference in the lives of British Columbians in a positive way.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the motion is the amendment to Bill 26, moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it so that it is clear what we are voting on: "that the motion for second reading of Bill 26, intituled the Employment and Assistance Act, 2002, be amended by striking out the words after 'that' and inserting: 'This House declines to give second reading to Bill 26, intituled the Employment and Assistance Act, 2002, for the reason that the bill in principle puts at risk the lives of those who have no other means of support or assistance.'"

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the annual report for the job protection commissioner for the year ended December 31, 2000, fulfilling my duties as the minister responsible.

Hon. M. Coell: I have listened carefully to all of the comments from members and appreciate them. I look forward to further discussions and debate at committee stage. I just offer a few comments at this time.

I've been lucky enough in my working life to work as a psych aide, a health care worker, a social worker and a treasurer of a hospital board for children, and I've enjoyed the opportunity to be employed in this field. I've worked with people with disabilities, and I've worked with people who have three generations of income assistance in their family. I look at the act that we've tabled as a government, and I believe it will help people. I believe it has the right amount of assistance for people who will need assistance. I think the $300 million that we will spend on training programs will help people to find employment.

Hon. M. Coell: In our term of office, we are scheduled to spend $6.6 billion on income assistance. The legislation that we are putting forward is going to help people get back to work, to get to work for the first time in some cases, and will give the help and the insurance that people with disabilities need. I look forward to continued debate in committee stage on this bill and its companion legislation, Bill 27.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, order, please. A little order, please.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, so we can hear the reading of the division list. Order, please. Order.

Hon. M. Coell: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Employment and Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, be read a second time. This bill is companion legislation to the Employment and Assistance Act. It replaces the Disability Benefits Program Act of 1996, as we consolidate four BC Benefits acts into two.

People with disabilities have told us it is important that their distinct needs be recognized under separate legislation. They've told us that a separate act affords them more protection and more support and fewer barriers to achieving their full potential. This legislation responds to that position and builds on the approach we have taken with the Employment and Assistance Act. That approach is one of providing assistance, creating opportunity and helping people to achieve greater independence.

The ministry will continue to provide assistance to eligible people with disabilities. The B.C. employment and assistance program recognizes that some clients, because of the nature or severity of their disabilities, are unable to be financially independent through employment. For them the ministry will continue to provide income support, shelter allowance and supplementary support for medical needs.

I am proud of the way ministry staff have helped provide such assistance to clients with disabilities, with professionalism and compassion. I am proud of the specialized facilities we have created to serve this community such as Park Place employment and assistance centre, which serves many clients with disabilities in Surrey, White Rock and Delta. Providing assistance will remain an important part of the work this ministry does. However, the ministry is also committed to creating new opportunities for people with disabilities — opportunities to participate more actively in their community, to find employment where appropriate and to lead fuller lives.

Our commitment recognizes that people experience disabilities in different degrees and that their needs vary over time. Opportunity may begin with a volunteer placement in the community. It may expand to include volunteer work. It may ultimately include full-time employment.

This range of opportunities requires a range of supports. We want to build on a secure platform of disability assistance to create a range of services that will allow people with disabilities to take advantage of employment opportunities, as they are able. From employment planning services to job placement programs, from access to basic education and skills development to job-specific training, people with disabilities will have access not only to mainstream employment programs, available through B.C. employment and assistance, but also to a range of specialized programs that address their specific barriers to employment.

We will also be working in partnership with the federal government, communities and the private sector to expand opportunities and develop an effective labour market strategy.

This act gives the ministry an important tool to link people directly with the labour market. It establishes a requirement for employment plans for people with disabilities who are able to seek work. These employment plans will allow the ministry to focus on specific needs of clients and direct resources accordingly. Clients will be expected to comply with the employment plans. We believe it is in the best long-term interest to follow through on their employment plans and to find work quickly. However, I want to make it clear that

this applies to employable people with disabilities, not to those who are unable to work, and that the ministry's approach will be one of support, encouragement and flexibility.

The ultimate goal with these measures is greater independence for people with disabilities, including security of income, enhanced well-being and full participation as citizens. I look forward to working with the community of people with disabilities as we share this vision and move forward. I believe this legislation will be an important tool in achieving our mutual goals.

Appeals by people with disabilities will be governed by the Employment and Assistance Act. The act establishes the B.C. employment and assistance appeal tribunal. This independent tribunal, whose chairperson will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, will oversee a system of regional panels that will hear appeals on ministry decisions. The tribunal chairperson will be appointed on a full-time basis. The new system which we have developed as part of the administrative justice review project will lead to faster appeal decisions.

British Columbia has been a leader in developing programs and services to assist people with disabilities. With this bill we are demonstrating this government's commitment to continued leadership. We are recognizing the tremendous potential that exists among people with disabilities to lead fuller lives and contribute to their communities.

J. MacPhail: It's absolutely shocking that nobody in this government gets up to speak — not one. The member for Vancouver-Burrard told me yesterday to sit down and shut up, and he'd get up to speak. He didn't, and he doesn't now. People in this chamber…. No one gets up to speak, no one to defend people with disabilities, to challenge everything this minister just said, which was absolutely ridiculous — the opening comments of the Minister of Human Resources.

One, he says it's a new era, and there's going to be all sorts of training opportunities for the people we're kicking off welfare who have disabilities. That's what this bill is all about: kicking people off welfare who have disabilities and can't work now. That's exactly what the minister said. He said that it's outrageous the number of people now who qualify for disability pension in our province. "That previous government changed the definition, and it's ballooned the number of people who qualify now, so we've got to reduce that. We're going to make them work." Then he stands up and says: "But don't worry; we're going to give them training."

Oh yeah — with what? There's not one new dollar of training dollars, not one new dollar that this government is putting into training. Forty-five thousand people are going to be told they've got to tell us they can't work, and if you don't meet the definition that we say about whether you're able to work, you're gonna have to go out and work. There's not one new dollar of training money for the thousands of people who now have disabilities and can't work and are going to be kicked off welfare and have to go look for a job, and this minister stands up and says: "We're going to give them new training opportunities." Oh, really? With what? Not one new dollar — not this year, not next year and not the year after — for training.

What would those training opportunities be? That was his whole premise for his opening remarks, and every single Liberal MLA sits there and goes: "Oh, isn't that great?" What would those training opportunities be? Would it be taking away from the single moms who have children three years and over now who are getting kicked off welfare? Would it be their training dollars that the people with disabilities now have to access? Let's see. Would it be the training dollars for young people? Oh no. I'm sorry, it won't be for young people, because young people aren't eligible for welfare until they're 21. Well, would it be those training dollars for forest workers that the Minister of Forests doesn't give a hoot about? Yes, I guess it would. I guess the Minister of Human Resources will have to say to those forest workers: "Oh, you know what? We killed Forest Renewal B.C., the training for you there. And by the way, those training dollars now, under welfare — you can't have those, because people with disabilities who are getting kicked off welfare have access to those training dollars. Oh, and you know, you people with mental illness — yeah, you're going to have to access the same training dollars as well."

The minister stands up in his opening comments and says: "We want to work with the community." Well, here's what the minister wrote today to the community. Isn't this nice. The minister wrote this to the community today: "I would like to set the record straight on incorrect statements made by some advocates for people with disabilities about changes to income assistance." Really. Then he goes on to attack them and say…. Wait for it. What does he accuse them of? Fearmongering — one day after this bill is introduced that nobody's had a chance to look at, that wasn't part of the New Era document.

You know what? I haven't seen that New Era document being waved around in this chamber the way this government used to wave around government members' New Era document. My gosh, where is that? I wonder why the Deputy Premier or the Minister of State for Mental Health isn't waving around the New Era document on the welfare cuts. Was it because they didn't include them? I wonder why they're not waving it around now to people with disabilities who the minister is accusing of fearmongering and saying: "How can you say that you're anything but a fearmonger?"

Why doesn't the Minister of Human Resources say: "Because here's what we said we'd do in the New Era document. Here's where we said we'd boot you off welfare, you people with disabilities"?

You know why they're not waving around that red, white and blue bible of extremism? Because there's nothing in it about their agenda to attack the most vulnerable: people on welfare with disabilities.

The minister, not one day of allowing the bill out there for public discussion, writes a letter attacking advocates for people with disabilities and accusing them of fearmongering. Gosh, that's a surprise, isn't it? Anybody who disagrees with this government or calls this government to task is either a special interest group or fearmongering.

It's even worse than that. From the Minister of Human Resources, allegations that tens of thousands of people with disabilities will have no access to food, shelter or medical care, as a result of these changes, are irresponsible and unfounded. Attack, attack, attack. Oh my gosh.

Anybody that disagrees with the Minister of Human Resources or maybe says the fact that he didn't have any answers for them, as my colleague pointed out earlier today, is being irresponsible, and their accusations are unfounded. Oh, really? For people with a disability, higher income assistance rates will continue. How is it that the Minister of Human Resources says it's necessary to change the definition of a person with a disability because "there were just too many people qualified" for that higher income assistance? How does he jibe those two?

How does the Minister of State for Mental Health jibe the fact that he's supporting this disgusting return to a definition of disability that excludes people with a mental illness? For the very first time in the 1990s this province led the way in finally changing the definition of a person with a disability to include people with a mental illness. Those days are gone.

The definition now requires a crisis application for a person with a mental illness. I can hardly wait for the Minister of State for Mental Health to stand up and explain it, because here's what he wrote. It's a little bit incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, but as usual this government goes on the attack for anybody that figures out their agenda.

All those advocates fearmongering — would they just stop? This was today from the Minister of State for Mental Health explaining why no one should worry:

Mr. Speaker, that's why the definition was changed to be first in Canada to include people with mental disabilities. This government's now taking that away. He goes on to say: "Our government's approach is one of providing assistance, creating opportunity and helping people achieve greater independence, and this includes those with a mental illness." Oops. Okay. That sounds like a bit of waffle words. Hmm. But he's already on record admitting that 25 percent of the population suffers a mental illness and that 70 percent of those with a mental illness are unemployed. The Ministry of Human Resources will encourage those people with disabilities who can work to find employment. Are they cheating the system now? Are the people with mental illness — is that what the Minister of State for Mental Health is accusing them of — cheating the system now?

He goes on to say: "But we will ensure that if they are unable to continue working due to their disability, their designation and medical assistance will be maintained." Oh, yeah. Where does it say that in the legislation?

My gosh, maybe the Minister of State for Mental Health hasn't read the legislation. But we'll see when he gets up. He was in the chamber when I said: "Who's going to speak to this bill?" He sat on his seat, so maybe he isn't going to get up. Maybe he's just going to write letters that nobody can challenge with the facts. But maybe he will get up and explain how it is that this is better for people with a mental illness.

I'm sure that at some point during this debate someone will point out how the advocates are fearmongering and irresponsible and doing a disservice, as the Minister of Human Resources said. Not one day after this legislation is introduced, and these two are attacking the most vulnerable people in society for speaking up and speaking out against this horrendous legislation.

Well, let's see what they're fearmongering about. We already know now there's not one new training dollar for all of these people with disabilities kicked off the welfare system — not one. Yet the government says: "We want to do everything we can possibly do to help people off welfare." Really. Well, you know what? That requires training dollars, and that requires assistance to get into jobs in this society, and this government has no commitment to either.

I was watching the news. I was wondering whether anyone else in this government has the guts to watch the news these days. Here's what's happening at Vancouver Community College. This government says that they're going to have training for people with disabilities. Vancouver Community College — the Minister of Advanced Ed should know this very well — has just slashed a program for training people with disabilities. Did the Minister of Human Resources know that? Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing in this government? The Minister of Advanced Ed — slashing programs for people with disabilities. Also, as my colleague pointed out earlier, the programs for people who are getting adult basic ed are being slashed all

over this province. I'm not sure where the training dollars are going to be directed. Certainly, the news today put the lie to the minister's comments that he wants to help people with disabilities get training.

Come on, have at it. Have at it, all Liberal MLAs. Just stand up and say: "The opposition has it wrong. Here's where all these new training dollars are." The minister was asked that question in estimates, and he said: "No, there won't be any new training dollars." His budget is $92 million for training, which is what it was last year before this government decided to slash and kick people off welfare.

I can hardly wait. Maybe the Minister of Finance will come in here and say: "You know what? We found a whole bunch of new money." But I doubt it. This government never makes it right for the most vulnerable, ever. That's their source of income to pay for the big tax cut: the most vulnerable.

This minister stands up and says this is about helping people with disabilities get to work and then makes a statement in which he has to add up — how many years? — four years to come to the conclusion that there's $6.6 billion they're spending on welfare. What he fails to mention is that this government is cutting $600 million, taking away from people who are the most vulnerable in society now. I guess he forgot to mention that. Or is that fun with figures which this government is so famous for right now?

Let's see what everybody is fearmongering about. Let's just read some of the comments that are coming in here about what the concerns are. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, tell me any time I'm fearmongering. All it will mean is that those people who actually understand the system are fearmongering, which is, of course, what the minister is accusing them of.

Let's be clear about what this act is. This is the act that affects people with disabilities who can't support themselves, who can't work. This is the act that undoes all of the gains that British Columbians made in the 1990s with changes to how we support and assist people with disabilities. I can hardly wait to get to the section about reading what the various members in the then opposition said about those changes. Now all those great gains made in a just, fair and compassionate society in the 1990s are being thrown out. That's what this legislation is. It's undoing all of those gains made so that people with disabilities could live with dignity, respect and a little bit of independence.

For the very first time in the 1990s, the definition of what a disability was broke new ground to say that people with episodic illnesses would qualify as a person with a disability. That then included people with mental illness for the very first time. It was a day of celebration. Well, it was longer than a day of celebration, because the community worked long and hard to bring about those changes.

Now, unbeknownst to them, it's all being swept away. I say unbeknownst to them, because this government hid the truth from them — not a single discussion of this, not one peep from one single Liberal candidate about how they were going to kick people with disabilities into a workforce that has no jobs for them.

Let's just go through some of the concerns. The legislation now says a person must be 19 years or older in order to qualify as a person with a disability as opposed to the previous definition that said 18 years of age. I note that even though the minister writes letters to these advocates saying they're fearmongering, he proposes at the same time an amendment within just one day to say to those same advocates: "Oops, you're right. It should be 18 years, not 19 years, as part of the definition." There's already an amendment, but those same advocates who pointed that out to the minister are fearmongering. Isn't that interesting?

The definition of a person with a disability, for those of us who are not always completely familiar with the intricacies of the legislation, is what leads to the benefit that person gets. The definition now eliminates people who have unusual but essential and continuous needs.

Oh, who could that be? Could that be people who are HIV positive? Could that be people with AIDS? I can hardly wait for the member for Vancouver-Burrard to stand up and tell the world how this works wonderfully for people who are HIV-positive or for people with AIDS. People with soft-tissue injuries — oh. I guess they're fakers. That's what this government says. They're excluded from the definition. People who are independent enough not to require income assistance but who have ongoing costs related to their disability probably won't qualify, as the definition hinges on their "ability to perform daily living activities." Well, I guess with support they could perform daily living activities, but who knows? The government has taken away the assurance that those people will qualify as persons with a disability.

Let's be clear. Underlying all of this is the minister's own admission that far too many people qualified under that previous definition. To use his words, it ballooned the number of people who qualified as persons with a disability. Instead of standing up and saying, "Gosh. Finally we're a compassionate, just society that fully recognizes the full range of people with disabilities" — no, he somehow says: "It was an abuse." That's the only way I can interpret it. The ballooning of people qualifying was an abuse of the system.

Persons with disabilities now have to be restricted in their ability to perform daily tasks either continuously or periodically for an extended period of time. The previous definition that this government has tossed in the can allowed for people to be restricted in their ability to perform daily tasks within a reasonable time. The previous definition also allowed people to be eligible if their disability was determined to be likely to continue for at least one year. Now the definition says the disability has to continue for at least two years.

This change in definition severely limits access to disability assistance for people with cyclical illnesses who may not be employable but who will not see their illness continue for at least two years. Gosh, I can

hardly wait for the Minister of State for Mental Health to stand up and say how that's helping people with episodic mental illness. I look forward to him rising and explaining it to everybody in the world.

Oh. Maybe this next section is the real intent of this bill, because what this government is doing over and over is saying: "Hey, if you're a corporation, we'll give you all the help in the world we can possibly imagine. We'll shovel it over to you in breaks." Just today the Minister of Energy and Mines introduced a bill to say to the mining industry: "What more can we do to make your life easy in this province? Corporate taxes weren't good enough. Just tell us how we can make your life easier." At the same time, to pay to make their life easier, this government is saying to the families of people with disabilities: "You've got to do more."

J. MacPhail: "Hear, hear," says the Liberal backbencher. "Hear, hear. That's good for the mining industry. We're going to give every possible support we can to them, but for the families of people with disabilities, sorry. You're on your own."

J. MacPhail: He did, eh? The Minister of State for Mental Health thinks that's great. Well, here's what it means. It significantly reduces the support for family members of people with disabilities — significantly reduces it. Family members now have to submit individual employment plans. They do? What kind of requirement is that? The family member has to submit individual employment plans? Does every family have a job to offer their disabled relative?

Family members will also be responsible for seeking, accepting or maintaining employment. Family members will be subject to conditions of eligibility. "Oh, we don't know what those are, though. They'll be in the regulations." Yeah. That's family responsibility, though. "You're now responsible for your family member who has a disability, and you've got to take on all this responsibility, but we're not going to tell you what it actually means. Wait for the regulation."

Those are just some of the changes, but I also noted that the Minister of Human Resources lauded the changes in the appeal process. My gosh, the community — those fearmongers — see it a little differently about how the appeal process will now work. This is a memo on analysis of the minister's new appeal process by someone in the legal community who worked with the former appeal process every day.

Let's be clear on what the appeal process is and how it's going to work now. People who have a disability and have been denied coverage under the legislation have to appeal that decision. There was an appeal process in place, but this government decided they knew better. Does the appeal process make it easier for people with disabilities to get their issues heard? Oh, by the way, this appeal process applies to people with disabilities and to people without disabilities. It has dire consequences for everybody who requires the social safety net.

Those of us who are just lay people would say: "Yikes, what does that mean?" Here's what this lawyer tells us it means. The standard of review that I've just read out concerning evidence is now the standard that one would have to make an appeal to the court on an appeal from a trial judge. Some poor person with a disability with no resources has to meet the same test as someone would going to the Court of Appeal now. Whoa, that's a really good new appeal process that the minister just lauded. As long as it's a reasonable interpretation of the law by the ministry, it's okay. It doesn't matter whether the merits were valid in booting someone off welfare or not giving them welfare, as long as they were reasonable in their interpretation. Bye-bye, vulnerable person — no access to welfare. So it's no longer possible under this new appeal process to argue that the ministry made a wrong interpretation of the law — gone. It has to be an unreasonable interpretation of the law. Wow, that's a real step forward.

Second, new evidence can't be introduced at the tribunal level. That's prohibited now. The people with the fewest resources in society better get it right the first time, or they're gone — no access to welfare. Here's the minister saying that he's going to work with the communities. Well, he eliminated community tribunals. The ministry used to have community tribunals. They're gone now. Who appoints the tribunals? It's this great, progressive cabinet, this government that forgot to tell welfare people they don't like them and that they're not going to be looked after by this government. That same cabinet gets to choose the chairs and vice-chairs for people who will judge the appeals. Then the minister himself picks the other members of the tribunal. Gosh, I can hardly wait for some of these people to stand up and say how that's working with the community. Community tribunals are gone, gone, gone.

These changes completely remove the independence and community basis of these tribunals. Gee, that's really good news for people who live in Fort Nelson, isn't it? There might have been community tribunals that understood the conditions facing people in Fort Nelson or the dire circumstances facing people in Prince George. But no, this government doesn't want

any community input. They'll do what they do best. Cabinet will get together, and so far, I think they've appointed business people to run the entire system. I can hardly wait to see what would be…. Following up on every other action that this government's taken, they're probably taking business people and appointing them to the tribunals.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I'm sure there are people from the Fraser Institute. I can hardly wait to match up the list of chairs and vice-chairs that this government will appoint with the membership of the Fraser Institute. Absolutely. I bet you it'll be just like that. But those who are saying that this is all of concern to people with disabilities…. They're fearmongering. Oh, and I think their criticisms are irresponsible as well — irresponsible.

Not my assessment, but a lawyer who deals with these matters every day says: "The changes will make winning at the tribunal level extremely difficult. If you're going to win, you have to convince the ministry staff." Great.

The opening comments of the minister, saying, "Isn't this great because we're going to train…?" We now know there's no training money for people with disabilities. He was saying, "We're going to make sure the community's involved," and we know now the community's been legislated out of existence and that somehow this is giving greater support for people with disabilities. We know that thousands of them won't qualify under this new, terribly restrictive definition.

Let's just look at what some of those fearmongers are saying. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities has a worldwide reputation for advocating…. They're not advocating on behalf of people with disabilities; they are people with disabilities. And I'll tell you, they can be real pains in the butt for this reason: they are demanding equality and fairness and justice for people with disabilities — for themselves. They're strong, they're tough, they're compassionate, and they're relentless. And sometimes that means they're a real pain in the butt. They don't let anybody off the hook.

They're willing to deliver. They're willing to meet any test of equality that anyone gives them. They don't shy away from that, but what they do say is: "Level the playing field. We'll show you we're equal, but level the playing field." That doesn't seem to be unreasonable. I think that's fair; I think that's perfectly fair. They have tens of thousands of people in their membership. These are the very people that this minister is attacking as being fearmongers. Well, you know what? I have to tell you, I'll go with the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities any day on their analysis.

I just want to note for the record, Mr. Speaker, that at points in my history as a politician I have been on the receiving end of strong criticism from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities — strong criticism. Invariably, it turned out that they were right. Invariably, it turned out, because this coalition is a group of people that live with these issues every day, every hour. They're people with mental illnesses. They're quadriplegics. They're blind people; they're deaf people. They're physically disabled people, and they're mentally ill people. They're men, they're women, they're youngsters, and they're seniors. They fight for justice and equality.

Here's what they said two days ago. No, I guess it was April 15, which would have been Monday. "Urgent alert regarding disability benefits." It's signed by Jeanette Andersen, the external vice-president; Al Hanet, the internal vice-president; and Margaret J. Priestley Birrell, the executive director. It's from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities.

This was sent to every Liberal MLA. I can hardly wait to hear how many of them responded for greater information. The coalition continues to write:

Instead, what are we doing? We're ramming it through. The Liberal MLAs are silent, deathly silent, on this matter. It's left up to my colleague and me. We're glad to do it. We're honoured to do it, as a matter of fact. Neither of us has a disability, but we live our lives affected each and every day by people with disabilities. We are honoured to be the only voices in this chamber standing up for people with disabilities.

Here's the analysis. These are the people who were actually in consultation with the minister, who sat at

the table working with the minister to protect the safeguards for people with disabilities. They know of what they speak. They're not being irresponsible, and they're not fearmongering. Here's what they have to say:

I can hardly wait. People with disabling multiple sclerosis, incapacitated, will now have to get reassessed. I guess they'll go before a doctor, and they'll say: "Yup, there's no new cure for multiple sclerosis." That's what this government's forcing that person with multiple sclerosis to do. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair, moving about with a computerized joystick, has to get reassessed: "Yup, turns out there's still no cure for spinal injury, but thanks for coming in just to check to see whether there was a miracle cure." That's what these people with disabilities are now going to have to do.

Some of the changes, as described by the coalition. The disability designation is no longer permanent. Every year a person with MS has to go in and see whether there's been a miracle cure.

The money that people with disabilities need to spend to assist in the cost of managing their condition will no longer have any bearing on whether they qualify. Boy, that's really levelling the playing field, isn't it? Isn't that generous? A person with a disability who requires extensive support just to level that playing field is being told: "No, sorry, we're going to make you start way down in the hole. We're not going to let you rise up with dignity and respect and recognize the extra support you need to join with those who don't have a disability. We're going to make you go right down into that hole, and then we're going to assess whether you're needy or not."

The term "significant assistance" replaces the term "extensive assistance." That signifies a more restrictive eligibility process. The spokesperson for the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities said: "The practical ramifications of these changes are devastating. They'll set the disability community back 20 years."

Wow, there's a new era. That's a new era, isn't it? People with disabilities in one of the wealthiest jurisdictions in the world have the clock turned back 20 years. There's a breakthrough that we should all just rise up and celebrate, says the Minister of Human Resources.

The coalition also notes that the legislation is going through with superficial consultation. Here's a government that's so open and accountable — nothing in the New Era document. They promised further consultation with the disabilities community and yanked that away.

Ramming the bill through. I sometimes wonder: if my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I got so exhausted by this government that we sat down, who would stand up to defend the most vulnerable? Perhaps the member for Vancouver-Langara would, as he did in the previous bill, but who else amongst this group would? I suspect there wouldn't be anyone.

There are other changes that are devastating. To qualify now for disability benefits, applicants will have to be "directly and significantly" restricted in the "ability to perform daily living activities." People without disabilities will probably say: "Gee, what's wrong with that?"

Well, as the community of the disabled will tell you, there is an unbelievable amount wrong with that. It means that applicants will need to show that they need help with specific activities. They'll probably have to be judged now by the same eligibility criteria that apply to the disability tax credit. That means that they will be judged by whether or not they can feed, dress or groom themselves.

Well, people with HIV/AIDS can feed themselves, groom themselves and dress themselves, and it's part of their daily routine to be able to do those things. Does that mean that they're not severely incapacitated? No, of course it doesn't. Now, based on this harsh, restrictive nineteenth-century kind of definition, they'll be excluded from eligibility.

Applicants will have to show that they require significant help to perform daily living activities. Significant help may be through the help or supervision of another person or through assistive devices. An assistive device is defined as a device that enables an individual "to perform a daily living activity." That's the language in the act — an "assistive device."

The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities said: "Well, a dog isn't a device; an animal isn't a device." Surely if the government meant to say an assistive animal, they would have included that." Oh no. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities reached the conclusion that if you have to demonstrate that you need an assistive device in order to qualify with a disability, that excludes assistive animals because an animal ain't a device.

The Minister of Human Resources says they're fearmongering. He writes a letter saying they're fearmongering. Oh yeah? Then point to where in the act it says an assistive animal allows a person to demonstrate that they qualify for a disability…. It doesn't. It doesn't say that anywhere in the act. Blind people are as nervous as heck, because they don't need a device. They need an animal, and that isn't in the act. But oh no, the

minister writes a letter to the editor saying: "How dare anyone say we didn't mean to include assistive animals." Well, guess why people thought that: because it's not included in the legislation.

Performing tasks within a reasonable period of time has been removed from the determination of whether one has a disability or not. What that means is that applicants will not be assessed by the length of time it takes them to perform tasks independently. People who struggle to remain independent despite the difficulty and length of time it takes to perform daily tasks will not qualify. In fact, they'll be told to go get work.

Can't you just see it? Don't you just love it? People who have a crippling disease, a muscle-debilitating disease, and who struggle for hours, perhaps, to look after themselves, to feed and clothe themselves…. Well, as long as they can feed and clothe themselves, even if it takes the whole day, they don't qualify for the disability benefit. In fact, what they'll have to do now is struggle for hours to feed and clothe themselves, and then they better haul their butt out the door to get a job. That's what they're going to do. At 3 o'clock, if they're ready to go after an 8 a.m. start of getting ready, "Get your butt out the door," says this minister, "and get a job." Oh, there's a step forward. That's a real step forward.

The one-year-and-likely-to-recur duration test has been removed from the definition. What does that mean? Again, for all of us who don't struggle with a disability, we say: "Well, how can that possibly be a problem? Don't you want to help people who have an ongoing disability? You don't want this to be a temporary support thing for someone who's broken a leg." That's what this government wants the public to think. But what it means is that this change of removing that test will have a particularly devastating impact on individuals with neurological disabilities such as multiple sclerosis, as well as for people with cyclical disabilities such as rapid-cycling bipolar, depression and anxiety disorders. But the Minister of State for Mental Health writes and says: "Oh no, people with mental illness aren't going to be adversely affected by this legislation."

Somehow the fact that all of this is in the legislation, and it's the legislation that's going to guide this…. Various members of government yell out: "No, don't worry. Those people are covered." Oh, really. How would they know that? What law says they are covered? Certainly not the law we're debating now.

Here are some other issues, just general issues, that apply to everybody who has a disability. All disability benefits recipients will have their ability to work assessed, and some will be required to look for work as a condition of receiving benefits. Yeah, get out there and get those jobs. There's a lot out there. We're not going to give you any training. No new money for training, but get out there.

Grandparenting of medical files for those who become self-sufficient through employment will be altered and will now be a time-and-means-tested benefit. Oh, there's a real step forward.

People who are disabled but not receiving a monthly allowance will no longer qualify for enhanced medical coverage. So those who can actually earn a sustained wage but need that enhanced medical coverage to just get them out of the hole of inequality and get them a level playing field…. Gee, they don't qualify anymore.

My gosh, what was so awful about that legislation, the legislation that was groundbreaking in 1996? I guess the then opposition must have thought it was just awful. That's why they're changing it. Is that what they said in 1996? Let's just review some of this, the various comments.

The now Minister of Human Resources, debating in June 1996 the Disability Benefits Program Act that he's now ripping apart and throwing in the garbage — what did he have to say about that act then? "But I can tell you" — I'm quoting now from Hansard — "that for the people with disabilities, this is a very important recognition. I think that for many people who have suffered lives with disabilities, this act will bring them some comfort, knowing that they have been taken seriously in their request. I know many groups in our province have asked for this type of legislation." Really. I guess that was then, and this is now.

The member for Vancouver-Langara said…. And frankly, the member for Vancouver-Langara has stayed true to his commitment on these matters. He didn't say one thing then and another now. Of course the member for Vancouver-Langara isn't in cabinet either. I doubt that with his record of strength on behalf of the most vulnerable, he will make it into cabinet either. That would have somebody at the cabinet table who actually advocates for people with disabilities. This government wouldn't want that to happen. Here's what he had to say in 1996:

Really. I guess the member for Vancouver-Langara got that wrong, but to his credit he sticks by his words, unlike the Minister of Human Resources.

The Minister of Energy and Mines — he's always quick to yell out and heckle and accuse my colleague and me of fearmongering. Yes, he's always quick to do that.

Oh God, I guess he was a Reform Party member then. What is he now? Liberal — yeah, that's right. Before that he was a Socred, but it turns out that they're all the same.

It turns out, yeah, now that he's in government, they have a heck of a better way of doing things. Don't give them anything is his better way of doing things. Throw them off any support. Tell them to go get a job. Get out of our hair. That's the Liberal way of doing things now.

It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I have so many words from so many now government members. The Minister of Forests actually supported this too. He said in the second reading of the Disability Benefits Program Act: "I think the sentiment of this House is clearly that there is a hope that the legislative framework…is fundamentally sound. We will look at that. Hopefully, it is."

This is interesting: "Beyond that, we get to the question of implementation, and that, of course, will call for some strong leadership on the part of the government and the minister responsible" to implement that legislation. Isn't that interesting?

Now the Minister of Forests sits in the House and catcalls how awful it was in those bad old days of that legislation that was groundbreaking. I can hardly wait for him to get up and explain how this devastating legislation is better now for the same people that he wanted strong leadership to defend — unbelievable.

What else did the Minister of Human Resources say? Let me just read some of it. Here's what he said in July 1996 during committee stage of the debate on the Disability Benefits Program Act. The now Minister of Human Resources stands up and says: "First, the opposition is in support of this bill. I would like to say that the bill in its entirety has been asked for by community groups for many years, so I'm pleased to see it is before us today. I won't ask why it wasn't before us over the past five years, because those five years are long gone. It's nice that it's here before us today."

Isn't that interesting? I wonder how the Minister of Human Resources will assess his time in government, looking forward for the next four years. I'm wondering if he will be speaking on behalf of what those community groups are saying to him now.

The member for Vancouver-Langara wanted to know what the definition actually meant in real terms. He said:

Well, those are good questions. I can hardly wait for the minister to answer that.

Here's another one: the debate around a community assessment. The old act that's now being destroyed required a community assessment of people with a disability. The member for Vancouver-Langara said: "You mentioned a community assessment. I'm curious to know what the community assessment is and who it is by. What community? The doctor's assessment I understand. At least, I presume there will be a prescribed medical form for that. Are you indicating that there is a panel of specialists before which every person who applies for a disability must go?"

The then minister responded: "The client would pick a person to help in this process. It could be an occupational therapist. It could be a social worker. It could be a teacher. It could be somebody of that nature who would be the community part of the assessment process." Wow. That sounds pretty inclusive. That sounds like the community would be there to assess and support people with disabilities, but that's all gone now. They don't have any say. The community's gone from this.

It just goes on and on — the probing questions of the then opposition. Basically, the whole thrust of their debate was: "Does this feel strong enough? Does this bill do enough for people with disabilities? How are you going to ensure its fair and just application?" It goes on and on. Believe you me, my colleague and I will be pointing out all of this in committee stage. We'll be putting back the words of the now Minister of Human Resources every time. We'll stand up, and we'll say: "Gee, that's what you said then, and this is what you're doing now? How do you jibe those two?" I can hardly wait for the answers.

Let's go to what some people have been saying. What's the public been saying when they had this bill sprung on them two days ago? Was it two days ago or one day ago? I can't even remember. Two days ago.

My colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has done an incredible defence of that draconian legislation that affects people on welfare without disabilities. Nevertheless, here we are now, within two days, attacking the poor who have disabilities.

Here's one letter. It will take me a moment, Mr. Speaker. I need to read this carefully, because the person has a disability and the typing is difficult. He himself says it's difficult for him. The letter is addressed to me initially. It says: "I sent the following letter to the Premier regarding the changes to the disability benefits program. Please help us people who are disabled fight this government. If you know how I can help, please let me know. These changes make me sick. So bye for now, and keep on fighting."

So there's a man with a disability who's done everything he possibly can to get trained. "Well, tough luck, pal," says this government. "Get out there and get a job." That's what this government says.

The media commentary has been brutal in criticism of this legislation, but I want to go again to the words of an advocate for people with disabilities, Tom McGregor. He took phone calls on CBC Almanac yesterday about the changes to this legislation. Here's what he had to say on radio. Mr. McGregor says:

That's the way it was until this legislation was introduced. Now, Mr. McGregor says:

Then the host says to Tom McGregor: "Well, the Minister of Human Resources says the new act will help people achieve a better life by enabling them to work."

Here's some callers that called in. A caller called in to Mr. McGregor: "When will this cutting of benefits take place? I haven't been in for an annual review. Should I request one now? Specifically, what will happen to people with soft-tissue injuries that get cut off?" Very concerned.

And another caller: "I'm DB-2, disability 2 benefits, with HIV. I'm really scared, and I met with my MLA, who assured me that this wouldn't be happening. Will I lose some aid I'm now getting for things such as bottled water?"

"With the new appeal process, previous tribunal rulings can be readdressed and altered. This is really all part of a government cash grab — a way to keep costs down."

Another caller from Salmon Arm — these were just yesterday — and May is her name: "I'm appalled. The government plans are draconian. What's going to happen to the appeal tribunal process? It's my understanding that reapplying will now be limited, and that wouldn't be fair."

Mr. McGregor replies: "I agree. My understanding of the new system of appeal includes a denial of introduction of new information to a tribunal." I pointed that out earlier, Mr. Speaker. "The focus of the appeal process has really been altered to work more like a court of appeal, and tribunal or appeal panels will now be selected entirely by the ministry. It's devastating."

Next caller — Joe from Grand Forks: "There's a shortage of jobs — period. What are disabled persons supposed to do?"

I could go on. There were seven more callers in a short period of time, every single one of them critical of the new measures that this legislation introduces. Oh, these are so sad.

Another person called in from Vancouver. She called because her child care subsidy has been cut. She got the subsidy originally under a risk reduction plan with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. She has bipolar disorder and can't predict when she'll have an episode. Her son, who will be three in May, really needs to be in child care when she's having an episode. A former MLA for New Westminster helped her get the subsidy.

She called the current MLA for New Westminster's office for help retaining the subsidy. That's the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. They told this woman to get a job. She's on DB-2. Her condition is not going away.

If she gets sick, her son will be apprehended. She got the letter that everyone got, including those on disability 2, that said she had to get a job. It's very stressful. Part of her condition is that getting stressed can cause an episode. She has all kinds of documentation that supports her need to have her son in day care, including a letter from the day care worker that says her son has the potential to develop behavioral problems if he loses the structure of the day care and she loses her resources. Wow — and that was before this woman knew that she may also lose her benefits.

Here's another woman who wrote in to us. We just received this today. In fact, this woman encourages us to use her name in debate. Her name is Barbara-Lee Chmil. She called in. This is a case related to the cuts that Advanced Education is making to programs that are impacting her as a person with disabilities trying to get the very training that this government is ordering her to get so she can get a job. Here's what she said. She's on a DB-2 pension, and she'd like to get off it and so is doing her GED at Vancouver Community College. I think that's her graduate equivalent program. She has a learning disability, and Vancouver Community College provided her with a tutor under the individualized education program for adults. The tutor is being laid off with all of the cuts to Vancouver Community College. Barbara Lee will not be able to pass her GED without the tutor. She does not understand how laying off tutors fits in with the government's goal of getting people into the workforce.

The reason why she called my office is because she called the Premier's office, who told her to call her MLA. That's me. Wow. There's a person actually doing what this government is now ordering her to do: get training and get a job. It turns out the government's yanked that rug out from underneath her as well.

Here's another one. This came in yesterday, and it was sent to me. "There does not seem to be much reference to persons with DB-1 in the act. Is it the intention of the Liberal government to disqualify everyone in this category?" DB-1 is a disability level — I don't want to say of lesser significance — that one might say is less debilitating, but the person also gets fewer resources at that level.

This woman is saying there doesn't seem to be any reference to that group, so are they all at risk? Then she goes on to say:

I already gave the case of Ryan from Vancouver-Burrard, who called in to CBC Almanac to talk to the advocate from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. He's HIV-positive. When the government says that they want the community to be more involved, we already know that the community resources are so limited, they're strapped.

Let me put this into the record again, Mr. Speaker. After I read this into the record yesterday on the previous draconian piece of legislation, other towns called in to say they're in exactly the same situation. "People with disabilities, look after yourself," says the government, "and get your community to support you. Don't you know there are food banks?"

I reported yesterday from an article in the Nanaimo Daily News that says: "'For the first time in the six-year history, Loaves and Fishes has had to cut back its services and offer food bags once a week instead of twice,' says the organization's executive director, Brent Cawley. The change will be effective April 22."

He said right now everything is dependent on donations from the public. A fundraising project for sometime in May is being planned. If donations don't increase, the food bank could close sometime this summer.

Yesterday I also reported a case written in by a very well-informed, thoughtful person who is the father of a 23-year-old who's been developmentally challenged since birth. Here's what he had to say:

He enclosed as an aside a briefing note that described the system until very recently. Here it is:

So they would gain $400 from the $1,000. Or, in other words, they would keep the $1,000 that they earn — but it's taxable — and their $786 B.C. Benefits cheque, which is tax-free, would be reduced by $600.

I don't want to name him. He doesn't say that I can't, but…. It's such debilitating information.

Who were those people? Who were those groups, these fearmongers that the minister attacked? Who are the disabilities groups that oppose this bill? Well, I'll just name some of them. There are 400 of them: the Abbotsford Association for Healthy Aging; the Abbotsford Multiple Sclerosis Support Group; Aim High Prince George Association for Community Living; AIDS Vancouver; AIDS Society of Kamloops; AIDS Vancouver Island — I'm just picking them randomly, Mr. Speaker; I could read all 400 into the record, but I won't — the Bella Coola Community Support Society; Behavioral Support Services, Port Alberni; Bloomin' Humans, Victoria; Boys and Girls Club of Williams Lake and district; the B.C. Aboriginal Network in Victoria; the B.C. Association of the Deaf; B.C. Disabilities Sports, Vancouver; B.C. Epilepsy, Vancouver; B.C. Schizophrenia Society, branches in Abbotsford, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Kelowna, Richmond, Victoria; the B.C. Society of Occupational Therapists; Building Bridges, Duncan; the Canadian Council of the Blind, B.C.–Yukon division plus all of their chapters; the Canadian Diabetes Association, chapters in Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, Prince George, Vancouver; the Canadian Hemophilia Society; the Canadian Mental Health Association and all of their branches; the Carnegie AIDS Support Group; the Central Okanagan Brain Injury Society; the Comox Valley Head Injury Society in Courtenay; Community Connections in Revelstoke; the Consumer Advocacy Program in Vancouver; the C-SHARP Columbia-Shuswap HIV/AIDS resource project in Salmon Arm; the Cowichan Valley

Riding Association in Duncan; the Cowichan Valley Head Injury Support Group; the Cranbrook Stroke Recovery Group; Fort Nelson Women's Resource Centre; Fort Nelson Aboriginal Friendship Centre; the First United Church mission in Vancouver; the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Support Network of B.C. in Surrey; the Garth Homer Society Self-Advocates Council in Victoria; the Fraser Valley Muscular Dystrophy Association in Abbotsford; the Greater Victoria Citizen Advocacy Group; the Handy Circle Promotions Society in Prince George; the Jewish Family Service Agency of Vancouver; the Kettle Friendship Society in Vancouver; the Kitimat Anti-Poverty Group; the Kitimat Disabilities Association; the Ladner-Tsawwassen Multiple Sclerosis Support Group; the Mid-Island Hospice Society; the Mennonite Central Committee support of core services in Abbotsford; the Nanaimo Brain Injury Society; the Nechako Valley Community Services Society in Vanderhoof; the Neil Squire Foundation in Burnaby; the New Westminster Mental Health Centre; the Penticton and District Community Resources Society; People in Motion Kamloops and District Society; the Pioneer Community Living Association in New Westminster; Positive Women's Network in Vancouver; the Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society in Cranbrook; the South Burnaby Mental Health Society; the Shuswap Association for Community Living in Salmon Arm; the Scleroderma Association of B.C. in Delta; the Quesnel Tillicum Society Native Friendship Centre; the Quesnel Community Living Association; the Sunshine Coast Association for Community Living; the Sunshine Coast Peer Counselling for Seniors in Gibson; the Surrey North Mental Health Centre; the Surrey Association for the Mentally Handicapped; the Trail and District Consumer Support Society; the Tumbler Ridge Family Support Society; the Vernon Disability Resource Centre; the Victoria AIDS Respite Care Society; the Voice of the Cerebral Palsied in Vancouver; the Walk-and-Roll Services in New Westminster; the West End Seniors Network Society in Vancouver; the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing in northern B.C. as well as in the Vancouver branch; the Williams Lake Association for Community Living; the 100 Mile House and District Women's Centre Society; the YouthCo AIDS Society; the Working Group on Poverty in Mosaic in Vancouver.

Those are just a few dozen of the 400 advocacy and consumer groups that oppose this legislation. I want to just talk a little bit about what hope these people possibly have about their appeal process — the harsh hard-heartedness of this legislation. Do they get a second chance once they're booted off the great appeal system this government is now putting in place to replace the old one?

Here's what some members of this now government said about the appeal system back when the legislation was introduced in 1996. Here's what the member for Vancouver-Langara…. You know, he speaks with experience as well. The member for Vancouver-Langara actually had direct experience in the system and the appeal system. Here's what his point of view was at that time of the proposed changes to the appeal system. He had some criticisms of the previous government then, but now it's easy to compare his previous criticisms to what the devastating changes are now. Here's what the member for Vancouver-Langara said then, in 1996:

This is the member talking about the appeal process that's in place now, which this government is changing.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this is because the member for Vancouver-Langara points out what were then legitimate concerns about the changes that the Disability Benefits Program Act made to the appeal process. He said that it was on the verge of becoming legalistic and that the community tribunals were going to disappear. Well, in fact, unlike this government, that government listened, kept the community tribunals and made the appeal process community-based as well. It tried to take away the legalistic approach and did so.

The very criticisms that the member for Vancouver-Langara made then truly apply now. In fact, one cannot make an appeal if it doesn't meet the test that one would have to make to the Court of Appeal.

The most legalistic of tests now apply. It is shameful. There's no community representative. The government gets to appoint what probably will be handpicked business people, because that's who they've appointed so far. I'll tell you something. We were told to keep it up. "Keep up your yammering," my colleague and I were told, "but this bill will pass anyway."

Well, let me say in the time I have left that I'm going to move an amendment. I'll provide it to the table. I move:

J. MacPhail: All we in the opposition are trying to do is get this government to listen to those that they promised they would consult, the people with the disabilities themselves. They promised they would consult. Just last week this government was at the table consulting with people with disabilities. They left the table and said: "We'll get back to you."

Well, it turns out that in the meantime this government tabled the most draconian legislation affecting people with disabilities this province has ever seen, not by my definition — I'm not a person with a disability — but by the very definition of those who live and work and survive every day with a disability. They're in a state of shock.

Instead of this minister accusing those people of fearmongering and saying they're being irresponsible, even though all they're doing is interpreting the legislation on its face, why doesn't he wait? Why doesn't he put this bill on hold for six months and sit down with those very people affected by this legislation and explain to them how it will work, how they're wrong, as he says in his letter? Why doesn't he stop the anxiety amongst the hundreds of people who have already called in, some of whose words I read out? Why doesn't the minister just support this amendment? What kind of society is this new era?

What kind of society is the new era of these Liberals that they would ram through legislation attacking people with disabilities, attacking those that finally made huge strides toward equality in the 1990s and are now having all those benefits rent asunder. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker, but there is an opportunity for every single one of the Liberal MLAs to join with my colleague and me in supporting this amendment to not proceed.

You know, I've seen the documentation from the Ministry of Human Resources upon which the minister bases his assertion that the number of people eligible for the disabilities pension ballooned out of control. I've seen it. I'm sure the question that the public servant was asked to answer only allowed him to come up with this data that supports the minister's false assertion that the eligibility had thousands of people go on disability and that it was out of control.

It's just like the time I heard that the Premier's chief of staff asked the Ministry of Finance to come up with statistics to prove that health care was unsustainable. The chief of staff didn't say: "Tell me, what are the statistics around the question of the sustainability of health care?" He said: "Get stats to show that health care is unsustainable." Same way — probably the ministry staff were told: "Come up with statistics to show that the eligibility numbers are ballooning out of control for persons at the disability 2 level."

I think what the minister failed to even acknowledge is that in society in general, and in British Columbia specifically, for years and years people with disabilities were denied access to their rightful place in the social safety net because the definition was restrictive. When the definition was changed in 1996 to truly recognize the real disabilities that affect British Columbians, they became eligible to have that recognized. Is that so terrible in society? Is that so terrible in society that a government changed it to truly recognize what a real disability is — for the first time ever to recognize that a person with a mental illness has a disability? Is that so terrible? There is so much more to be done.

Mr. Speaker, noting the hour, on this particular amendment I move to adjourn debate.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)

Vote 6: office of the child, youth and family advocate, $1,491,000 — approved.

Vote 49: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $210,000,000 — approved.

Vote 50: commissions on collection of public funds and allowances for doubtful revenue accounts, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 52: environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,967,000 — approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 64

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Wilson
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Clark
Bond	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Johnston	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 60

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Nettleton	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Weisbeck	Penner	Anderson
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter


	YEAS — 59

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	Barisoff
Nettleton	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Weisbeck	Penner	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Anderson	MacPhail	Kwan