Hansard -- Thursday, April 18, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 11 (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

Tributes		2935
	Loss of Canadian lives in Afghanistan Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail

Second Reading of Bills		2935
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) J. MacPhail L. Mayencourt J. Kwan

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, with the rest of our nation we remember this morning the Canadian soldiers who died and were injured in a tragic accident in Afghanistan yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.

Hon. C. Clark: If I may, on behalf of the Premier and on behalf of the government, I would like to offer our condolences to the families of those four Canadians who died in Afghanistan and the eight who were injured. Our flags are at half-mast in this Legislature today, as I know that they are across Canada, to mourn the loss of those lives.

They were, each of them, a husband or a son or a father or a brother, and words cannot convey what that loss means for those families. But I do, certainly, want to stand up on behalf of this government and let them and every Canadian know that they are today in our thoughts and prayers. They died defending the things that we hold most dear — that is, our right to live free and with a sense of security.

They went to Afghanistan on behalf of all of us. They did that so that we could continue to be free. We owe them a deep, deep debt of gratitude for giving their lives in our service, as we also owe a deep debt of gratitude to every member of our Armed Forces who is serving in Canada and overseas today.

If I can offer, on behalf of the government, our prayers and condolences, I'll certainly do that, hon. Speaker, and I know you will convey to the families that we will be thinking of them today.

J. MacPhail: I rise to join with the Deputy Premier in expressing our sadness regarding the tragic events in Afghanistan that took the lives of four Canadian soldiers and seriously injured so many others. No words can adequately express to the families of these four soldiers our shock, our dismay, our sorrow for their loss. Few, if any, of us can know the depths of this loss for the parents, partners, children and friends of the four people, but we can express to the families our deep gratitude for this supreme sacrifice on behalf of our country.

It's difficult, if not impossible, to know what to say in the face of such a terrible tragedy. All we can do is let the families know that our thoughts and prayers are with them, and our prayers can be for peace.

While the full facts of how this tragedy occurred are not yet known, I believe that the Prime Minister's commitment to work with the American government to get to the bottom of this is genuine. Mr. Speaker, the opposition joins with encouraging this House to send letters of condolence to the families affected by this tragedy and send to them our prayers for peace.

J. MacPhail: I just want to make a few more comments addressing the amendment that I tabled on behalf of the opposition late last evening. The amendment says: as a Legislature, let's take about six months to consider the full effects of this draconian legislation. Let's set the bill aside for six months. Let's go out and talk to the community about what this legislation already means and what we can do to prevent the tragedies that are occurring today as a result of these draconian cuts.

The news is full of the devastating effects — real, occurring right now — of these cuts in welfare and to people with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that in my 11 years of public service, I have not seen anything like this — the despair that people are expressing. The concern, frustration and anger are spilling out into our lives as MLAs. Some of us choose to handle it in certain ways, where they take no responsibility and pass the actions of despair on to law enforcement. My colleague takes it to such heart and tries to solve each and every problem, each and every case of despair that ends up on her desk. She tries desperately, on behalf of every British Columbian, to actually solve the problem of being cut off welfare. But for the first time, I think my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will have to get up and report that she has no tools left to help the most helpless.

Our office was inundated throughout last night as this debate raged. We were inundated this morning with messages from people saying: "Don't let this legislation go through." This legislation is the most harmful to a society that is as well off as British Columbia — that one could possibly imagine.

I raised a case yesterday, an example of a young man who was a street kid, a street youth, and how he was being affected by these draconian cuts. Let me just tell you more detail about that, because more informa-

tion came in last night about the real circumstances behind this young man's life. You may remember that I talked about an 18-year-old who was on the streets and went to his MLA's office, the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, and got no help. In fact, I think he was told to get a job or go to the food bank.

Here are his circumstances in detail. It's from a woman in Vancouver-Burrard who lives there and who was reaching out to help this street youth. The woman who lives in Vancouver-Burrard was the one that told this young man to go to her MLA's office. Here's her story about her interaction with this young man.

Anyway, that's the story of that young man, and somehow the Minister of Human Resources stands up and says: "Oh, not only are we going to train these young people, but we're now going to kick people with disabilities off welfare and train them as well." With what, I say? With what? Not one extra cent for training for anybody on welfare — whether they be on welfare now and are being booted off or whether they need assistance because they're a youth.

Mr. Speaker, my time has run out. I would urge all members to support this amendment and take time to figure out how we're going to help people like Jason.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to speak against this amendment. I do so because I believe that the debate in this House, the conversations that are being had in the disabled community, have led to great uncertainty for people that are living with disability. To delay the process and to spend any more time leaving those individuals in that period of uncertainty and in that period of fear that is being cultivated within the disabled community would be unfair to them. For that reason, I want to speak against this amendment.

I want to thank the minister for the many efforts he has made to ensure that members of the disabled community in our society are protected by our government's clear commitment to provide for their needs, while offering them the opportunity to participate fully in society. I want to say this one more time. It is a commitment from our government to provide for the needs of the disabled community, while offering them the opportunity to participate fully in society.

Mr. Speaker, I have just received a note from one of the other members in the House who would like to seek leave to make an introduction, so I'll yield the floor to him for this introduction.

R. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take leave to introduce some guests in the gallery. We have Dr. Chi Ming Hui from Hong Kong, Mr. Arthur Tsang from Europe, Ms. Yeeli Zhao from Washington, D.C., and Mr. Chit Yeung from Burnaby.

Dr. Hui is the president of the Hong Kong Association of International Investment. He is here looking for investment opportunities in British Columbia, and he is planning to build 50 houses in Beijing using B.C. lumber.

L. Mayencourt: In continuing, I want to say that I'm very proud that this minister has initiated a very constructive process of consultation with community groups across this province. He's also engaged members of this House in dialogue to ensure that he understands the true realities that our disabled communities face. He has also met with countless individuals — the real people behind the words "disabled communities" — who are affected by this act to ensure that their needs are met.

I'm grateful that this minister took this issue to cabinet and that he actually led in a discussion of these important matters in an open cabinet meeting, so that British Columbians would have the opportunity to know how our cabinet, our government, this minister and us hope to better the lives of our most vulnerable citizens.

Early this spring the minister introduced a thoughtful service plan to the caucus, members and interested stakeholders in the province, which stated clearly our commitment to those living with life-challenging ill-

nesses like HIV and AIDS and cancer. It also articulated the need to support those affected by mental illness and to provide opportunity for all disabled people to participate in the provincial economy to the degree that their ability permits.

I want to say for this chamber and for the members here that this is a particular passion for me, because I have spent the last decade of my life working in the disabled community. I've been working with people with HIV and AIDS. I've been working with people with cancer. I've been working with mental illness. I have worked in the downtown east side. I know many of the problems that those people face, and I am deeply, deeply committed, as is the minister, to meeting their needs.

I also know that some of the people within the disabled community have called for us to find a way to help them participate in society, and this bill merely accommodates that while protecting their needs. The minister has stated that this bill will provide the right mix of support, encouragement and motivation so clients can take advantage of the opportunities that exist today to lead fuller, more independent lives.

I want to raise four points here, Mr. Speaker. This act reflects the unique and distinct needs of disabled persons in this province. That is why it is a separate act, and that is what the disabled community asked us to do, in consultation. This act supports individuals covered by the act by allowing them to be employed as their health permits or their ability allows them without losing access to their benefits, and this act protects the needs of those of cannot, for one reason or another, work.

This act also addresses an important issue with the Ministry of Human Resources, one that was raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings last night. That is the issue of appeals, and it is something that is very, very important to me and something that I know a lot about because of my work in the AIDS community.

First, on the need for a separate act. This act specifically spells it out. It is the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. That is a recognition of the unique needs of the disabled people in our community. It states that to the extent we are able, we are committed to assisting these individuals in living lives of security and dignity. This act recognizes that there are people in our community with disabilities and that they are of no less value in our society. This act allows them to move forward with confidence to develop additional strengths and abilities in their lives.

Today disabilities should not automatically relegate someone to permanent unemployable status. Here it must be clearly stated that those individuals who are unable to take part in the labour force will continue to receive the assistance and support of this government. We honour all disabled individuals, and we welcome them to participate in society and in our economy to the fullest extent possible.

This legislation ensures that we will no longer marginalize our physically and mentally challenged citizens. For people who are able to work, we have made enhancements that allow them to retain more of the income they earn. This allows them to enjoy greater benefit from their endeavours, not less. Since disabilities moderate from time to time, we believe that this legislation will allow disabled persons the flexibility to bring those who have been disabled back into the workforce as they are able.

These are exciting opportunities for personal and professional development through training for new employment and within the limits of one's ability. This legislation ensures that we no longer marginalize our challenged citizens.

I want to speak for a moment. I know that the minister next week will join me and some other members of caucus to meet with an organization in my community that deals with the mentally ill. They have an employment program that they want to put forward to this ministry, an employment program that allows people with periodic and episodic mental health problems to be employed to the extent that they're able. These are exciting opportunities for people who do not have regular access to the job market.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant mentioned an organization that I'm also very proud of. The member mentions the United We Can organization, run by a good friend of mine, Mr. Ken Lyotier, which allows those with mental illness, those that are homeless or those that are dumpster divers to participate in the economy to the extent that they are able. Those are small but important victories for the disabled community. This particular piece of legislation addresses that.

L. Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asks, quite rightly: how does this help individuals? In her government anyone that earned over $100 or $200 on the disability program…

L. Mayencourt: …had it clawed back, had it clawed back by the NDP government, had it clawed back by a government that purported…

L. Mayencourt: …to defend individuals with disabilities, a government that grabbed the money out of the pockets of the homeless and the poor and the disabled. I am ashamed that that government did that.

Our government is correcting that by raising the disability earnings exemption by 50 percent to $300. That is a victory for…

L. Mayencourt: …the disabled community, and it is important that we do that. I am extremely proud of that, and I am ashamed that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…

L. Mayencourt: …would allow her government to take money out of the disabled community's pockets.

This also supports individuals in the workplace as their health and their ability allows. It provides them the opportunity to re-enter the workforce and not be penalized by the system, as they have in the past decade.

Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities who re-enter the workforce will be able to maintain their disability designation indefinitely. What this means is that an individual will be able to work and receive their full medical benefits, and in the event that the person needs to rely on their disability income, it will be there. There will be no need for them to reapply. The person will apply to their financial aid worker and let them know that they are in need again, and their disability status will immediately be reactivated.

This government, as I said earlier, has also increased the ability for those who are disabled to work part-time and to retain more of the money they earn. This act provides protection for those who are unable to work. Some citizens make a contribution to our society that is not directly financial — it's something I'm familiar with — but they are no less full citizens because of that. Their contribution might be artistic, it might be spiritual or social, but it is no less important. Our government commits to protect them and to honour them for their contribution.

There are no time limits for the receipt of continuous assistance, as has been stated in this House by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. There are no time limits for the receipt of continuous assistance under this act. This continuous assistance will be available to those who are eligible, who are not expected to gain independence through employment. This will include individuals with severe disabilities and those with persistent multiple barriers to employment. Further, there is no longer a two-year independence test, as there was under the act put forward by the previous government.

Supplementary assistance will provide health assistance to those who have disabilities and to other eligible people and other programs and services including emergency social services, child care subsidies, bus passes, hostels and emergency shelters and continuing care for alcohol and drug rehabilitation facilities.

Most importantly, this act addresses the issue of appeals. Last night the member for Vancouver-Hastings went on to talk about the appeal process under the previous government. She quoted the member for Vancouver-Langara, who spoke of how important it was to have an appeal mechanism in place that made sense for individuals, so that people who got a decision through the Ministry of Human Resources would be permitted to appeal decisions that did not benefit them.

The previous NDP government for six long years ran people through an appeal process that was outrageous. It was bureaucratic, it was designed to fail, and it was designed to hurt the very people they legislated that they were responsible for protecting. The same people that stand here today and cry crocodile tears over the appeal process ran roughshod over the HIV/AIDS community through the schedule C appeal process. The previous government went through a process where a person who was eligible for schedule C, eligible because they had…

L. Mayencourt:…wasting syndrome and they were dying of their illness, would come in….

It is embarrassing to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. It is embarrassing that the previous government would talk about an appeal process that was so heartless and so unfair to people that were dying of cancer, dying of AIDS. Now to come in this House and talk about us streamlining that process to make it more humane…. Now she doesn't like that process. Well, that's too bad, because what we're going to do is bring a humane, just process to the appeal process. When someone finds that they have a decision by a Ministry of Human Resources employee that they feel is incorrect…

L. Mayencourt:…they'll be able to go to their doctor and get some information on how to go forward. They'll be able to sit before a group that will make a just decision for them. I applaud the minister for having done that.

I want to also speak about the schedule C people, because, you know, there are about 500 or 600 on schedule C. That was a program that people went through — and went through years and years of tribunals and appeals under the previous government. This minister has committed to the people who received the schedule C benefit that those awards, through tribunals, will be honoured by regulation in this act and that those benefits will continue indefinitely.

I am also grateful to the minister because seeing the injustice of 500 people going through exactly the same stupid, stupid appeal process, the same awkward and bureaucratic mess, he said: "I'm going to clean that up, and I'm going to work with the disabled community." As he did, he worked with people at the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. He worked with people at B.C. Persons with AIDS Society and AIDS Vancouver, and he came up with a nutritional health supplement so that if an individual has wasting syndrome, has a life-challenging illness that is causing them to lose weight, to lose body mass, in effect, to drive them into the depths of illness and perhaps death, then he will provide to them, through the monthly nutritional supplement, up to $225 — $225 that can be used by people like Ryan, who was mentioned in this House yesterday, to buy bottled water. That is protected by this act. That is protected by regulation, by that minister, and I'm proud to stand with him on this issue.

Now, the previous system set up by the previous government meant that people had to go out and buy the goods and the services and the vitamins before they could be reimbursed. This government is telling them: "Here's the money; here's the allotment. Go out and do that, so you don't have to be out of pocket." I think that's a more humane way of dealing with this particular problem.

I also want to point out, and this is really important, that the monthly nutritional supplement is not something that came out of thin air. It's a very important thing that this minister did. He went into open cabinet — you know, we have open cabinet in our government; that's the first time any government in Canada has done that — and talked about the 500 people who had gone through the appeal process and the fact that in each and every one of those cases, the previous government was found to be heartless and uncaring of the disabled community. He said: "Look, we have to do better than that." Our Premier spoke up for it. Our Solicitor General spoke up for it. Members of cabinet stepped forward and said: "This is not fair, and we approve the monthly nutritional supplement." I'm proud to be with that number.

A few moments ago the member for Vancouver-Hastings mentioned a young gentleman by the name of Jason, and she mentioned an e-mail that has been distributed far and wide about Jason. I want to speak to Jason for just a moment, because it is true that a person, a woman, did call our office and speak about Jason. My office informed that woman that we don't work for people…. We cannot talk to someone in need of social assistance with someone else. We need to talk to them. So this young gentleman, who is on Denman Street, was asked by my worker, my constituency assistant, to please walk eight blocks up to my office, if you can. If you can't, we'll give you some bus fare. But please, walk up to my office and tell us what your circumstance is. Tell us what we can do to help you. We made that commitment to him.

The caller, who was not Jason but was the person who distributed this e-mail throughout British Columbia this morning, declined. She said: "No, no, no. He's not coming to see you. I'm not sending him up there." She made a decision that she didn't want Jason to come to see us. She didn't want Jason to come and find out about the wonderful opportunities that are available to him, the supports that British Columbia has built for him and for people like him.

I'm disappointed that the member brings that up. I'm very disappointed, because my office has been very eager to assist people through this very difficult time when there is uncertainty and there is change and when there is great fearmongering going on in the community.

I ask that Jason please walk the eight blocks. Come to the constituency office where my constituency assistant is eager to assist you, eager to help you find the supports you need. For Jason and for others that are like him, if there are needs they have, that's what this MLA and what those MLAs over there are here for. We're here to help those individuals.

I want to just mention one other thing that came up last night. The member for Vancouver-Hastings started reading off a list. It is a list distributed by the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. I received it. As a matter of fact, I receive this exact fax virtually every morning from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, as does every member of this House, and I don't know that they understand this means that's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia for the paper. Nonetheless, here's what the letter says: "Please find attached a list of disability organizations in B.C. who have informed the government over the past several months that they are opposed to the repealing of this act and the definition of disability."

Yet that's not consistent with what they've signed their names to, because what these 400 groups are actually asking for is a separate and distinct disability act. The reason they're doing it is because those individuals that have a disability have separate and distinct needs. That is what this is about, so I am glad the 400 groups have put their names to the fact that this minister has done what they have asked him to do. He has created a separate disability act.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to this amendment. I want to say that the last few days have been very brutal, and I want to tell you why. I've been up very, very late at night returning phone calls to people I know, people in my community that have HIV, that have AIDS, that have Crohn's disease, people I've met in being around the province, like the people from Prince George. They've called me and said: "What is this act all about? Is this bad for us?" I want to say to those individuals that they can continue to call me. They can continue to phone and express their needs. I will do my best to address their concerns.

However, the fearmongering put forward by those two members of the opposition is a total discredit to this House. It's a discredit to the disabled community. Spreading fear doesn't help the disabled community. It doesn't help, to use them shamelessly. I think it's very

important that those members understand this is not a helpful process. It's fine to come into this House and speak about protecting the needs of our disabled community, and it is fine and noble to come in here and speak to this bill and talk about the needs of that community and protect it. But spreading lies…. I excuse myself, please, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

You know, we have an unparalleled opportunity in this House to go and find out from a minister when he's putting forward a bill: "What's the bill about? Here are eight things that concern me about the bill." As a matter of fact, I do that quite often with many members of the cabinet. If a bill is coming up and I don't understand something that's going to happen, if I'm worried for a part of my community, I go over and see the minister. I think that's an opportunity that is afforded to me and an opportunity that is also afforded to the members of the opposition.

We're trying our very best in the spirit of cooperation to communicate here. That's what this House is about, so I think that members of this House have an obligation if they're unclear about something, if they're afraid for a member of their constituency, to make an effort to walk upstairs and see the Minister of Human Resources and say: "Minister, I'm concerned about this particular act. Can you tell me what you intend to do with this act?" The minister has been very available to me, very available to virtually every member of this House I've talked to about this issue, because we're all talking about it. We're all concerned about the disabled community.

You know, we can raise our issues — and we will during committee stage — and the minister has been helpful in addressing those concerns. Some of the issues are new. As a matter of fact, I understand that the minister, as a result of questions put forward by private members in this House, has made an amendment. I think that's good. I think it shows that the minister understands that we as private members have a contribution to make in legislation and a recognition that we have a value in this process. We are invited to participate in that. I want to thank the minister for doing that.

I want to speak strongly against the amendment. I think it's very important that this amendment be struck down. It's just going to lead to uncertainty for the disabled community. Certainly, with the fear that's running rampant in the community right now, that's just not going to be helpful for them.

I want to assure the people who live in my riding and I want to assure the people who live in the disabled communities throughout British Columbia that we're working really hard to make sure that you are protected; to make sure that your distinct needs are recognized by a separate act; to make certain that if you're able to work, you'll be able to maintain your disability designation and that if you're unable to work, you won't be forced to go back; that if you need….

L. Mayencourt: If you decide for some reason that you're able to go to work for a time and earn part-time employment, we've increased the ability for you to earn that income by 50 percent over the previous government. We have allowed individuals that can temporarily go back to work to maintain their designation. If you feel really good today and for two years you can go back to work, good on you. Those are the kinds of issues that the community asked me to raise and that we have brought forward.

L. Mayencourt: It allows individuals that do feel well enough to participate fully in society. That is important. I am not of the opinion, as the member for Vancouver-Hastings is, that disabled communities should sit at home and not participate. I am of the opinion that we should all go out and participate to the extent that we are able.

I want to assure the disabled community that this act allows them to do that — to go out and if their disability at some point kicks in again and they are unable to continue to work, they'll be able to come back to their financial aid worker and say: "I'm in need again."

In conclusion, I also want to state that we've made a more humane appeal process. I think that's a very important distinction that is worth noting.

I thank the minister. I thank the other members of this House, including the members of the opposition, for their debate. This is a very important piece of legislation, as has been noted by many members of this House. I thank them for their thoughts, I thank them for their contribution to this debate, and I encourage them to walk upstairs and see the Minister of Human Resources and address the concerns that they have and see if they can do that — as I have done, as I have stated earlier in Hansard. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak against the amendment.

J. Kwan: I am very pleased to be able to enter into the debate in support of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, calling on the government to postpone the passage of this bill. This bill will hurt many people who are on disability, including the constituents in Vancouver-Burrard. It will hurt many people who are HIV/AIDS people, who have severe illnesses from which they would be put at risk as a result of this bill by the government side.

It is amazing. I have been in the Legislature now for…. This would be going on my sixth year in the Legislature. I have never heard anything quite as stunning as what I heard just now from the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It shows completely the lack of understanding of what the bill is about.

More to the point, it shows a complete disconnect of the member for Vancouver-Burrard from his constituents — the people for whom he purports to advocate, to whom he says he will raise their concerns in this very Legislature about the issues they are concerned about.

You know, with regards to Bill 27 there is a long list of concerns that the members from his very own community have made contact and asked him to raise. I think he said he would do that, but have we heard any such thing in this Legislature this morning? Not a one. He went and said: "Thank you very much — three bags full — Mr. Minister. Thank you for bringing in these pieces of legislation so that the people in the community will be hurt further. I'm going to pretend that I didn't see it and didn't hear it because it's not true."

Let me just tell you, for some of the community members, this member for Vancouver-Burrard has failed to highlight their concerns that they have brought to his attention. He has refused to bring them to this House. Let other voices from other ridings be the voice of the community — myself and the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

First, on the issue around the speedy passage, the attempt of the government to bring about speedy passage of this bill by ramming it through the Legislature with their majority. The community have severe concerns around that, and here's what they have to say:

Speaking to the question of consultation. Why would the community say such a thing if they have been fully consulted and heard by this government and by the member for Vancouver-Burrard as their MLA, as their representative? Why would they say that if in fact that work had been done properly, respectfully and in the manner that it should have been done?

I will at a later time cite examples where that has been done properly. Even then the opposition, the now government, had to praise the government for that work on issues around the Disability Benefits Program Act. I will go through that later. Right now I want to continue on with the concerns that have been raised by the community to the member for Vancouver-Burrard. He has failed to bring their concerns to this Legislature this morning, failing to represent the community there.

Here's what they have to say. Even in the short time that they've had to analyze the act, they have been able to put together a list of concerns which they expected their MLA for Vancouver-Burrard to raise in this House, which he has failed to do.

The initial concerns that AIDS Vancouver identified, given the short time frame, include that the usual and continuous costs have been removed from the definition. The current definition provides that applicants can qualify for disability status if they can demonstrate that they have need of assistance or have disability-related costs.

Why has this been removed, and how will the new act address this issue? Did the member for Vancouver-Burrard raise this issue? No, he did not. He went around praising the government by changing the definition — changing the definition.

Oh my God. What people in the disability community have done is raise their concerns with the minister about the changing of the definition, because changing the definition is essential to people's eligibility.

J. Kwan: The changing of the definition is essential to the issue of eligibility. When you change that definition and make it more limiting, people who have disabilities, who have illnesses — some visible, some not so visible — will not be able to qualify.

One of these includes that the applicants will qualify if they can demonstrate the need for assistance or have disability-related costs. That has now been taken away.

There's been no answer given, not even a concern raised, by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. He claims that he's the advocate. My God, if he were my advocate, I'd be hurrying at the speed of lightning, finding somebody else who actually would have read the act, understood what it meant and the ramifications around it, and who would be that voice. Clearly, the people in the community cannot count on the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

Let me just look at another concern they have raised. The cost criterion has been removed. The amount of money a person may need to spend in the care and management of his or her disability has no bearing on the application for disability benefits. This will affect, for example, people who may not need assistance but who have ongoing costs related to their disability. It is absolutely crucial for the government to recognize this important criterion, and it has now been changed.

In my former life, before I got into politics, I worked as an advocate for those who needed disability benefits and those who needed income assistance. I worked to assist them in every way that I could. Part of what worked for people would be that sometimes, if they couldn't prove they needed assistance — they didn't necessarily need an aide — but as a result of their disability they had increased costs, and if they could demonstrate that they were qualified for the disability designation…. That has now been taken away from them.

Is it now the case that if you have a disability, it has to be so severe that you actually need an aide before you qualify? That's what this government is suggesting in this bill. If the member for Vancouver-Burrard says

— I presume it's true — that he's a strong advocate in the community, he ought to know the difference. He ought to raise this concern in this House right here, right now. We did not hear a single noise from him on this matter.

Let's look at another issue. The qualification for disability is essential. I guess this is how the Liberal government works, you know. It's all about lip service; it's all about double-talk. The member for Vancouver-Burrard claims that he reads the letters from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities — he gets them as well — and then he focuses on one thing. That is that they asked for a separate act — as though somehow having two separate acts but changing everything within them and then, therefore, denying people on income assistance and people with disabilities who needed government support most is all right. It's on two separate pieces of paper.

If you understood and read the letters, of which I have many, from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities…

J. Kwan: …you would have understood more than what they're saying. That is, it's not just the issue of a separate act but the intent of the act. That's what makes a difference in people's lives. The member completely failed to understand that, as though somehow the member had actually praised the minister…

J. Kwan: …for doing what they want. The member for Vancouver-Burrard goes: "Well, I do more than just read the letters; I actually speak to them." I'll go into that a little bit longer in a little while, because I have phoned them and talked to them.

I will outline for you what the consultation process has been, how they felt they had been cheated by the minister in that process when the act came out and how they were not consulted. I will tell you the details of that. I just spoke with them not more than two days ago, when the bill was introduced. I wanted to find out specifically what the process was and what happened there. I will tell the House for this debate this particular piece of information.

Another concern has been raised by the community group, AIDS Vancouver, which is a group in Vancouver-Burrard. To qualify for disability benefits, applicants will have to be directly and significantly restricted in the ability to perform daily living activities. Daily living activities will be defined in the new regulations. Nobody knows what those daily living activities are, what that definition is. Nobody knows.

When I asked the minister during the estimates process about these bills that would be introduced in the House, the minister advised that the regulations would be introduced at the same time or shortly after, but we have not seen the regulations to date. There is no definition on this critical piece, on defining whether or not someone qualifies for disability, and here we are in this Legislature with the minister, with the Liberal MLAs, with the member for Vancouver-Burrard, trying to ram through these changes without giving an opportunity for the community to review the matters and without the minister himself knowing what those answers are.

The minister has a responsibility to provide that information so that people know. If anybody adds to the fear that's in the community, I would suggest it's this Minister of Human Resources, this Liberal government, who has failed to produce the information that is required so that people know what the qualification requirements are, other than what is stated in the act. Right now the only thing they can go by is what is stated in the act, and the act says very clearly with the respect to the concerns that are being raised in the community…. It tells them that the eligibility criteria are going to be more stringent, and those who are faced with disabilities would likely be cut off. They could be cut off.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard is smirking away as though somehow this is a big joke. Well, it isn't. For the people whose lives are impacted, it isn't a big joke. The MLAs who have been elected to this House have every responsibility to represent their constituents. You know what? The member for Vancouver-Burrard has failed to do so. He has made a commitment that he would raise these concerns in this House, and he has failed to do so.

Let me just continue on, on behalf of this constituency group that's not in my riding but in Vancouver-Burrard. Let me continue on with what they wanted their MLA to speak about on their behalf. Question:

You know, if the minister wanted to be forthright with members of the community, he would support this amendment that has been tabled by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, asking for a six-month period for the bill to be reviewed by members of the community.

It would give the minister the time to bring forward the legislation and the regulation accompanying the legislation so that these questions could be answered. But no, this government doesn't want to do that. They just want to ram the bill through. Well, why is that? Is it (a) because what people are saying is actually true, because what they see so far in the act is exactly that, or is it (b) that he doesn't even know himself? This government, quite frankly, is fixated on the ideology of being punitive to people they deem are unworthy, per-

haps, in our society, and all they can think about is the right-wing ideology spouted out from the Fraser Institute. Maybe that's all that's driving them.

Another concern has been raised by AIDS Vancouver that the member for Vancouver-Burrard is supposed to raise in this House and hasn't. Performing tasks within a reasonable period of time has been removed. This change indicates that the ministry will not consider the length of time it takes an individual to perform tasks unaided. PWAs who struggle to remain self-reliant, despite the difficulty and length of time it takes to perform daily tasks, may not qualify.

Again, have we misread the bill's intent, or will the regulations address this concern? Why would the act take out what exists now in the Disability Benefits Program Act — a reasonable period of time to perform tasks? If you're somebody who is working hard to maintain your dignity and trying to perform your daily tasks without assistance, even though it takes you a long, long time to do it, under the previous act, the Disability Benefits Program Act, those people qualified for disability 2. They qualified. Now, with the act taking out this qualifier of a reasonable period of time, what are the ramifications? What does it mean for people? One could only assume that even if it took you all day to perform a task, it would mean you would not qualify for disability 2. If that's not the intent, why change the language?

Other questions have been raised. Will PWAs currently in receipt of a monthly health allowance, which is schedule C, continue to receive the full amount awarded to them by the minister and/or as the result of a tribunal decision and/or an appeal decision? That's not clear. I canvassed these questions with the minister during estimates, and he was able to tell me that everybody would be reassessed. Not immediately — fair enough — but when the annual assessment comes up. That's what will happen. Yes, people will be reassessed. That's what the minister said during estimates. I asked that question. I asked him: "Are you going to go ahead and do that immediately with everybody?" The answer was no. But annually, when their review comes up, they will be assessed to see whether or not they qualify for disability 2 — if you're on disability 2.

Are people fearmongering by wondering: are they going to get cut off? No. They're not fearmongering. Those are real fears that people have, because right now, as they see the act, that's what it's telling them. With these more stringent requirements, they may well not qualify for disability 2.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard claims how great it was for this government to continue on with schedule C. You know what? The former government approved schedule C in consultation with the community so that they would get extra dollars in the amount of $300 a month — an extra $300 a month. And you know what? When this government became government, what did they do? They reduced the $300 that was formerly approved by the previous government to $225, reducing that amount by $75. That is somehow helping the people with AIDS and people with a disability. I would say not. That's $75 less than what was formerly approved by the previous government. This member for Vancouver-Burrard can sit here and say how proud they are.

J. Kwan: Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver-Burrard — suggesting how proud he is by cutting $75 out of schedule C for people with AIDS and disabilities…. Shame! My God.

You know, hon. Speaker, here's what else AIDS Vancouver has to say about what they expected this minister…. Sorry; it's this member. I know he wishes to be a minister, because why else would he be reading from his message box and ignoring the concerns that have been raised by his constituents? Here's what else they have to say:

These are only some of the questions, some of the concerns, because community groups haven't had time to review the act in full so that they can raise all of their concerns. They asked their MLA, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, to raise these questions and these concerns. The member claimed he would, but we haven't heard one question in this regard from the member in this House during these debates. What he did do, though, was rise up and praise the minister about how great he has been. Well, the community has a different

point of view. They don't feel so great about it. In fact, they have a completely different opinion on this matter. So much for the MLAs representing their constituents. So much for a promise by the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard that he would raise these concerns in this House.

It's another broken promise, just like the broken promise the Premier made along with all the Liberal candidates during the election, when they said that they would not reduce welfare rates. It was a direct quote in the Georgia Straight from the Premier. That promise is yet another broken promise. I wonder what the members in this House, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, would call it when you reduce schedule C from $300 to $225, if that's not a reduction in rate. Absolutely. It is absolutely another broken promise on the long list of broken promises by the Liberal government in the short period of time they've been in government.

I want to say very clearly that this information came to the opposition through the website as part of a letter from the Pacific AIDS Network, through their distribution list. That's how we got the information, and that's how we know that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has failed to represent his constituents.

The change in definition of disability, as I mentioned earlier, is key, and the disabled are concerned at the lack of consultation. Having been an advocate and worked with the welfare legislations and acts and regulations, I know what it means every time there's a change in definition and how this will affect people who are trying to live independently, such as people with HIV/AIDS.

Let me just highlight what the issue around consultation has been — just one example. The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, as I mentioned, has sent numerous letters. I received a letter on February 1, February 7, March 19 and April 15.

J. Kwan: You know, hon. Speaker, the member for Vancouver-Burrard…. The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General is sitting there mumbling to himself, belittling the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities' work, mocking them. I'll have the minister know that the work they're doing is in consultation with 400 other organizations. This coalition is being supported by 400 organizations, and they have a long history of advocacy in our community. No matter who's in government, they have a strong history of advocating for the right thing for the people.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard is even questioning whether or not those 400 groups are valid groups. He's saying: "Gee, did you get up and phone them and ask and see if they signed a letter?" He acts as though the 400 groups have not validly joined the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. Shame on the member for such a statement.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I phoned the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities when the act was introduced. They've been sending me correspondence, and I've been reading them on an ongoing basis, and I wanted to talk to them direct.

Specifically, I asked them about the issue around the consultation question. The member says that they've had numerous consultations. Let me just go through for you what consultation had begun, where it went short, what happened in that process, when they were cut out of the process and when their concerns were disregarded by this minister, by this government, by this MLA for Vancouver-Burrard.

I spoke with the people, and this is what they advised. They met with staff in October about half a dozen times. Then they met last Tuesday with the proposals to change the act. They were given the understanding that they would meet again because they had concerns with the proposed act.

I have to say that the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities had always been a group that would consult with people, raise their concerns and continuously work with you until you could come to agreement on matters. They were never the ones to walk away from the table, in my own personal experience.

Here's what they were told. They understood that after they were given the early proposal with respect to the change, they had advised that they had concerns….

Deputy Speaker: Pardon me, member. I assume you're the designated speaker for the amendment.

J. Kwan: They had concerns, and they were advised that there would be an opportunity to engage in further discussion. Then, you know what happened? There was no more discussion. The bill was introduced on April 15. There was no more discussion.

You know what they told me? They felt that the process that the ministry and the minister had engaged in was one that was dishonest with respect to their commitment to consult.

L. Mayencourt: I don't think that's fair. I think that the minister sat down and talked to community groups, and let them have their say. He continues to do that and will continue to do that. That's an unfair comment.

J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, it's not a comment; it's a statement. It's a statement from the people who were consulted. That's how they felt, because they were given the commitment that there would be further discussion, and then there wasn't. The bill was just introduced. That is what happened.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to pause for one moment here, before I continue on with my debate, and seek leave to make an introduction.

J. Kwan: Today in the gallery visiting us are 41 grade 5 students from St. Francis Xavier School. Accompanying them are two adults, Ms. Josef and Mr. Deluna. They're here to study and gain a better understanding of how government works, what the legislative procedures are, some of the history with respect to this building and the contributions, I hope, of what governments can do for people in British Columbia. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant proceeding with the address to the amendment.

J. Kwan: Let me continue on with the debate with respect to the motion tabled by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, calling on the government to give a six-month period before the bill is brought back for further debate in this Legislature so that members of the community could have a chance to review it and have a better understanding of what it means and have a better opportunity to raise the concerns they have with regard to this bill.

The B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities had written many letters, as I mentioned. I have received numerous letters from them with their concerns. One is dated February 1, and accompanying it is an article called "The Disability Benefits Program Act: A Necessary Starting Point." I want to read this article into the record, because I don't want there to be any confusion or excuses by members of this House, and particularly the member for Vancouver-Burrard, to pretend that what the community had called for was anything different from, yes, a separate act and the recognition of the uniqueness of people with disabilities and for what reason.

If you actually read the entire document, it would tell you that the community is seeking protection and support from government, not a piece of legislation that will strip away their eligibility and their support by redefining what people with disabilities are.

That's what they had to say on February 1 regarding "The Disability Benefits Program Act: A Necessary Starting Point."

You know, it wasn't just the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities who supported the disability benefits act that was introduced back, I believe, in 1996. Others supported it as well. Let me just quote from Hansard. The current Minister of Human Resources had this to say then: "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 am pleased to see it is before us today." That was what the Minister of Human Resources had to say with respect to the Disability Benefits Program Act that was introduced by the previous administration.

It wasn't just the Minister of Human Resources who made that comment. Other MLAs made comments as well. The member for Vancouver-Langara also said, and I quote from Hansard:

I'm going to pause here for one moment, because what the member for Vancouver-Langara on the gov-

ernment bench, when he was a critic, highlighted was the importance of consultation in working out the definition of disability. The definition of disability is central to this bill that is now before us. What the government is doing is changing the definition of disability, and that poses a threat for people who will need support from government.

What is that change? First, the disability designation will no longer be permanent. The minister will have the power to take disability status away from any person currently on disability 2.

I read off the article that the Coalition of People with Disabilities forwarded to me and to every MLA in this House. If they bothered to read it, they would know. Under the Disability Benefits Program Act, a necessary starting point, a crucial piece to the definition of disability is permanency, so people will not be hounded monthly, weekly or yearly for reassessment on whether or not they qualify.

That was something that the member for Vancouver-Langara had pointed out. That bill was brought in, in 1996 to change that so that people would not have to suffer those consequences, because there was immediate recognition of the notion of permanency. Now we have a bill before us that takes that away, reverting us back in time to more than 20 years ago on the definition of disability and how people with disabilities were treated.

The other piece this government is bringing forward in terms of change that will impact the issue of qualification and the definition of disability is that the notion of usual and continuous costs will no longer be part of the definition. Under the current definition, applicants can qualify for disability status if they can demonstrate that they have need of assistance or have disability-related costs. The cost criterion has now been removed. In other words, the amount of money a person may need to spend in the care and management of his or her disability has no bearing on the application.

This will affect, for example, people with soft-tissue injuries, people who are HIV-positive and people who may not need assistance but have ongoing costs related to their disability. That is a huge concern for people. That is a redefinition that this minister has brought forward.

J. Kwan: I'm going to quote once again so that the members in this House, especially those who are rambling to themselves, can hear what their own member had to say back in 1996:

That was the comment from Vancouver-Langara. He was very forthright. He called it for what it was. He supported the government in bringing forth the bill, but he still had concerns.

I recognize that, as the people from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities have stated, this is a necessary starting point. Whoever would have thought, when a bill was brought in that was supported by the opposition and the government then and was recognized as a necessary starting point, that after the election the government would actually reverse some of those principal achievements that were in place under the Disability Benefits Program Act, the principal achievements that the disability community had advocated for some 20 years ago? They're moving us back in time to take away what was achieved and advocated for so long ago.

The community groups were concerned, and they wanted to bring the matters to the minister to raise those concerns, but they didn't get a chance to. They didn't get a chance, because the bill was introduced without further consultation with them. They were just told: "Here it is. You have to live with it." In their own letter — let me tell you not just about what the process was but rather tell you in their own words what they said about the process — written to all MLAs on April 15, the day on which the government tabled Bill 27, they said:

It was signed by Jeanette Andersen, external vice-president; Al Hanet, internal vice-president; and Margaret J. Priestley Birrell, executive director.

This is a letter, which I read into the record, in the words of the community groups representing 400 groups in the province who are concerned with this bill. In fact, concerned is not even the word to describe it. They were shocked. Yes, there were earlier consultations, and yes, they were promised ongoing consultations. Did that happen? No. When a draft of the definition was shared with them, they were shocked about it. They were promised that there would be a further meeting on this matter within the next two weeks. Before that happened, the bill was tabled in this House, and this Liberal government is trying to ram it through with their majority without debate.

That's what they were trying to do, and my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings did an admirable job in opening debate on Bill 27, raising concerns on every aspect with respect to this bill, even though the opposition only had 48 hours, maybe, to look at this bill. We had two bills to look at; there were Bills 26 and 27 — impacting significantly on people who are on income assistance. Both of us had to split our time, and we had to work hard to try and understand what the bill is about, what the ramifications are, and then to raise our concerns in this House — because no other MLA would do it, except for the member for Vancouver-Langara.

I will recognize him for doing that, because he has always been forthright, even when we were in government. Credit where credit is due, and criticisms when criticisms are also due. He did exactly that. He did exactly that in this House with this government. He voted against Bill 26, and I give him every credit for doing that.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill rose up in this House, raised concerns, and then what did he do? He voted with the rest of the government, in line. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill did not stand by his principle and say: "You know what? I will not accept this because this is not good for the community." He did not, in that instance, rise up to represent his community, and I'm very sorry about that. Maybe the member will learn that his job, first and foremost, as an elected MLA is to represent the people that elected you, not to toe the party line.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard claims that he is going to raise concerns, gets up and speaks against an amendment that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has raised asking for more time, which his community groups are calling for so that they have a better understanding of what is going on and to give the minister the opportunity to table the regulations so that people have full understanding of what the ramifications are and then raise concerns of what they will understand in the act about what some of the impacts would be.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard has failed his constituents, and he has not come into this House to raise those concerns, but rather he went and praised the minister about how great he has been in the consultation — the consultation that I have just advised this House that when people saw the definition, which is crucial for eligibility for disability for individuals, they were shocked. When they were promised that there would be further consultation, a further meeting, on this in two weeks' time, the next thing they know — boom — the legislation is before the Legislature, and this bunch of Liberal MLAs who are failing to stand up for their constituents are trying to ram it through. That's exactly what they're doing, and it is shocking.

I mentioned the member for Vancouver-Langara earlier to give him credit for speaking and acting with integrity. Here's what he had to say. He did criticize the previous government on some changes on the appeal process. He was concerned that there wouldn't be community representation and that they would become bureaucratic. It was fair that he raised those concerns, but the tribunal process followed through with what the member had asked for, and that is to make sure that on the tribunal there would be community representatives. Clients on income assistance could appoint their own member on the tribunal. Ministries could appoint their own person on the tribunal. Then jointly those two people would appoint a chair to which they agreed. Then those three people would sit on a panel and would hear the case from both sides, and then they would make a decision. That's how tribunals went.

Do you know what the tribunal process is now going to be? The appeal process….

J. Kwan: My goodness, hon. Speaker, all of a sudden the member for Vancouver-Burrard has found voice. He didn't have voice earlier, speaking for his constituents. All of a sudden he's found voice. He's mumbling about something, but he's found voice to mumble about something. But he didn't have voice then to speak for the people who don't have voice in his own community — the people who are most vulnerable, the people who are faced with disabilities.

J. Kwan: The member is so very proud of his schedule C. What did he do with the schedule C?

When we were in government, yes, we brought in schedule C. To people who qualified for extra supports because of illnesses, $300 was to be given. Do you know what this government did? The first thing they did was reduce the amount to $225. This member is so very proud of that. By cutting $75 from the people who are sick with permanent illnesses, who are very, very ill, and this member is….

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. Order, please. Let's keep the debate to one individual, please.

J. Kwan: This member is proud of himself. I say shame, because I wouldn't be proud.

You know, I want to go back to the appeal process. What are we faced with today with the appeal process? I asked the minister in the estimates around this. Right now what the government is bringing forward is that there would be no tribunals. The members of the community or the ministry would not be able to appoint their own representatives. They would not be able to jointly appoint a chair, all of which, on the appeal process, will be selected by the minister. There is completely no independence whatsoever.

That's what the appeal process is now. There is zero independence. The representation that was formerly there on both sides is now gone. It's all being done behind closed doors by the minister with his own appointments. You tell me: where's the fairness in that? I cannot see the fairness in that. The people would not have their own voice. If I was a person going for an appeal, I would want to make sure that the person who is going to represent me in making a decision is somebody who understands the issues and, in this instance, understands the issues from the point of view of a person with disabilities. That is now gone, because the minister is going to make those appointments. He will set up the appeal process in that way. That independent voice is now gone.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard seems to be proud of that. Well, I can only assume that (a) he has failed to talk to the people in his own community who are faced with these challenges, or (b) he's completely ignorant of what the minister is bringing forward through this act. Maybe he hasn't even read the act. Or (c), it's all of the above. I can only assume that, because it is completely illogical — what comes out of his mouth — quite frankly.

Let me just turn back to the member for Vancouver-Langara. Here's what he had to say when he had disagreements. I quote from Hansard: "If there was any way of moving an amendment, I would move the amendment in committee stage to say, 'Let's go back to where we were in the tribunal system,' which was fair, just, open, easy to use, cost-effective, and understood and appreciated by the people who used it on both sides" — the ministry, the worker, the client, the people who needed it. "If I had my way and thought it would be effective, I'd filibuster all night long on this bill." That's what the member for Vancouver-Langara had to say.

I hope the member for Vancouver-Langara will rise up and speak in support of this amendment. What we're trying to do with this amendment is ask the government to give pause, to stop, to think and rethink their approach and, perhaps most important of all, to give the community an opportunity to review the acts so that their comments and their voices will be heard. It certainly hasn't been represented by MLAs in this House on the government side. It's certainly not being voiced by the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

That is important — for the government to give them an opportunity to fulfil their promise to the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities, the commitment that they would consult them after the draft has been tabled on the definition of disability, to complete that task they promised they would so that they can redeem themselves and say that at least they have fulfilled that promise of consultation in this new era, in the Liberal government of openness, accountability, transparency and consultation.

Quite frankly, if they don't do that, what they have proven themselves is that they have failed on every score with those commitments in their New Era document. They're not failing with anybody but people in our community, some of whom, I would argue, are in greatest need. Some have disabilities but are still very able and are trying to find every way they can to contribute but want people to understand them in the way they need to be understood, to respect them in the way they deserve to be respected and to honour them in the way they need to be and should be honoured.

Yes, they want to be contributing members of our community — absolutely — but understand that from time to time, because of their disability, they may well lapse. With that, they should have the recognition that they do have a permanent disability. It doesn't mean that every single day, for everyone with a disability, they are not able to engage or able to work or function, but understand that from time to time they may lapse. When they do, don't penalize them but support them and be there — don't add on extra stress by saying to them: "We're now redefining the notion of disability" — so that people who are facing their challenge and taking up their challenge will be able to overcome that challenge, on to the next phase.

Not with added stress. That's not going to help. All that will do is cause people to be more sick. That's what happens to people with disabilities or otherwise. I can tell you that. When I'm under enormous stress, I tend to get sick too. Everybody does. That's human beings. People with disabilities are no different. They, too, are human beings, and they ought to be treated as such by government.

The bill that is being tabled goes the other way, setting time back, reversing time. The new era, as it turns out, is time travel back 20 years. It's not 20 years in advance. They've developed and created a time machine. It brings you back in time in policies of government. That's what we're seeing with this piece of legislation.

J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I just want to make sure that that's on the amendment.