Hansard -- Thursday, April 18, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 6, No. 12 (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		2951

Tributes		2951
	Dennis Todoruk Hon. J. Reid

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2952
	St. George's Day M. Hunter Prevention of violence against women K. Manhas P. Sahota

Oral Questions		2953
	Review of Workers Compensation Board J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce Vancouver Community College programs J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark Principles for treaty negotiations W. Cobb Hon. G. Plant Chevron refinery and pollution issue R. Lee Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills		2955
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) J. Kwan J. Bray S. Brice I. Chong V. Anderson B. Locke S. Orr J. MacPhail

J. Kwan: Joining us in the gallery today are a group of very special individuals, people who are here to educate all MLAs in this House with regards to occupational health and safety and also to teach us about the experiences of injured workers and their families. Would the House please welcome Mona Sykes, Jackie White, Janet Cambrey, Jean Smith, Stuart Schon, Jack Harper, Sarah O'Leary, Bill Hawkins, Hugh Chamberlain and Reynold Sokolik. I hope I pronounced that correctly. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Les: Mr. Speaker, from the great riding of Chilliwack-Sumas I'd like to welcome to the House today Mr. Eldon Unger, a great friend and supporter. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. MacPhail: Joining with my colleague to welcome even more people here advocating on behalf of safe workplaces are Sharon Popik, Lisa Paine, Ana Rahmat, Jackie Adams, Wayne Roberts, Carol Riviere, Tim Baillie, Dave Thompson, Jim Parker, Mike Odarich, Patti MacAhonic, Lee Loftus, Larry Stoffman, Betty Stevens, Brian Gleason and Bob McDiarmid. Please make those people welcome. Thank you very much.

P. Wong: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to introduce in the gallery 70 students from Sir Charles Tupper School, led by their respectable teachers Mr. R. Ferguson, Mr. David Walton, Mr. Richard Harris and Ms. Leslie Bryce.

Together with the 83 students that came from the same school yesterday, we have had altogether a total of 153 students from grade 11 and grade 12 history and social studies classes visiting this chamber. Among them, there are many bright students who are interested in pursuing careers in nursing, teaching, medicine and health care, computer science and many other trades and professions. These young people are willing to contribute and help rebuild British Columbia for the well-being of everyone in a new era. Among them is a student who is also a member of the seventy-third British Columbia Youth Parliament, Edward Wang.

H. Long: Today in the House I have three people with me who are ardent supporters, in fact, all my life — most of their life, I mean. I have my daughter-in-law, Cheryl; my son Phil and my partner, Mary-Lynn, today in the proceedings. I'd like you all to make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a sad note with regard to a tragic accident on the Trans-Canada Highway near Revelstoke last Sunday.

Dennis Todoruk of Revelstoke was a senior roads foreman with VSA Highway Maintenance Ltd. Last Sunday the Trans-Canada Highway was closed because of a mudslide in the evening. A crew from VSA Highway Maintenance was on the scene clearing debris from the slide when a second slide occurred. During the second slide Dennis and the loader he was operating were washed into Summit Lake by the slide.

Dennis began with the ministry in 1975. He joined the private sector in 1988 and continued to work on the roads. He performed a vital public service for the safety of motorists. He felt that the condition of the highway was his responsibility and did his utmost to keep it in a safe driving condition. He was a dedicated, hard-working professional who had a reputation for doing what was needed to get the job done.

B. Belsey: Earlier this session I had the opportunity to share an experience in my travels to a community on the Nass River, Kincolith. Well, today a number of the community councillors and the chief councillor have joined us in the gallery. I'd like to introduce them: Nelson Clayton, chief councillor; George Moore, village administrator; Peter Stevens Jr., deputy chief; Raymond Stewart Sr., councillor; Henry Stephens, councillor; Floyde Stevens, councillor; John Stevens, councillor; and Neil Okabe, band adviser.

J. Bray: Visiting us today in the gallery is Lorna Popham, who is a registered psychologist in my riding and also the most patient wife of our legislative comptroller. Her granddaughter Heidi Steinbach is along with her today, visiting Victoria from her home in Olalla, Washington.

Hon. L. Reid: In the precincts today are Mr. and Mrs. Lorne Nesbitt. Lorne and I were working in the Richmond school district for many, many years. He is currently retired, and he was one of those administrators — principals now — who indeed knew the name of every single child in his school and would welcome them by name as they entered the school in the mornings.

I. Chong: Today I have a friend visiting whom I met some 20 years ago when we were both studying to become certified general accountants. Her mother had also taught me and actually became president of the CGA Association of B.C. She's actually a constituent of the Minister of Provincial Revenue in the Penticton area. We've long been friends, and she's here visiting and watching question period. I would ask the House to please welcome Maria Pattison.

M. Hunter: A number of members have asked why the member for Alberni-Qualicum and I are wearing white roses today. The reason is that we won't be sitting next week on Tuesday, which is St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of England, and it's an important day in our multicultural calendar.

As an immigrant to Canada from England, I think it's appropriate on this occasion to reflect on the contribution English culture has made to our province. Let me remind you of some people, products and inventions of English origin that benefit us all today. Leading the culture category I submit the most ubiquitous playwright of all time, William Shakespeare, whose birthday is also on April 23. I offer for your musical enjoyment the Rolling Stones, Elton John and the Beatles. If you want a good read, try C.S. Forester's tales of Captain Hornblower or Charles Dickens's portraits of Victorian squalor. Or you can look at the serene and fabulous paintings of people like Turner and Constable.

You can ride the railways invented by Englishman George Stevenson on your way to watch a game of cricket or association or rugby football, where you might want to remind yourself that the concept of fair play was born on the sports fields of England. If your mind needs more thoughtful stuff, ponder the philosophy of John Stuart Mill or the colourful history of the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster. When you get hungry, don't worry; be happy, because you can indulge in England's famed contributions to the culinary arts. What's more appetizing than real English fish and chips, Yorkshire pudding or steak and kidney pie, all washed down by warm beer?

What of St. George himself? According to legend, a pagan town in Libya was being terrorized by a dragon. The locals kept throwing sheep to it to placate it, and when it still remained unsatisfied, they started sacrificing some of the citizenry. Finally, the local princess was also to be thrown to the beast, but good St. George came along, slaughtered the dragon and rescued the fair princess. At this, the townsfolk converted to Christianity.

St. George is the patron of soldiers, cavalry and chivalry, of farmers and fieldworkers, Boy Scouts and butchers, of horses, riders and saddlers, and of sufferers from leprosy, plague and syphilis. He is particularly the patron saint of archers, which in this place of sharp barbs gives special point when members relate these famous lines from Henry V next Tuesday.

K. Manhas: I rise today to mark Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. As my community and many around the province live with a constant reminder of the dangers many women face in society, I think it is of the utmost importance that we acknowledge and pay tribute to all the people and groups who dedicate their lives to wiping out violence against women.

It is unfortunate that communities should need such a week to reflect on violence against women, but the reality is that we need to. Too many women are faced with daily abuse in their relationships, their home, their community and at work. We must work to find solutions to this issue. We must effect change by changing our attitudes and behaviours. This cannot and will not happen unless everyone makes a choice to change.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to stand up in this House and give my support to the Minister of State for Women's Equality for all the work she has done and continues to do to stamp out violence against women by directing resources towards essential services so that women who face violence have a safe place to go. Safe homes, transition houses and second-stage housing provide valuable and necessary services for abused women who are rebuilding their lives.

We have also recognized that abuse is not just physical but emotional and mental, as well, and continue to provide the funds for counselling. Moreover, we recognize that children caught in these relationships also face emotional challenges and difficulties, and counselling for them has also been protected.

Every single person needs to continue to work towards ending violence against women. Every person needs to know that this violence is wrong. We need to encourage and support women to speak out. We must work together to end violence against women, and I ask all members of this House and all British Columbians to join me in making this a reality.

P. Sahota: I also join with my colleague to mark the eighth annual Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This year also marks the twentieth anniversary of the federal government's first Report on Violence in the Family: Wife Battering, which looked at the abuse many women faced in their homes. This is an important week for all of us to acknowledge and fight against abuse that women face, but it's also about the recogni-

tion of the tremendous steps women have made in our community to overcome obstacles.

Let us also take this time to thank the hard-working people, men and women, who are helping women leave violent situations and raise awareness. I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses, which is working diligently to stop domestic violence against women in our province. This society offers important services in providing women and children safe refuge from violence. In B.C. and the Yukon there are 63 transition houses, 15 safe home networks and six second-stage shelters that provide long-term housing.

Each year over 90,000 Canadian women and children are admitted to shelters. In the year 2000 over 13,000 women and children in B.C. entered a shelter for battered women. We all know that the impacts of domestic violence are far-reaching, with statistics reporting that one-quarter of abused women admitted to shelters required medical attention. Statistics Canada's Homicide in Canada — 2000 reported that women were the victims in three out of four spousal murders.

This year the Society of Transition Houses is sponsoring the second annual Creating a Legacy of Hope Walk, taking place on April 28. The aim of the walk is to raise awareness of the issues of domestic violence and promote prevention of violence against women. Mr. Speaker, freedom from violence and abuse is fundamental to the well-being of our society, and I encourage all members to participate in this very important event.

I would like to thank the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses for their continued advocacy on behalf of all women who do or may face abuse in their homes. We must all work together to end violence against women.

J. MacPhail: There isn't an MLA in this House who hasn't had their heart broken by the story of an injured worker. The Minister of Transportation and Highways eloquently recounted such a tragedy just a few moments ago, but what every MLA needs to know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is planning changes to workplace health, safety and compensation that will make things much worse for workers in B.C.

Joining us in the gallery today is Jackie Adams. Jackie is a single mom from Vancouver who is suffering from a very severe work-related back injury. The Minister of State for Deregulation has pledged to cut life-saving workplace safety rules. He says employers will be left to work out the rules for themselves, but study after study shows that clear, consistent, firmly enforced regulations are the only way to reduce workplace accidents.

To the Minister of State for Deregulation: can he pledge to Jackie Adams that he has no plans to cut or eliminate workplace safety regulations that protect B.C. workers from death, injury and disease?

Hon. G. Bruce: I, too, am pleased that we have in the gallery today a number of people who spent some time with members of caucus explaining to them the concerns, the difficulties and the challenges they face relative to living a life after some workplace injuries. As the member fully knows and appreciates, this government is undertaking a review and working hard to bring about changes to the Workers Compensation Board that will make it responsive to the needs of the people it's there to serve — something, of course, that we have known for quite some time needs a great deal more attention that what's received today.

J. MacPhail: I'm disappointed that the Minister of State for Deregulation didn't answer, because I wanted him to explain about his outcome-based performance measures. The only outcome that matters is that no workplace deaths or injuries should ever occur.

Also joining us in the gallery today is Janet Cambrey. Janet's a community health worker here in Victoria who was injured on the job two years ago. She loved her job, but she'll never, ever be able to go back to it. Janet and her colleagues met today with members of the Liberal caucus and with us. They fear that the minister will cut WCB enforcement and privatize — and is already privatizing — critical WCB services and is eliminating the programs that make it possible to recover from injury.

To the Minister of Labour: can he assure the House, everyone in the House, that he has no plans to cut Workers Compensation Board programs or to privatize further any services?

Hon. G. Bruce: These are very delicate issues. You're dealing with people who are in difficult circumstances, and things that are easily said and brought up can cause a lot of fear and uneasiness for people.

The fact of the matter is: the whole aspect of the WCB needs to be looked at, as the member opposite fully knows. Not to be political but to be factual, the former government undertook a royal commission — I think it cost some $7 million — back in about 1997-98 and then chose to do nothing.

This government understands the importance of having a WCB that is there for the people it is meant to serve, a WCB that is viable and effective and informative and one that will be there for the protection of employees and employers alike. We understand the need to fix the WCB, and that's what we intend to do.

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

J. MacPhail: All the Minister of Labour had to do was give the assurance that he was not going to cut the programs helping injured workers, and he refused to do so. In fact, he knows that important services have already been privatized and that the government is preparing to do for workplace safety what it's doing to hospitals: shut them down.

Mike Odarich is an IWA worker from Cranbrook. Mike suffered a terrible injury to his face while working in the forest. Mike returned to work in the forests. He was injured again, and Mike is now a paraplegic. Mike depends on WCB benefits to live, and he's very worried that the government plans to reduce those benefits. He has reason to be worried.

To the Minister of Labour: please, why doesn't he stand up and assure Mike and the thousands of other workers on WCB benefits that he currently has no plans to reduce the benefits to any injured worker? Just reassure them.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm almost offended by the question, but I understand the aspect of question period. The fact of the matter is, as you well know, the WCB needs to be fixed, and that's what we are working on right at this moment. We are trying to fix the WCB after ten years of neglect.

I would love to drop into the political debate with you and go over the years of neglect that your former government, the NDP government, applied to WCB, but I will refrain from doing that out of courtesy and respect to the very people that we intend to help.

J. Kwan: This government has become known as the most mean-spirited one in Canadian history. The Minister of Human Resources is taking away support from thousands of disabled British Columbians, but that's not enough for this Liberal government. The Minister of Advanced Education is forcing the elimination of the individualized education program for adults at Vancouver Community College. This program helps students with learning disabilities get the skills, confidence and tutoring they need to graduate and make it on their own, and has been doing so for 24 years with an incredible track record. But now, thanks to this government, it's gone.

To the Minister of Human Resources: will the minister stand up today, now, and explain how the elimination of the funding to this valuable program would help the learning disabled to have a better chance to help themselves?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, I work with the Minister of Advanced Education every day on adult basic education and making sure that we're providing the training and the support that people need. As the member was asking the question, I was sitting down trying to write a list of all the good things that the Minister of Advanced Education has accomplished in the last eight months since she was appointed to this office. I didn't get it quite finished because I didn't have enough time.

She's talking about increasing the number of tech grads. She's talking about increasing the number of nurses and doctors and health care workers that we support. She's talking about allowing SFU to go in and clean up the mess that they created with Tech B.C. She's talking about making sure that we maintain access to student assistance that is amongst the best in the country, and she's increasing the number of seats available to students who want to access post-secondary education in British Columbia. I think that speaks very strongly to the fact that this government is making education its number one priority, and we will continue to do just that.

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

J. Kwan: Too bad the Deputy Premier did not answer the question at all on the issue around the individualized education program.

It is not only the program for the learning disabled that is being axed at VCC. The King Edward campus has one of the best programs in Canada providing access to post-secondary education for the deaf, access that they have been guaranteed by the courts. But because of the budget cuts being forced on VCC by the Minister of Advanced Education, half the interpreters are to be laid off. This means, Mr. Speaker, that many deaf students will no longer be able to attend classes, and the hearing students will take their place. Just how heartless and mean-spirited can this government be?

Will the minister, then, stand today and commit to funding this program, and will this minister, with the aid of the closed-captioning this House provides, tell the students how she doesn't care about their future and their rights? Or will she do the right thing and reinstate the funding to make sure that they have a future afforded to them?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, here's what I can tell her. I can tell her that after a decade of plundering the public's purse, this government is committed not just to making sure that we take care of the needs and services that British Columbians have but to making sure that we protect the education budget in this province. We have protected the Ministry of Advanced Education budget. We have protected the Ministry of Education budget despite the fact that British Columbia is facing some of the toughest economic times that…

Hon. C. Clark: …as a result of a government that did not care. We are going to put British Columbia back on track, and making sure that we have a world-class education system and lots of access for students across this province is going to be fundamental to making sure that happens.

W. Cobb: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. The many provincial parks and other protected areas are open for the enjoyment of all British Columbians. In my riding Ts'yl-os Provincial Park, Tweedsmuir Provincial Park and Cariboo Mountains Provincial Park are admired by many British Columbians and tourists who come to experience the beauty of this area each year.

Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how the referendum will help to ensure that all British Columbians continue to enjoy these natural wonders?

Hon. G. Plant: The fourth principle and fourth question in the referendum ballot asks voters if they agree that the provincial government should adopt the principle that parks and protected areas should be maintained for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. The goal behind asking this question is to ensure that the province's treaty negotiators are at the table — where parks and protected area issues are often discussed, where in fact all three parties often come to the table looking for ways to protect areas — with a principle that says that we will maintain a system of parks and protected areas for the benefit of all British Columbians.

It is important to all British Columbians, natives and non-natives alike, that we maintain a strong and thriving natural environment.

Can the Minister for Treaty Negotiations tell us how a yes or a no to question 5 on the referendum will affect resource management and environmental issues in B.C.?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes. Principle 5 engages the issue of provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection, and here's why. As first nations assume control over treaty settlement lands, they'll have the ability to make land use decisions in relation to those lands. We believe that the province should be at the table arguing for a set of minimum standards — the standards that we now have in British Columbia — for resource management and environmental protection that will apply as the floor across the province.

First nations may be at the table arguing that they should have tougher standards or the ability to impose tougher standards in their communities. Voting yes to question 5 means that the province is at the table saying: "We should have a set of standards across the province that will benefit all British Columbians, while at the same time allowing first nations, if they wish, the authority to impose more rigorous standards on their treaty settlement lands."

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Maintaining the quality of the air we breathe is of the utmost importance to my constituents. However, a Chevron refinery in my riding has expanded its operations. It will increase the volume of emissions released into the atmosphere.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what measures she has in place to minimize the impact of these pollutants?

Hon. J. Murray: Clean air is one of the most important environmental issues that we face. The federal government actually has recently passed regulations to decrease sulphur in gasoline. As a result, Chevron in Burnaby will have to change some of their processes. They're saying that they may be requesting a permit for increased emissions.

Now, the previous government delegated the authority around those permits to the GVRD, so the GVRD will be making a decision on that permit. Actually, I think it's very clear that we would encourage Chevron to take every step that they can to not increase emissions.

Also, the reduction in sulphur in gasoline will improve emissions from cars in our airshed right across the province. We're very strongly in support of that regulation.

J. Kwan: I'm carrying on debate on the amendment put forward by my colleague from Vancouver-

Hastings regarding the request for the government to bring Bill 27 out to the community for a period of six months for consultation, discussion, review and comments before it is brought back to this House for debate.

I would urge the members in this House to support this amendment. I mentioned earlier before the lunch break today how important it is for that consultation to be honoured. It's one that the minister himself committed to, to the people in the community, to the Coalition of People with Disabilities. They were expecting that the draft of the definition of disability would be brought to them for further discussion over the next two weeks before being debated in this House. To their surprise, shock and dismay, it has been brought to this House this week, and the government is trying to rush through all the stages of the bill.

Earlier we were engaging in discussion around the tribunal process. I want to visit that issue for just one moment, because there are members of the public watching this debate who are very concerned about the actions of this government. They have been phoning in to our offices, sending faxes and e-mails with their comments and thoughts on the changes that the government is proposing.

I have just received a fax from a person in the broader community — out in Penticton, as a matter of fact. She has given me permission to use her name in this House. It is Jeanette Wood in Penticton. I'm going to read her fax into the record:

The member for Vancouver-Burrard claims that the changes the government is bringing about with regards to the appeal process are good for the community and that there will be community representation for the people who are appealing the decisions. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The appeal process is taken away from the community representation level, because the client — the appellant, if you will — will no longer be able to appoint their own representative. For that matter, neither will the ministry.

The difference here is that the minister himself will be bringing forward the appointments of who will be involved in the appeal process.

The appeal process that is being brought about by this bill is not one that is supported by the community at all — quite the contrary. It is shocking in terms of what this government has done and what they're proposing under Bill 27. The government members, the member for Vancouver-Burrard, like to claim that there was intensive consultation, significant consultation. I highlighted earlier how that wasn't the case.

Here's another statement made by Tom McGregor on CBC Almanac on April 16, when they found out about this bill. Here's what they had to say on the question from the host: "Did the government work with your groups and/or others in formulating this package?"

That's how this government, in their open, consultative, transparent new-era agenda, proceeds with consultation — nothing but lip service. It isn't just me, as a member of the opposition, who says this. These are the direct words taken from an interview on CBC on April 16 from Tom McGregor, who is a strong advocate for people with disabilities.

I mentioned earlier in the debate on Bill 26, which is another piece of legislation being brought forward by this Liberal government to attack the poorest of the poor, those who are on income assistance, the children, the single mothers, the single parents, the seniors on income assistance…. In that debate I referenced that there are maps that have been produced by the ministry for the month of January 2002 which showed the highest-density areas in the lower mainland that have income assistance caseloads and, likewise, the highest density for areas of disability 1 and disability 2 caseloads. My area, the area of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, was mapped as the area with the highest density for people in greatest need. The second area is Vancouver-Burrard.

Since the bill has been introduced, I have been receiving numerous phone calls in my office from people who are worried sick about what this government is going to do to them with the passage of the bills — 20 to 30 calls a day. We get e-mails, faxes and so on. Some of the information has just come into my office.

This information came in on the 18th, this morning, from one particular individual. I won't use their names, because I want to safeguard their privacy. I will read some of their e-mails onto the record to share with the members about how this bill is impacting them.

That's from one individual in the community who has forwarded this e-mail to me this morning.

The individual must be referencing the comments I made yesterday with respect to the minister's answers during estimates on a variety of areas: the changing of the eligibility requirements for those who are seeking income assistance, what that process will be, the appeal process, the training programs and so on. I read onto the record yesterday the minister's answers, which were variations of "I don't know." I think this individual is referencing the debate from last night.

This person wishes to remain anonymous, but as I said, I'm going to keep all the names of these individuals off the record.

These e-mails come in because people want to let members of this House know, particularly government backbench MLAs and cabinet ministers, what their lives are like, what pains they're faced with every single day and how they're trying to cope to the best of their abilities. Now they're under threat with the redefining of disability in Bill 27, redefining what people are able to be eligible for, for support and assistance. It puts people into a state of panic, in some instances — a high state of anxiety, with so much worry.

I don't know what the answers are for these individuals. The only answer I can think of is for the government to not proceed with this bill and, at the minimum, for the government to hold off passage of this bill in this House at this very moment and support the amendment from my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. Delay the passage of this bill for six months. Let the information flow out to the community. Let the analysis be done. Let people's concerns be addressed and be voiced.

Then come back to this House and engage in another debate. Maybe by then, the government, the Minister of Human Resources, might have been affected by the voices of these people, who seem, in this House, to be faceless but are real human beings that exist in our community. Maybe their stories and their voices will be heard by this government, and this government may then change its mind by pulling the bill altogether and reworking it, bringing it to the next progressive step for the people faced with disabilities, bringing it forward from the existing bill now. By existing bill, I mean the former bill on disability but not this bill that's being tabled in the House and debated today.

The person who wrote this last e-mail is someone who must have enormous strength, because along with the e-mail she also sent me some poems that she's written. I thought I'd share a couple of these with members of this House just to show the talent which people with

disabilities do have. Sometimes they're able to share that. Sometimes they're able to more fully participate in the community, either by working or by volunteering or by just simply being a legitimate voice within the community.

Other times they're not able to do that, and that's okay too. We must recognize them and embrace them, because they're fellow human beings. That's what society calls on us to do. We as government have that responsibility.

Let me just share with you a couple of these poems that this individual has e-mailed to me to give us a better glimpse of the hardships that people with disabilities are faced with sometimes.

I'll read this last one. There are pages of it. It's moving; it's touching. I'll read this last one for the members of this House.

These are the words of an individual who suffers from chronic pain from a variety of health problems and illnesses. In spite of that, she struggles on. She even takes the time to watch the debate in this House and send in an e-mail with her thoughts and a plea to the government to: "Please, please don't do this to me and to so many others who have disabilities." She takes the time to do that, in spite of the great sufferings that she must be in every single day.

I can only imagine what that must feel like. I can only imagine. I can't pretend to know, because I haven't suffered as this woman has. I haven't suffered as many people with disabilities have, who have the courage to come back.

They can't do this alone. Government has a responsibility, and so, too, does society. Society expects government to take the leadership role to make sure that people with disabilities have the full support that they need to maximize their potential. I believe this very firmly. Every single individual — no matter who we are, where we come from, what our backgrounds are — has huge potential. It only takes a moment in time for governments to make a difference so that those individuals could maximize their potential.

That moment in time has arrived right here in this B.C. Legislature. The government MLAs who are sitting here have that opportunity to make a difference in people's lives — a positive difference, one that says: "I'm compassionate, and I'm responsible socially and financially."

The government can act on that by supporting the amendment put forward by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings to not proceed with this bill, engage in a true consultative process, invite the people to whom the government has only paid lip service to date back to the table, sit down with them and genuinely work through how to change the disability act and how to make it better for the people in our communities.

This government, I know, is fond of saying that those individuals who speak against the government are special interest groups. They're not people who are looking at the issue with a broad picture. They are special interest groups. They say that about everybody, save and except for the people who are the big corporations and who are the wealthiest British Columbians. Save and except for them, everybody else is a special interest group.

What is interesting on this issue is that not only people with disabilities and the advocates of people with disabilities are calling on this government to slow down, hold back and not come forward with these changes and with the redefinition of disability, thereby making eligibility very difficult if not impossible for people who are faced with disabilities now to get assis-

tance from government. Others who don't have disabilities are joining the voices of those who are calling on government to not do this.

Who are they? I read the Times Colonist editorial of April 17 into the record. The headline is "Government Showing a Lack of Basic Charity."

This is the Times Colonist editorial point of view. Maybe that, too, is a special interest group.

I have another one: Jody Paterson. On April 17 she writes "New Law Punishes Disabled."

"Government Showing a Lack of Basic Charity" — this is a recent article in the Times Colonist. There's so many letters to the editor and comments from individuals about what this government is doing, but I want to touch on this.

We just received a letter from the office of the information and privacy commissioner. The letter just came in on April 18, today. It expresses concerns about the government's actions, on the lack of consultation even with the office of the information and privacy commissioner with respect to the drafting of this bill.

The commissioner lists all the areas on which they have concerns, and then it's outlined section by section.

Under the general comments part of it, the commissioner highlights the issue of what the government must do in terms of consultation and making sure that individual's privacy is respected and notes that this government must engage in this process as their predecessors have done before.

The commissioner is concerned, and he's listed his concerns in his five-page letter. He concludes with this paragraph in his letter, and I'll quote this onto the record:

I think this is a very important point. I know, from having been a minister before, that what we tried to do every time we had a bill before us — and sometimes the bills may well have had privacy issues that touched on individuals' lives, and we wanted to make sure that the privacy of those individuals was fully protected — was then consult with the privacy commissioner to seek his advice to make sure that the bill did not violate any privacy rights of individuals. To that end, the former Ministry of Human Resources actually signed an agreement with the office of the information and privacy commissioner.

This government needs to do the same: make sure that they consult with the privacy commissioner's office and make sure that commitment for consultation with the office for the protection of individuals' privacy is maintained. They need to renew that agreement with this government.

Hon. Speaker, I have much more to say with respect to this bill and the changes to this bill that this government is trying to rush through in the Legislature, depriving the public of the full opportunity to review and comment on the matter and to be fully consulted. As I said before, every member of this House has an opportunity to act and to make a difference in people's lives and to be remembered by the people to whom they've made a difference. And don't do it just because you'll be remembered; but do it because it is the right thing to do.

We have that opportunity today. It's not too late. Members could support the motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings calling on the government to delay the passage of this bill for six months so that full consultation could take place. I would urge every single member to check themselves internally when they rise in this House and participate in this vote. I hope they will do the right thing — not by definition from the government Whip, not by the definition of the Premier's office, but the right thing by the community's expectations, hopes and dreams — and support the amendment put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

J. Bray: I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill 27. It's somewhat disheartening after the rather long debate of the Leader of the Opposition and her colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Now that they've encouraged other members to rise, I see they've left the chamber. I'm not sure whether or not they got word the press gallery has left, but that's a bit disappointing.

In debating Bill 26, I rose and raised a lot of fairly technical issues, given my experience as an employee of that ministry in the front lines as well as in the policy division. Many of the issues I raised in the Bill 26 debate are very much the same in Bill 27, in part because much of Bill 27 and Bill 26 are identical, so I will limit my comments to some of the specific things dealing with people with disabilities.

I guess one of the issues I want to talk about is the importance of having a distinct bill for people with disabilities. As others in this House have mentioned, people with disabilities do have unique needs. The focus of government service does need to recognize

that, and it needs to be somewhat different and more specialized and more sensitive to the needs of not just the person with disabilities but the family that may be supporting them and, in fact, the community in which they may live. It's along that line that I think I want to focus: on some of the supports that may be available to people with disabilities and my concern that while the act is only a portion of what will come out…. The regulations will follow. I have only had an opportunity, of course, to look at the act, so that's where I have to focus my comments.

When I spoke on Bill 26, I spoke about the importance of having people with multiple barriers still on the caseload after the changes from B.C. Benefits and the fact that those individuals needed more than just one intervention to move them from welfare or income assistance into the employment market. I think it's a logical assumption to make that somebody with disabilities certainly requires that and in fact, one can argue, requires a great deal more.

I note, first of all, that in the bill there are sections that deal with the funding of and creation of community supports for training, retraining, employment and employment support. Having worked with people who have had the disability designation, I know the difficulties they face. Those are compounded beyond those just for people with income assistance. I spoke at some length a couple of days ago in this House about the reality of the 45-year-old who's on income assistance, may have been on it for ten years, may not have all their teeth and may not have very good clothes and the prejudice they face when they attempt to apply for work. No matter what interventions government may provide, no matter how hard they may work, the reality is that employers will not see them as desirable for employment, and it will make it very difficult for them to be able to attach to the workforce.

I know that is even more true with people who have a visible disability, people who may have….

J. MacPhail: I know the member is new, but as he well knows, attendance in the chamber is not for public record. There are duties to be done throughout the Legislature, and I would ask him to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. Order, please. Hon. members, comments about a person's attendance in the House are not to be tolerated. Thanks. I would ask the member to please withdraw the remarks.

J. Bray: I certainly will withdraw that remark and accept your guidance on that point, Mr. Speaker.

J. Bray: I was talking earlier about the fact that people with a physical disability that is obvious…. It creates an additional difficulty sometimes when they're entering the workforce, where there are multiple people applying for work. If they're also dealing with issues of poverty, that just exacerbates that difficulty like it was for the example I had earlier.

It's really vital, Mr. Speaker, that government services focus attention on ensuring that there is a continuum of supports to take that person with a disability right through from the point at which they enter, where they may be dealing with getting their education, perhaps getting their GED, perhaps attending adult basic education — that as they move through, perhaps they're receiving some additional life-skills training or other training to allow them to participate in the community, to be able to engage in relationships that ensure that they can hold secure housing, maintain relationships with family members and others in the community. Then, as they move into more specific job training where they are actually in the process of learning a skill, learning how to do résumés, learning how to conduct themselves in job interviews….

In fact, they will then need to continue to access additional supports. There may be physical accommodations that will allow them to be employable, where there may be the need for assistive devices in the workplace — mobility aids, visual aids, these types of things.

Bill 27 implies that those services are there. My work with the minister will be focusing on ensuring that the services we contract out in the community meet those needs and the high-acuity needs that people with disabilities have — not just for those individuals with disabilities to get into the workplace but some of the supports required to maintain people in the workplace.

One of the concerns I have is that we make the culture shift out in the community services with our contracting model. I know that in Victoria we have outstanding community support providers and community providers, educational providers and social service providers. They are adaptable; they are flexible. In many cases, in their meetings with the Minister of Children and Family Development, they are willing to engage in any shift that's required to achieve government's goals.

My concern is that we won't make as progressive a change as perhaps is needed for people with disabilities, many of whom are eager to enter the workforce, are eager to be full participants not just in the life of their community but also in the economy of their community. I want to ensure…. I'll be very interested

in debates during committee stage to look more into this section of the act that deals with those services.

As a general rule, one of my other areas of concern — which is different from the opposition, which unfortunately used the debates here to read articles and engage in some fearmongering; I know they accuse us of accusing them of that — is that people with disabilities are perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society. I think most people will consciously realize that.

Well, as my colleague from Vancouver-Langara pointed out a few days ago in this House, poverty also makes people exceptionally vulnerable. When you're dealing with a system that is the payer of last resort for the people most vulnerable, we have to be very sensitive to that reality. We have to make sure our act, our regulations, our policy and our service delivery out in the field are aware of that — that we're dealing with an individual.

We're dealing with individuals who are living with sometimes very horrendous physical and/or mental impairments that are a challenge just to meet the day, just to get up out of bed and try and face the day. When you have the added factor of poverty on top of that, it can be a daunting task. I hope I never find out, with the grace of God. I sometimes wonder whether I would have the courage that those disabled clients that I had faced every day. They didn't need the added burden of a rigid, bureaucratic, policy-driven system that really couldn't meet their needs to allow them to achieve their goals, which are the same as government's.

I am very interested in the debates we will have in committee stage, because there are some sections that I am concerned about. We've had a lot of circular debate by members of the opposition on the definition of disability. I know the disability community wants to make sure a definition exists that reflects a person's disability so that somebody who has a disability that impairs their ability to participate in the community doesn't get left off because of that. That anxiety is a legitimate anxiety.

I believe the minister is working very hard. We will discover further, hopefully, in committee stage exactly how this definition is going to work. I must confess that at this point I do have some concerns about that.

I have had some questions in my constituency office about the reviewability of people already with disability benefits level 2. The reality, for the sake of our debate here, is that if basic income assistance is $500 and disability benefits level 2 is $770, for the average citizen that $270 is a reasonable amount of money in a month. For somebody who's living in poverty, it is a huge amount of money.

We also know that we tend to live to our means. Most people in society, if they're working and get a raise, do not do what all our financial advisers would suggest, which is to take that raise and put it in the bank. We usually increase our consumer spending to that amount. It might be that we buy more clothes; it might be that we can afford a bigger apartment. We might even be able to purchase a home. We might purchase a vehicle or a new vehicle. We tend to create the lifestyle that matches our income.

The reality is that people currently on disability benefits level 2 are living to the means of $771 a month. That may well mean that they are spending more than the allotment of $325 on their shelter, but in part their disability may require a larger apartment. They may require an apartment located in a more expensive area of town but closer to their supports, their doctor, their therapists. They've been able to do that because they've had the security of $771. The fear of having to return to $500 would mean that almost all of their income would be going to their rent now. Perhaps it would require a move to a place that would not be appropriate for their disabilities.

That's the anxiety that people at disability benefits level 2 and their family members have expressed. That anxiety is there, and it's real. I believe that we in this Legislature will need to deal with that.

The other issue. One of the advantages that I always advocated to my clients for disability benefits level 2 was the permanency of the status.

One of the biggest problems with the Canada Pension Plan disability pension is that if you try to re-enter the workforce and you're successful — I may be incorrect, but I believe it's for six months — you eliminate yourself from any future eligibility for a CPP disability should your disability act up or, for that matter, you arrive at a new disability. It discourages many people from re-entering the workforce, because the security of that pension is based on them not working.

The advantage of the disability benefits level 2 designation was that it was a permanent designation. That meant that even if somebody on disability benefits entered the workforce and left income assistance, should their disability recur or become such that they couldn't remain in the workforce, if they had to return to the income assistance office, that designation with the higher benefits and the medical benefits was already there. There was no reapplication for that status.

I think that was a great amount of security for people with disabilities, who were always much more tenuous in their ability to stay permanently attached to the labour force, especially people suffering from episodic mental illness. They would have great periods of time with perfect health, but when they did have a break, especially a psychotic break, it would be severe, and it could be a couple of years before they were able to recover enough to re-enter the workforce. So security in disability benefits in areas of disability is very important.

The other issue is that people with disabilities rely on those around them much more than the average citizen. We all tend to need people at various points in our lives, and sometimes we're the ones providing care and nurturing and support for others. People with disabilities tend to have to rely on others on a more consistent basis, perhaps even a daily basis, so for family members who are on income assistance and living with

the issues of poverty, the added burden of having to care for their family member and not having that security is also a strain they have to deal with.

Although I think Bill 27 provides a better opportunity for people to enter the workforce, there is some concern that people who are providing support for a disabled family member may actually have to enter the workforce in order to keep the family eligible for any benefits. That is an issue I will want to explore further with the minister during committee stage to ensure that just like the current regulations, a single parent who is caring for a special needs or disabled child is not required to look for work — not prevented, but not required as a factor of ongoing income assistance — and that a family with a disabled adult will get the same consideration, should they actually be the primary caregiver for someone who needs that daily assistance.

I'd also like to speak a bit about Bill 27 from this standpoint. My colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara spoke very eloquently, I think, on a lot of the emotional issues around income assistance, and I perhaps focused two days ago on the more technical. One of the criticisms I saw as a fieldworker in the Ministry of Human Resources some years ago, when I was in the field, was that it was a deficit-driven model.

When a person applied for income assistance, one of the routine things we would do would be to list all the barriers for somebody to being on income assistance. We'd say: "What's wrong with you? Why are you here?" That's the point at which we would start. That's about the only discussion we would have, and we would move forward on that list of deficits.

One time I was visiting a community service provider in Abbotsford, and they had taken a completely different approach. They focused on the assets of the individual. They focused on the assets of the community. They saw where the two of them could work together and saw the niche or needs in the community that the person could then meet. To me, that whole asset-based model was very exciting.

Bill 27 does recognize the capacity of people with disabilities to be full participants, but I would like to see that we perhaps focus more on individuals as assets in their community. They are assets in the community not just because they work. I believe that children are the hugest assets we have, but traditionally, when people applied for income assistance, we said: "You're a single parent. You've got children. That's a barrier." I'd like to see us look at the fact that a single parent must have tremendous assets to be able to raise children when they're living in poverty.

I believe that people with disabilities who may not be able to be permanently attached to the workforce are, in fact, assets to their community. They may bring great intelligence to the people who meet them. They may have great artistic skill they can bring to their community. They may have great love and nurturing they can share with their community. They may be terrific parents themselves. They may be terrific brothers and sisters themselves and provide great support and encouragement to their family members. They may not be able to work 40 hours a week in a general occupation.

I would like to see that when we talk about people's independence, although employment is the primary way of being independent, it is not the only way. Bill 27 perhaps needs to recognize more that the potential we want people to achieve may or may not include paid employment and recognize that if a person with disabilities is able to volunteer, perhaps give guidance to others with a similar disability, that is a valuable contribution to their community.

That is maximizing their potential for independence, but it won't actually make them leave income assistance. Perhaps their ability to be independent means they can provide enough self-care to allow a spouse or other family member to enter the workforce. The person may not make enough for the whole family to leave income assistance, but the potential that's being maximized is still the important factor.

My final point, perhaps, on Bill 27 is a recognition that I spoke to earlier during Bill 26. This act does not stand alone. It can't stand alone when government provides services. Yes, it's a separate piece of paper. The minister and I have had long conversations, as I have with the Minister of Children and Family Development. Government must make sure that we look across the spectrum of the government services we provide to ensure that a person with disabilities is receiving the income support they require but is also receiving the community support funded from government that they require — the home care, the medical attention they require — that their children are receiving the education they need and that the array of services is coordinated and focused so that government gets maximum benefit for the money it spends, but the individual receives services that work in a coordinated fashion for the promotion of their independence and the well-being of their family, the health of their family and the health of their children.

There are several sections that I will be reviewing very closely during committee stage. I want to say that I appreciate the minister having been so open to me and other private members who have gone and seen him a lot. He's answered a lot of the questions very well for me and for my constituents, and I know that he will continue to do so.

S. Brice: I rise to make comments on Bill 27. I'd like to make my observations in the full knowledge and expectation that everyone in this House looks to support those with disabilities. The support and the care of those most vulnerable in our community is not the purview of any party, of any group. It is embraced by every member of this House.

Government has come forward with a bill specifically tailored for the needs of the disabled. This bill is worthy of our consideration.

As I listened to the minister speak, the key words that I heard were assistance, opportunity and independence. These words are the underpinnings of the support for persons with disabilities which this bill provides.

There is a new definition for person with disabilities in this legislation which will ensure that resources and supports are there for these individuals with disabilities. This specifically designed legislation will respond to the distinct needs of this community. The definition will be based upon the functional limitations that individuals may face in the activities of their daily living. The execution of this policy will require knowledgable and sensitive professionals administering well-reasoned regulations. I'm confident that given the sensitivity of these issues, the minister will ensure that the regulations are designed to protect and assist these vulnerable persons in our society. In addition, government has maintained the current funding rate for persons with disabilities.

I understand the minister will also outline how he will provide a comprehensive framework to assist those who are able to move into employment. That is the key. Obviously, not all persons with disabilities will be able to consider employment, because of the nature or severity of their disability. For those who can transition into some form of volunteer or paid employment, this legislation provides opportunities.

That is the aspect of this legislation I would like to focus on. Employment, work — what does it provide for us? What does work give us? If we are abled or we are disabled, if we are at the high income or the low income, what does employment opportunity give us?

It gives us the obvious financial rewards. I mean, that goes without saying. We work because we need money. We need money to support our families. But work provides so much more. It provides us with a sense of worth. It puts us out in the mainstream of society. It puts us out there talking with others who are in the workforce. We become a significant part of society, because we are one of the producers. It gives us a sense of value.

Any of us who know what it's like to be seeking employment when we have previously been employed know how difficult it is and how, once again, when we have been recognized, taken in and are part of the workforce, we do feel a part of that greater society. Things to share, things to talk about, interaction with fellow workers, a sense of dignity, opportunities to grow and to learn new skills — many of these are learned at the worksite.

These rewards, of course, are shared by all able and disabled workers. We've got more in common than we do not have in common. These rewards apply to entry-level jobs right through to the highest-trained technicians and professionals. These are the rewards shared by all of us in society.

Should people with disabilities be discriminated against in their efforts to be a part of this shared work experience which enables one to be a full and contributing member of society? No, of course they shouldn't. Intuitively, we as parents know that. We look to the future for the opportunity for our children to be a part of that workforce. We know that there will be some individuals who won't be able to take part in that experience, but the more people we can provide that opportunity for, the fuller their life will be and the richer our society will be.

Not every disabled person has the supports they need. As my colleague the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill pointed out, a lot of the programs that will be in place to assist people enter the workforce will be absolutely critical to fulfil the thrust of this legislation.

In my riding I have a father who has come to my constituency office, and we have talked about his family and his child. He has a child with significant disabilities, and he knows what he wants for his son. He wants his son at some point to be a part of the workforce. So this dad, while he's maintaining a full-time job now himself, has also started up a business that he knows will have an opportunity for his son, who has considerable disabilities, to be able to work in. He says, "I know when my boy is in his late teens and coming to adulthood, he will want to be a part of the workforce," so he has taken on that incredible responsibility to look to the future for his son.

Not everyone has these opportunities, but thank goodness, some of the most enlightened employers in our community have recognized and acted upon the talent pool of persons with disabilities. We have employers in our community who have determined that there is a resource in the community that should be tapped, brought in and made a part of their organization. They know that these workers are eager to work, that they bring particular skills, and they oftentimes make very loyal employees. These enlightened employers are already reaping the benefits of this talent pool.

Naturally, people have questions around this legislation, because we are dealing with the most vulnerable. An employment strategy is being developed that will support persons with disabilities in part-time and cyclical employment, in self-employment with earnings exemptions that will support increased independence. The ministry will increase the amount, under the earnings exemptions, that persons with disabilities can earn while on income assistance from the current $200 up to $300 a month, feeding into what is the natural incentive that drives all of us: incentives to allow us to fulfil our potential. These clients will have access to both mainstream job placement and training for job programs, as well as other programs for persons with disabilities.

Bill 27 sets the stage for assistance, opportunity and independence for those folks who face incredible challenges because of their disabilities. The minister has identified opportunities for these British Columbians so that they can achieve satisfaction and a degree of independence — the degree of independence they are capable of achieving, recognizing the severity of some of the situations. It will be essential that this legislation

is very carefully and thoughtfully administered. It must add to the quality of life for persons with disabilities and not add additional stress to an already challenging life.

Bill 27 has much to support. This act recognizes that the distinct needs of people with disabilities are best served by this separate income assistance legislation. The minister has recognized the particular needs. This act, as well, provides for continuous assistance for those individuals who are not able to work due to their disabilities. This act recognizes that many people with disabilities want to work and are not able to work full-time but possibly part-time, with proper supports.

Employment plans for people with disabilities will not include time limitations for receiving disability assistance. Persons on this plan will continue to receive disability assistance as they participate in programs, and if they leave assistance for employment, they will keep their designation and maintain their medical assistance.

We all know of cases where people have been concerned that if they do leave assistance and take on an employment opportunity, should their disability worsen or should they return to the situation they were in previously, they in fact would be dealt out and not be able to continue on assistance. This legislation protects them from that eventuality. They will not have to reapply — for persons with a disability status — should they be unable to continue working.

It will be necessary — more than that, vital — that the implementation of these changes be done carefully and sensitively to ensure that the clients are well served. I know that the minister has positive expectations for persons with disabilities, and I know he'll be following its implementation with great care.

I welcome this opportunity to bring my thoughts to this piece of legislation that we are considering, and I look forward with anticipation to the detailed discussion at the next stage.

I. Chong: Firstly, let me say it was time to combine the four BC Benefits acts into two pieces of clear legislation that will allow this government to focus specifically on providing assistance to persons on a temporary basis as well as to persons in need of continuous assistance.

Today I'm going to speak to one of these bills: Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. Let me say at the outset that I support this act, as it will allow this government to provide assistance and opportunity for British Columbians who are working toward independence and for a more fulfilling life. In particular, people with disabilities have told the ministry that their distinct needs would be better served by separate income assistance legislation. That is what is happening. Our government has listened and our government has heard those concerns, which is why today we do have Bill 27 to reflect those distinct needs.

Contrary to what the opposition may say or may imply about Bill 27, it does provide for continuous assistance for people who are unable to work due to their disabilities. Bill 27 does provide a continuum of employment supports for people with disabilities who are able to work either full- or part-time.

The NDP would have us all believe that persons with disabilities are not employable. That is simply not true. There are many people with disabilities who want to work and are able to work, either full- or part-time, with proper supports. I believe we must assist all employable persons to reach their goal of sustainable employment. This government is doing just that.

This act acknowledges that those with disabilities who cannot work will not be subject to time limitations for receiving disability assistance. Again, this act acknowledges that those with disabilities who cannot work will not be subject to time limitations, contrary to what some of the naysayers may be saying.

The government and the ministry have a responsibility to ensure that resources go to those who are truly in need. This legislation ensures that ongoing assistance will be available for persons who have either a severe mental or physical impairment that will likely continue for at least two years and that is considered to be directly or significantly restricting the person's ability to perform daily activities continuously or for extended periods of time.

Not all disabilities or impairments are permanent. People's health can improve. An illness can be cured. With today's new medicines and technological advances, new treatments are occurring such that it is possible for persons with disabilities to participate in the economy. For those employable persons with disabilities, they will be required to work as they are able to — as they are able to and as their disabilities will allow them to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a few stories with you and with my colleagues about why I support this legislation. I've seen how the status quo, the NDP way of solving problems, worked. It just didn't.

About six years ago there was an organization in greater Victoria that employed many persons with disabilities. That organization was called the Goodwill Enterprises for the Handicapped. It was specifically benefiting persons with disabilities by providing work opportunities and self-worth. Persons with disabilities were able to work flexible hours. They were able to work flexible shifts as their disabilities allowed. Some of these persons had learning disabilities. Some had physical disabilities. Others had mental challenges. It was understood that they might not work as efficiently as an abled person, but it was important that they be given an opportunity to work.

Well, what happened to that organization? I'll tell you what happened to that organization. The NDP began some social engineering, and by way of changes to the Employment Standards Act, these persons with disabilities were no longer considered suitable to work under the terms and arrangements that had once pro-

vided them with an opportunity. It meant that persons with disabilities lost an opportunity to work, an opportunity to be trained and an opportunity to have a more fulfilling life, and that was wrong.

I went to the Legislative Library and had my staff pull some articles, because I wanted to be sure. It was in 1996 that all this happened. Strangely enough, the day they had to close down was September 11. We should all remember September 11, a very tragic day indeed. For those individuals back in 1996, it was their tragic day, where they were told that they could no longer work in this particular enterprise.

It was very sad. There were some 30 people there, I recall, just shortly after my election, that I received some letters and phone calls about. They couldn't understand, particularly some who were representing those with mental challenges. They said: "How do I tell my son or daughter that she can't go into work anymore, that she can't share time with these people she's met, and that he or she won't be able to learn more about how to contribute to society?" These individuals couldn't understand why a government would have interfered with their lives in such a way.

I would like to continue on with this, but I am advised that my colleague would like to make an introduction, so at this time I'll yield the floor for him to do that.

P. Nettleton: I am delighted today to be able to welcome from my hometown, Fort St. James, 12 students from Fort St. James Secondary School. Welcome to Victoria and the Legislature.

I'd also like to welcome the two teachers accompanying the students from Fort St. James, Terry van Meer and Gloria Duncan. Please join me in giving these folks a great big welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Paul and I…. The member for Prince George–Omineca and I are excited today, and that's why I did something you're not supposed to do in the House, which is name a person.

Having said that, we are thrilled today to have a group of students also here from Prince George. It is always exciting for us to be able to have students in the precinct. Accompanying the students are their teachers, Suzanne Sharpe and Mark Lafleur. We're very pleased to have them in the precinct and, in particular, someone who is almost a part of my family, Ms. Brandie Peck.

I want to ask the members to certainly make all of the students and their teachers very welcome in the precinct today.

I. Chong: I would like to continue with the story I had regarding this organization that was once here in greater Victoria and that offered opportunities.

It's not the only organization that provides for that opportunity. You also have a place like the Garth Homer Centre, which provides opportunities and training for people who have challenges and disabilities but who have a place to go.

I suppose, in their wisdom, the previous government was trying to level the playing field to ensure that everybody was entitled to a minimum wage. While we all support minimum-wage legislation, one-size solutions sometimes don't fit all because we're not all one-size people. When you take a look at a group in our society for whom we are all challenged to provide assistance to and help them meet their potential, we have to take a look at what opportunities we can provide for them. Where there are non-profit organizations that provide for that, we should be encouraging them on that opportunity. But that wasn't to be, so all organizations have to take a look and see if it's time for them to be more profitable or to stay profitable. If the situation requires that they pay an able-bodied person the same as they would pay someone with a disability with minimum-wage requirements, it would mean that an enterprise would more than likely choose an able-bodied person. In any event, this organization left our town, and unfortunately those people who were working there had to go back to their homes, and their parents and families tried their best to console them.

I also recalled, shortly after my election in 1996, another group of people who came to my office. Again, they were people with disabilities. They were adult newspaper carriers. I recall very vividly one lady who indicated to me that she couldn't walk for long periods of time because of her physical disability, but she enjoyed the opportunity to get up in the morning, deliver newspapers on a particular route that could just about meet her potential before she was physically worn out. Because of changes, again, to employment standards, she was told that minimum hours of work had to be required, and therefore it was necessary for an able-bodied person to do her job. She was very saddened by that, and she came to me for help. Admittedly, the government had a further look at that legislation and did provide for some exemptions, but it just shows that government interference sometimes is not the best when you're trying to level playing field for people for whom there are differences. Those people that we were attempting to help back then, in fact, were being more restricted.

There are persons with disabilities who lose their jobs and persons with disabilities who lose an opportunity to have a more fulfilling life. That is not what I

want to see happen in the future. With this legislation I see an opportunity for us to reach out to those persons with disabilities to say that we are very interested in knowing that if you wish to participate in a full- or part-time job as your disabilities allow you to, then come and see us because we're going to help you. We're going to help you do that, because it will make you feel better about yourself. It will give you more independence, and it will make you become less reliant on government.

There's a councillor in the city of Vancouver. I don't know him very well, but I've met him on a number of occasions. I imagine we would all look at this person as a person with a disability. He is to be admired. He is an exemplary role model, and he represents an employable person with a disability. That person is Councillor Sam Sullivan. I'm sure members in this chamber know of him — those from the lower mainland — and I've only had the opportunity to meet with him a few times.

I did it because I had heard about him. I had heard that this councillor who was confined to a wheelchair ran for city council and was elected. Because he represented a diverse community, he was not only representing his community, but he was even further trying to represent a diverse community by every day choosing to learn one phrase in Chinese because, as we all know, in the lower mainland there is a huge Chinese population.

I went up to him, and I said a few words to him, and he spoke back to me. I was very surprised because his accent and his linguistics were a bit better than mine. I applauded him, and I said: "How do you manage this?" He said: "Every day I try to learn a little bit more and pick up this language because I still want to represent that community." I think he surprises people in that community. The reason why I found out was because people in the Chinese community told me they were very proud that there was this councillor who cared enough and who, with all his personal situations like his disability, took the time to learn about their community. I thought that was wonderful — and as I say, a man to be admired. It just shows that we should not discount that those who have disabilities want to be employed and want to be employed on a full-time basis, because some of them can be and some of them want to be.

Last year and this year again during the estimates debate I questioned the Minister of Human Resources to look at ways to ensure that self-employed persons with disabilities would also be considered when his ministry is implementing change and developing new criteria. I believe there are many persons with disabilities who may find self-employment a better way for them to be fulfilled and a more suitable way for them to work than in a business or in an organization.

It was because I was approached by family members of a person with a disability in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head who was able to — I wouldn't say make a fully independent living — make a living to some extent by being self-employed. Because of his disability, some months he did well, and other months his disability overtook him, and he couldn't do as well as he had wished for. Again, it shows that we as a government should encourage people with disabilities to see if they can fulfil their lives — that they can empower themselves and do more. There is so much to be gained, a self-worth that they feel, when they gain that measure of independence.

When I raised it with the Minister of Human Resources last year and again this year, I wanted to remind him and to let him know that he needed to ensure that however he was to implement his strategic shifts and his service plans, I do support that we consider the persons with disabilities who also wish to be self-employed and treat them with respect and dignity, help them and provide that assistance. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this legislation, because I do believe it is intending to better the lives of people who need a continuum of assistance.

I also want to share with members about other persons with disabilities I've known in my life. I heard the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I believe, speak of persons with disabilities, those with multiple sclerosis in particular. This past weekend there was a Super Cities Walk/Run for MS. It was held in a number of cities across Canada. Here in greater Victoria, in the Oak Bay area of my riding, is where this took place. I was able to volunteer some time and help at the registration desk and see the numbers of people who came out to run or walk for MS. There was also a group of people who are afflicted with MS who came out and showed that when given an opportunity, they participate along with everyone else. They were there in the run or walk.

I have cousin-in-law, as well, who at a very young age was affected with MS. For a number of years she needed assistance. She had a young child. But after a time and because of new treatments and medical advances that are made, I understand she's working again — full-time, if you can believe it. I'm sure at times she needs respite and assistance and her home support, but she's been able to move on — another example of persons with disability who are employable.

When I was very young, I remember I met another teenager in a Bible study group that I was at. I was about 15, and she was 18, a very bright young lady. She always asked the best questions, and those of us who were younger would always learn from her as she challenged our Bible school teacher on a number of things.

I recall one day I hadn't seen her at church, and then the following week again she wasn't there. When three weeks had passed, I finally inquired, because I was wondering if she had found another place to attend. I was told that she had MS. Up until that time, and I had known her for about eight months, I had never known that she was afflicted with MS, but when she had a bout of it, it would incapacitate her for almost an entire month. Up until that time, for those eight months that I knew her, I never got a glimpse of that. She was as able-bodied as I was, with a bright

mind. All of us in our class respected her because, as I say, she always asked the best questions, and we learned more from her.

That was my first exposure at a very young age to people with MS. She would be considered a person with a disability, but she participated as well as she could at all times except when her illness caused her to be unable to participate. That is what our act is implying and intending — that those with disabilities will be able to contribute as their disability allows them to.

I will, however, be watching this legislation, because I have heard the concerns of others in this chamber. Many people have raised a number of issues, and they're all worthy of being raised. I think it is important that all of us, as MLAs representing constituents from a variety of backgrounds, listen to those concerns.

I will be watching to see how this legislation affects disabled persons in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I have always had an open door where they or their family members were able to come and see me, and wherever possible we would direct them to whatever programs and supports were available. I will continue to do that and to seek out what is available in this legislation to ensure that that occurs.

I will also be watching how the ministry develops its comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities. I think that will be key: a comprehensive employment strategy that will include people with disabilities who are able to work.

I will also be watching as new programs are developed that are designed to benefit persons with disabilities to work when they are able and to assist them in reaching a higher degree of independence. In that situation, I would believe, there are persons with disabilities who wish to be self-employed, and I will be watching for what new programs can be developed in that area.

I will continue, as I always have, to speak up for my constituents to ensure that these new strategic shifts in this ministry are there to help them. I believe this legislation will help them.

We all know that change is necessary, but change usually brings resistance. It is never easy to embrace change. Yet I think we all know it was time for a change from an old culture of entitlement, the old status quo, to a new culture of employment and empowerment. That is a good change.

I also know this Minister of Human Resources. I have worked with him not only for five years in this Legislature during our time in opposition but, even prior to that, our time on a municipal council. I know he takes his obligations and responsibilities very seriously. I know he believes that these changes are about bettering the lives of British Columbians. I will work with him and his ministry to ensure that together we do accomplish what I think is a very important goal, a very important objective.

V. Anderson: The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act is what we are discussing today in second reading. For those who are watching us or reading the Hansard, following the discussion, I would just point out that second reading is when the bill is discussed in principle. Particular issues of the bill will be discussed in detail when we go to what we call Committee of the Whole. At this particular time we're talking about the principles that may be in the bill or the principles that we might like to have considered as part of this particular legislation either now or in the future.

As I begin, I would first of all like to thank the minister for the work he has done in carrying this forth to this stage. He has travelled throughout the province, he has talked to people in numerous groups, and he has listened intently to what they have said. He has tried to respond as he can, within the parameters he has given in the core review, as we work in the new era of our government here.

I must say that as in all of our legislation, this is the beginning of a process. It's not the end of a process. It's part of an ongoing structure in which there can be growth and understanding and change. It's within that context that I discuss some of the principles I think are important as we look at this particular piece of legislation.

It does recognize and the minister has recognized, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, that the people who have disabilities or those who work and live with those who have disabilities are concerned that there should be the continuation of a separate act which deals with this particular group of citizens within our province. As I thought about this, I went, as I did previously, to my dictionary to look up the word "disability." In essence it said that it is somebody who has an incapacity from birth or due to an illness or an injury — something that has come into their lives without, in most part, an action on their own part. It's something that they have been given and that they learned to live with and to struggle with and to adapt to. These persons are living a daily event which makes them very interesting and challenging. They undertake, in their daily lives, activities just for survival that demand a concentration, an effort and a perseverance that most of us will never in our lives have to experience.

There is a concern, and it's appropriate that we might think about it this week. It was 20 years ago yesterday that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was established as part of the constitution of Canada — a very important day for the rights and opportunities and responsibilities of each of the citizens in Canada. I can remember 20 years ago and the days which preceded that. One of the major discussions that took place across Canada — very heated at times — was a discussion of whether persons with disabilities would be recognized and responded to in the Charter itself, which was discussing the rights and freedoms of people within Canada. That was perhaps the first major discussion we had in Canada of responding to and living with people with disabilities, who are very much a part of our communities and our families.

There was, in that discussion, a highlighting that there should be equality. But how was equality to be portrayed, to be displayed, to be shown and to be carried out for people who have disabilities? We're still struggling with that particular question and will for many years yet. Probably a significant part of that question was that we all, at least theoretically, said that everybody should have equal opportunity.

I was attending an aboriginal conference one day, and they were discussing equality among persons as it related to the aboriginal community in our country. One of the aboriginal persons pointed out to me a very important principle: that equality was one thing and that equity was another.

It seems to me what we are struggling for is both equality and equity. Equity takes into account the circumstances in which you live. You can treat everybody equally, but you are not necessarily treating anybody with equity. My simple illustration of this — which I've used often and use again, because it's easier for me to express it — is when our girls were six months old, three years old and six years old. If I treated them with equality, every one of them got the same helping of food on their plate. They were advised that they should eat what was before them. They were treated equally on the amount of food. But equity was to say they should not have the same amount of food or not even necessarily the same brand of food at that particular need in their lives.

We have done many things to deal with this principle of equity with persons who have disabilities. We have spent a great deal of money redoing our sidewalks: cutting off the corners and making it possible for persons in wheelchairs and persons who walk with canes and others to be safe on our streets. We have added to our streetlights chirps and sounds, so that those who are blind are able to use their canes and to walk and cross the street, not because they can see the lights but because they can hear the changes. We have modified our building codes so that our buildings, all new buildings that are built, must have access for persons with disabilities. We have washrooms in our new buildings that must have access for persons with disabilities. In many of our physical changes, we have responded not only to equality but to equity, to develop an opportunity for our people.

This has relevance, I think, to this issue of employment — the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. Again, I commend the minister for building into this act the opportunity for new creative opportunities for those who have disabilities to be able to get the training, the opportunity and the possibility to be able to get out into the community — if they wish and are able to do so — and to get into the normal workforce with their other fellow citizens. That is a very significant undertaking which for many people has been undertaken in lip service but not in practical reality.

Hon. Speaker, I think, as well as doing this, we have to acknowledge that this particular act is also about something else. That something else is in the words that persons who are not able to get into the workforce will be assisted with their living and their daily life undertakings.

There are many countries in the world where people of disabilities are disregarded and are set aside. There are times in our own country when this has happened to many people, but I think we generally have acceptance in our communities that those times are past. We have to ask ourselves: what is it that we are about in this particular ministry? As I've said before, it's only one of a number of ministries that has an interactive concern with the persons we're talking about on this particular day. However, this particular ministry has the important function within our planning system not to provide all the services that a person may receive because these are divided amongst ministries but to provide a basic income by which the person has food, clothing, shelter and the necessities of life so that they can partake in the other activities in which we might work with them.

The act for disabilities that this replaces had in it a very significant preamble which I would like to read, because it set a context in which the act was then to be interpreted. The preamble of the Disability Benefits Program Act, which was passed in 1996, was this:

In essence, these are things that the minister has himself said, in effect, many times as a background for this particular act. One of the questions out in the community is that appearance, for people, is reality. We should be very aware of this in our legislative system, because it used to be that the Conflict of Interest Act was: if you had been in conflict of interest, then you were in trouble. It was changed. It was changed so that if you have the appearance of conflict, you're in trouble. Appearance is important to all of us in our daily life.

When this was left out of the current act, people simply asked why. Also within that act, a couple of questions were left out which raised the question of why. In the definitions, which is the next page of the previous act, "benefit" means "any form of assistance provided under this act, other than a disability allow-

ance" — which is mentioned later — "and includes (a) a health care benefit." The benefit is not in this particular act, listed as such. It's referred to at later times, but people wonder if it has the same security as in the previous act.

Another part was left out, which is why they ask about the implications of it: "(ii) requires unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but essential…continuous needs." That was in the previous act in the definition of disability. It's not in the definition, although it may be in other parts of the act. People ask: why were these separated?

It's often not what we do or say that's important, but it's why we do it. That's partly what we're being asked about in the community at large.

Also, while I'm talking about those particular points in the act, let me highlight a couple of other questions that will come up in our later discussion. One of them the minister and I have already discussed, and he has indicated he will be reviewing it. If you have an automobile at the time you come to need Human Resources — and this applies to people with a disability and to other people — and if it has a value of more than $5,000, you must get rid of it. That's except if it has been modified to be made use of by a disability person. Then you don't need to fit into that particular category. I raised with him the question that some people may not have their automobile modified, but they may have bought an automobile with automatic shift and a variety of facilities that would make it more than the $5,000. I think that should be considered as well.

The other thing that was mentioned by persons earlier is that the earnings exemption, which is a very important part of adding to your income, was raised from $200 to $300, but at the same time, where previously you could earn money and 25 percent over and above it that you could keep, that part has been taken out.

I think it's important that of the $771 a month that a person with a disability might receive, when you take out the $325 for housing — if you're able to get housing at that price — it leaves you with $14.86 a day for your food, clothing and every other expense. You have $3 for breakfast, $5 for lunch and $5 for supper, and you have $1.86 a day left for everything else apart from your rent. These are the realities people need to know if we're talking about them being able to have independence.

We are talking about having partnerships in our community, and I think that's extremely important. We need to work with the larger community, not only the community that deals with people who have disabilities. We need to establish relationships as a government with the volunteer non-profit agencies and the churches in the community so that we are working together with them and working together with each other. That's fundamentally important.

Another issue I would like to suggest is that when we are working with persons with disabilities in the area of employment, which was discussed earlier by my comrades, we need to think about the kind of training we're going to be able to supply to those who are doing those programs. I would like to suggest that it's very important that the kind of person who normally is trained to work with the regular employee needs to have a different type of training and experience to work with the culture of those who live with disabilities. It is, for them, quite different than it is for you or me.

Simply, even the words used can be important. I highlight this because it brings home to us that we must rethink ourselves when we're dealing with whatever that group of people might be. It seems to me extremely important, say, to talk about a person who has a disability rather than to talk about a disabled person. Those are two different things.

I have a difficulty in hearing. Sometimes I have a difficulty, a disability, in speaking. All of us have a disability of one kind or another to one degree or another, but it's not our disability that should be primary in our thoughts; it is our personal nature and undertaking.

I can remember that in my own congregation I was trying to get permission to build a ramp into the church because we were very high up the stairs. The argument that I received from many within the congregation, first of all, was that we don't need a ramp, because there's nobody in our church who uses a wheelchair or comes to church with a wheelchair. I said: "Well, how can they come to church if we have no ramp and they can't get in?" "Oh."

Eventually we got the ramp built, and it was interesting. One of the persons who most opposed our having that ramp built into the church in between time had had a change in her life, and she was the first person within that congregation to use the ramp when it was completed. None of us knows, this afternoon, that we may not need a wheelchair tonight or be a disabled person or a person with disability before the day is out.

We need to work on these ideas and struggle through the values that are behind the activities which we undertake. If we don't, we may not be necessarily making the lives of our people better, but we may be hemming them in to regulations and systems that limit what they are able to do. Choices are very important.

One of the realities is, as my colleague mentioned earlier, that many of our people with disabilities are making contributions already to all of us. Their life will not necessarily be richer in the value sense because they're able to work. Their life will be richer in the value sense because they're regarded as a person who makes a contribution to the best of their ability. Whether they ever work or not in their life is irrelevant. If we don't regard them with the greatest regard when they're not working, we'll never regard them with the greatest regard when they are working. We already

I want to stress today, in looking at this new legislation, that we're looking not just at what the legislation does at this particular point but what it will do beyond this point. What it will do beyond this point is the kind of effort and thought and perseverance that we put into it.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for having taken us this far. It's a beginning, and I look forward to working, with all of us together, for the future which will go far beyond this.

B. Locke: Before I start, I want to express my concern for comments made by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, comments that suggest that she and the member for Vancouver-Hastings hold the only virtue of caring about this province's most vulnerable. Clearly, that is not true. Every single member of this Legislature comes to this place with caring, respect and empathy for the people of British Columbia, especially the most vulnerable, and each of us comes with an understanding of our own communities. Personal attacks are not useful in this debate at all.

I rise today to support Bill 27, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act. This bill introduces a new way of delivering financial assistance to individuals with disabilities and their families and works towards assisting them to become more employable and, if they are able, contributing members of Surrey–Green Timbers and every other community in our province.

I want to talk about two such people, two people that are very important to me. The first one is a young man I know, who is 20 years old. There is no doubt that he is severely disabled. He has an electric wheelchair and has very limited use of his hands. But he has a brilliant mind, a mind that is analytical and creative. He has a talent for writing and for researching.

Just this year he entered Simon Fraser University. He lives with his mom on a very limited income. Overcoming many obstacles, he has made a significant personal step in his life. His desire to become a contributing part of society is very obvious. I'm so proud of his tenacity and his drive. This bill will give him a hand up and the encouragement to enhance his life and the life of others around him. He has much to offer our society, and I want him to be able to do that.

The second person I want to talk about is a single mom I know with two children. As sometimes happens, she was left with two children and no support. It was difficult for her, although she did her very best to provide for her children, but her self-esteem was low. She has a serious bowel disease that causes her a great deal of pain, but she wanted to work and needed assistance to get into the workforce. I can remember her telling me how important it was for her the very first time she went to the bank with a paycheque, not a government welfare cheque. Although she has a disability, she is a proud and participating member of society.

Unlike the members for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings, I know that people with disabilities want to be a part of society. They don't want to be marginalized or limited, and they want and deserve to have an opportunity to better their situations. Sometimes that takes a little help. This minister, through this bill, wants to allow them to be all they can be. This bill also supports those who simply cannot work or are not ready to work.

The Minister of Human Resources is committed to making some changes in the way his ministry has been run. I rise to support this bill because these changes are needed. In fact, they are long overdue. We need to make these changes so that people with disabilities are given opportunity and encouragement and not confined to a world of dependence.

Every day in my constituency office I hear from people who are caught in the regulatory nightmare of the Ministry of Human Resources. The previous government introduced so many rules and regulations to income assistance that it is nearly impossible to understand the system. Little wonder yet another level of advocates has sprung up to aid people in getting through that bureaucratic maze.

Believe me, Mr. Speaker, as a new MLA I was astounded by the complexity of the income assistance system. I've heard from constituents whose cases with income assistance have dragged on and on, simply because the system is so user-unfriendly that their cases have become tangled in the bureaucracy beyond control. This is no way to help people in need. The saddest cases that I hear from are those individuals on disability assistance whose lives have been needlessly complicated by the regulations of this ministry. This bill will ensure that people with long-term physical, mental and cognitive disabilities will receive the assistance they need.

The act also provides for employment supports for people with disabilities who are unable to work either full- or part-time. Assisting with specialized employment programs will help those people who want to work, while ensuring that those who are unable — who are the very most vulnerable — will continue to receive the assistance they need.

We in the working world often come to take our employment for granted. We often don't appreciate the important role that jobs play in our lives. Employment can provide structure and opportunity for learning and an opportunity for social interaction. One of the reasons that I am supportive of this act is because of its focus on employability. Having a job makes a positive impact on one's life. I want to commend the minister for making employability the focus of Bills 26 and 27. Employability enhances one's self-worth, and on a provincial level, employability enhances the productiveness of our province. It's a win-win situation.

I will, however, be monitoring the bill on behalf of my constituents with disabilities in Surrey–Green Timbers and on behalf of the two people I talked about. Disabled people deserve an opportunity too, and as a

S. Orr: I rise today to speak to Bill 27. I spoke yesterday about my concerns in relation to Bill 26, and I will not repeat all of those remarks today, except to say that many of the issues I raised are actually repeated in this piece of legislation, such as the limited nature of the appeals process, the reporting obligations and the consequences of not meeting employment-related obligations.

My constituents are very concerned about applying these standards through identical language to people with disabilities. That may include the inability to comply with many of these provisions because of the very nature of their disability.

I certainly can understand the purpose of this bill, as explained by the minister, but I am very concerned that the definition, which is actually at the very heart of this bill, is too narrowly defined and may inadvertently cause undue hardship to a number of my constituents who will be excluded from long-term assistance because of the definitions of this bill.

I know it is not the intention of our government to withdraw the social safety net from the marginalized members of our society who are not necessarily the most vulnerable but are still in real need of help. I do recognize that sometimes — in fact, most times — a safety net comes in the form of assistance which is back to employment, and there is absolutely no question that working and being independent is the only way to go. Again, I want to say that $6 billion will be spent over this government's term in office, and that is indeed a very large safety net. It has been my pleasure and it is my pleasure and privilege to work with the members of this government for almost a year, and I know that it would never be the intention of this government to abandon those people in our society who genuinely are in need of help.

As I have said before, my community is home to many people who are going to be affected by these changes. My constituents have told me that one of the things they are concerned about is the removal from the definition of the special needs test for such things as extraordinary financial costs, transportation costs and special dietary requirements. This will eliminate many people from the definition, and I am concerned that this may indeed cause hardship to some people.

It is not clear to me at this point that people with chronic long-term illnesses, such as HIV, hep C, early stages of AIDS, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and many other disabling diseases, are protected. I believe this will become more clear in clause-by-clause debate in committee stage, and I believe that once that debate takes place, the uncertainty that has caused my constituents a great deal of anxiety will be ended.

I also must point out that most of these people who I speak to on a regular basis really do want to work. In fact, they really do want to lead a normal life, but sometimes their diseases cause them to have bad days. They can go for a long time feeling good, but when the bad days hit, they have no choice but to take close care and attention of themselves. This can make it difficult to seek full-time and permanent employment. They must disclose to the employer their disability, and sometimes this will stop an employer from offering them a job. That's natural. The employer has to look at the economic strain on his business when he cannot be assured that this person can work the hours he needs. Many of these people, my constituents, find themselves in a catch-22 situation. I want to reiterate. I look forward to being able to clarify all this for them before the bill is finally passed.

I must interject and talk briefly about a meeting I had with Miki at AIDS Vancouver Island. We talked about the bill and about the consequences of the bill as she sees it. She is a very pragmatic woman and very proactive, and we immediately got into a discussion of how we could organize some sort of employment for these people who have cyclical illnesses and cannot be absolutely assured they can work like you or me. She was very excited at the prospect of being almost entrepreneurial. We talked about that. Of course, this is something I'm very excited about, because that covers my entrepreneurial spirit. It made me realize there are people out there who are thinking that way. This is a very good thing, because they haven't thought that way before. They haven't thought, in an entrepreneurial spirit: can we build something? Can we partner with somebody? Can we do something where we will be part of a business? I wanted to share that with you, because that is very important to people who work with Miki.

I realize the power of this legislation is going to be done through regulation. It is important to my constituents that these regulations are fair and reasonable and cause no undue hardship. I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever for my constituents who fully comply with section 2 of this bill. I have gone through both Bill 26 and Bill 27 very, very thoroughly. In my opinion, they are very well protected. In fact, I would say they are probably better protected than they have ever been, with their earning exemptions increased by 50 percent, with no two-year independence test, no time limit for the receipt of assistance and no liens against property of their own homes. That gives me great comfort.

I also have had comfort — and I said this yesterday — that the minister has listened to my concerns. We have had ongoing discussions and debate. I understand that his plan is shifting the emphasis towards employment, and that has huge merit. I know of nobody that doesn't feel better when they are in total control of their lives and are living independently.

To finish, I know the minister is not intending to create a burden for people, but as I said before, the

intention is to encourage people back to work who are able. However, it is my duty and my job to bring forward the concerns of my constituents. It is also my job, and it will be my job — I will do this job very, very carefully — to keep a very close eye that the system is working for my constituents.

This is the beginning of a new process, a process that I might reiterate is part of a $6 billion plan over the next four years. My expectation is that this process will work and will benefit all, especially those that this bill is all about — that is, persons with disabilities.

J. Kwan: I rise to enter into debate once again with respect to Bill 27. My colleague and I have been participating in this debate since it was introduced in the House. We've moved an amendment with respect to it. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings had asked for this government to delay the passage of this bill so that there'd be a better opportunity for the public to review what was being done, for the minister to be more prepared with his regulations and for the community to voice their concerns and, hopefully, be heard by the government MLAs. That was rejected by every single one of the Liberal MLAs.

Even as we hear members who rise in the House say that much of what needs to be done and to be defined and clarified is in the regulations…. You know what? The government could've delayed the passage of the bill and allowed for that clarity and clarification to be tabled. They refused to let that happen. Why? Simply because they say that they trust the government in terms of what this government is doing. They have every faith in it.

Well, I will pardon myself if I don't have that faith and if other members in the community don't share that faith with this government. What the government said when they were in opposition during the election was that they would not cut welfare. That was a direct quote from the now Premier. That was a promise he had made, a promise that every single candidate who ran under the Liberal banner had committed to. What we have seen to date with Bills 26 and 27 are cuts to welfare — not just cuts to welfare, not just to the rates but, quite frankly, cuts to the people who are most vulnerable in our society: women, children, single moms, single parents, seniors and people with disabilities. Who's next?

I know this government likes to cast all of its policy changes in the light that says: "But I'm here to protect you. Don't worry." In the definition of protection under the new era of the Liberal government, protection means ripping away from the people the very things they need from government — the very support and assistance that they need from government. That's what protection means in the new-era agenda — the Liberal government's doubletalk, the new Liberal government's pretence of protection. You will pardon me when I say I have zero faith in this government and their intentions, because what they have demonstrated so far is nothing but a big broken promise.

Not only that, the Minister of Human Resources says: "Employment and training are key, and I'm going to get you employment and training so you can get out there and work." While the right hand is pretending that this is what this government is going to do, what is the left hand doing? The Minister of Advanced Education is cutting funding for Vancouver Community College so that their program for deaf students would be severely compromised to the tune that some half of the interpreters in the program that provide assistance to students who are deaf — so that they could get through the program, so that they can get the education they need, so that they have a better opportunity for their future…. Well, those dollars are gone, and that program's eliminated.

The minister, as I understand, when asked by the media about this outside of this House, because she wasn't in the House — oh, pardon me; because that question wasn't responded to by the minister in the House during question period…. Her answer was: "We can't afford it. Too bad, so sad. If you can't get the education program that you need so that you can be self-sufficient, don't look at me. That is just too bad, so sad." Absolutely, the action of this Minister of Advanced Education goes contrary to the very thing that the Minister of Human Resources claims he wants to achieve.

This is what this government is doing. On the one hand, it's saying: "We want to help you, and we're going to be there. Trust us. We're all going to do the right thing." On the other hand, what are you seeing? Programs being cut, access being eliminated, funding being cut and people being pushed out the door. And government's saying: "Oh, but we're protecting you." If that's the kind of protection that the Liberal government's talking about for the people who are in greatest need in our communities, quite frankly, I say no thanks.

If this government says, "Trust me, we'll do the right thing," and what they've proven so far is quite the contrary, is it any wonder that the community members are scared, individuals are worried, advocacy groups are beside themselves? Especially when advocacy groups have been told, "Here's a draft of the new definition of disability, but don't worry, we'll come back and consult with you, and we're going to set up a technical table to do that," and then a day later the legislation is tabled, completely disrespecting the request from the community and, perhaps more to the point on the issue around distrust, completely dishonouring the word that was supposedly given in good faith by the ministry, by the minister, that consultation would continue.

Is it any wonder that people say: "Hey, you know what? I don't trust this government at all, not at all"? When you're talking about the lives of people, it means more than a walk in the park. It is about the future of people's lives. It is about their opportunity to get an education, to get the training they need. It is about the dignity, it is about respect, and it is about recognizing people with disabilities as human beings and honouring them as such.

When I asked the minister the question during estimates…. As I mentioned earlier, I received correspondence from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities advocating for the maintenance of the Disability Benefits Program Act — and not just the issue of two separate acts but also the definitions associated with it and the benefits associated with it. I asked the minister this question. I quote from Hansard from April 3, 2002: "They have now been" — "they" being the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities — "able to obtain, as of March 19, the endorsement of some 279 groups from across the province to support what they call a non-discriminatory definition of disability."

I asked the minister if he could confirm and advise the House what the intent of the government is with respect to this, on the issue around the definition. Then I went on to ask the minister: "Is the government going to be eliminating the two separate acts as they relate to disability benefits programs?" The minister's response: "Actually, I touched on it yesterday. It is the intention that we would be tabling two acts, an employment and assistance act and an employment and assistance act for people with disability."

Then I said: "Am I right in assuming that the request from the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities to maintain the two separate acts and to recognize the special unique needs of people with disabilities would be maintained and is being respected with the two pieces of legislation that would be brought to the House?" The answer from the minister, the short answer, was yes.

He said he would bring in the two acts, that he would maintain the definition that is being requested of them and that he would respect the request of the coalition. The minister, while he said yes — and this is the minister's doubletalk, the new-era Liberal government's doubletalk — what we see now in the legislation before us is a reversal of the definition of disability.

That's what we see before us in the act. That's not respecting what the coalition had asked for. That's not respecting the definition of disability — not at all. And what are those changes? Let me just highlight some of them.

The Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disability Act significantly limits the definition of a person with disability. It eliminates people who have unusual but essential and continuous needs, such as people who are HIV/AIDS-positive or have soft-tissue injuries or do not require income assistance but have ongoing costs related to their disability. They may no longer qualify, as the definition hinges on their ability to perform daily living tasks or activities.

Persons with disabilities must be restricted in the ability to perform daily tasks, either continuously or periodically, for extended periods of time. Previously, the definition allowed for people to be restricted in their ability to perform daily tasks within a reasonable period of time. It allowed for people to be eligible if the disability was determined to be likely to continue for at least one year, not two years, which is what the act is now suggesting.

This severely limits access to disability assistance for people with cyclical illnesses who may not be employable but will not see their illness continue for at least two years. That's just some parts of it. You know, I listened to some of the members debate, and they go on and on about how people with disability want to work. I don't doubt for one minute that people do. Of course they do.

People with disabilities and people on income assistance want to work. There's no doubt about that. It has never been a doubt in my mind, but the issue here is this, as the disability community has highlighted for this government and they have decided to turn a blind eye to. The issue is they're asking the government to recognize, though, that they do have a disability, that it is permanent and that from time to time they may lapse into their illness, into their disability. When they do, do not penalize them.

The government is refusing to acknowledge the request, something that was done in the previous act and now is being taken away. Then I heard the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head say, "Oh, but there are new technologies and medical advances that will cure people," and so on and so forth. I, too, hope with all of my heart — as I know my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings does — that there will be new cures found. Absolutely. That is not to say that with the potential prospect of new cures, which have not yet arrived for many illnesses, what government should do in the meantime for those who are on disability income assistance is penalize them in any way; or that they should have a threat looming over their heads, making them worry about whether they're going to be cut off tomorrow and, if they lose their job because of their disability for one reason or another, that they're not going to have any means to support themselves. They shouldn't have to worry about that. That's what the previous act did. It provided that assurance, so that people could concentrate on getting well and minimize the potential for a relapse. If they did succeed, that was excellent; if they didn't, that was okay too. They should not be penalized as individuals. Now that's all been taken away by this government.

Some may say: "Well, you as opposition, of course you say that. You just want to fearmonger." The members in this House are fond of saying about comments by my colleague and myself that all we do is fearmonger. Don't take my word for it, then. Take the word of someone who represents 400 organizations and who has spent her life advocating for people with disabilities, someone who knows the old act inside out and backwards and lobbied for that change and who now is looking at this act and raising concerns — a person with credibility in the disability community. Take her words. Here's what she had to say on CKNW on the Rafe Mair Show, April 16. I quote Margaret Birrell:

That was Margaret Birrell's comments on the Rafe Mair Show on April 16 on the CKNW network. She is someone who is well versed on these issues. She has been trying to work with the minister on consultation. They were led to believe that the minister would bring back the definition so that there would be further consultation, and that simply didn't happen.

There have been media reports about this as well. Those who have been affected continue to send in letters to my office and to my colleague's office with their concerns. Let me just go to some of the concerns that have been raised by people who have disabilities. This is dated April 18:

This letter was written to the Minister of Human Resources and copied to myself and my colleague. That's just one example.

I have another letter. I have to say, when I read this letter, it nearly brought tears to my eyes. It was so very moving. I'm going to share this with the members of the House. It was written to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and to our office.

This is in reference to her watching the debate in this House as my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings was adamantly, eloquently pointing out to this minister and to the government how wrong they are with the proposal of this bill.

L. Mayencourt: I cannot believe it. I cannot believe that you would read that.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard is saying he can't believe that I would read this letter in the mail. Well, what I would say is that I can't believe that these MLAs from the government bench would not read their mail, take their mail to heart and understand what these words mean as they relate to the act that is being debated right now in this House, which the government is trying to push through this very minute.

You know, maybe it's uncomfortable for the member for Vancouver-Burrard to listen to these words, but they're the words of British Columbians. You know what? The disabled community's voice should count, and they should be listened to. The problem here is

that the government MLAs would not listen to the voices of the disabled. That is exactly the problem, Mr. Speaker.

This is from someone who is managing as best they can, and they continue to. They're not just worried about themselves, but they're worried about others.

I read this letter into the record in the hopes that the letter will have the same affect on the government MLAs as it did on me. When I read it, I thought: "Thank God for people like that." In spite of what hardships they're faced with, they're not just thinking for themselves, but they're thinking for others as well. They have enough courage to be proactive, to write letters to the government and ask government — in a kind, gentle way, in their own words — to reconsider, to hold back, to say: "Please, don't do this to the people who are in greatest need in this province."

The issues are vast. They are significant. They're important. We need to stop and reconsider, and we need to make sure that the best interests of British Columbians and, particularly in reference to this act, those with disabilities are best represented by this Liberal government.

J. Kwan: I would hope that the members in this House would support this amendment. It is an amendment that I think speaks to the heart and soul of who we are as British Columbians. It speaks to the heart and soul of what government's responsibility is — that is, to provide assistance and support to those who are in greatest need. Those with disabilities should not be exempted from that pool. They should be highlighted as a group in our society we need to focus in on.

We need to make sure that the support is there in a way that dignifies them, that honours them and invites them to the table to engage in a true consultation with the government so that the best act that could be put forward in representing the interests of people with disabilities is advanced in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I rise to support my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's amendment to say that this bill needs to be withdrawn. It's putting at risk the lives of people who now have no way of supporting them.

I'm actually in shock at this government's denial to listen to the people of British Columbia. My colleague and I are being inundated with responses from the public, like we have never seen before, protesting this legislation. I'm in absolute shock that a government could actually attack those most vulnerable.

It is outrageous that the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who represents thousands and thousands of constituents who rely on income assistance and rely on a disability pension delivered through the Ministry of Human Resources, expresses outrage when my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant reads into the record the comments of the very people who are being directly affected by this legislation and says to her: "How dare she do that?"

Unbelievable. People in this chamber, in the vast majority, rise to thank the minister for making these changes, as did the member for Vancouver-Burrard. So how is the public left to have themselves represented but to write in here and have their comments read out on the record? It is unbelievable that this member was so outraged at my colleague. Well, I'm sorry. I am absolutely sorry, but there are hundreds of letters coming in.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you that it's not as if there's any question that other people are shocked at all. I was just reading Today's News. Here's a letter that is printed, which affects people with disabilities, by the way, I might also say. A single mom is having her child care subsidy reduced, but so are people with disabilities who are trying to get into the workforce.

Maybe if the member for Vancouver-Burrard thinks it's disgusting that this woman wrote these words, he can contact her. She had the guts to sign her name to the letter to the editor — Lynn Cunningham, here in Victoria. Maybe he could express his outrage to that single mom.

This society in British Columbia is at risk of becoming the most mean-spirited wealthy jurisdiction in North America, I would say, Mr. Speaker. We are a wealthy province. We have the highest number of wealthy individuals living here in British Columbia in all of Canada. Those same people, who are well off, are writing to my colleague and me as well, saying: "This is not what we wanted to happen. We voted for this government, but we did not vote for this."

It is because no one on the government side is giving anybody hope or encouragement to say that their fears and their anxiety are misplaced — not at all, as a matter of fact. You know what they're promised? That the Liberal MLAs get up and read from a script to say: "Well, the regulations will take care of all these concerns."

Really — really? We know how well this government's getting rid of regulation at the drop of a hat. In fact, they hate regulation. They make a broad statement, saying: "We're getting rid of one-third of the regulations that are already on the books." Don't tell me that any not-yet-seen regulations are somehow going to assuage or take care of every single concern raised by every person with a disability. It's balderdash that those regulations are going to take care.

Besides, the people most affected by these changes are refusing to work with the government now on any regulations, because the government misled them on the consultation process completely and introduced draconian legislation behind their backs.

Mr. Speaker, let me read you another message that came in this morning after my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was debating the legislation. My colleague was discussing the issue around multi-barriered individuals and what kind of training is actually going to be available for them when there's no training for people on welfare without a disability.

This came from a person who runs a Human Resources Development Canada–funded training program for people with disabilities. Let me read from her letter:

I'm sure this will make the member for Vancouver-Burrard uncomfortable: the truth.

My colleague and I have been very careful to cull the letters that we're reading into the record. We, too, are shocked at the level of despair and anger and hopelessness that's flooding into our office from people. We don't want to fearmonger. We don't want to fearmonger at all, because we actually know the reality of the situation that people with disabilities now face. We want to do something, anything, to try to calm their fears, based on foundation. That is why my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant moved this amendment — to stop this legislation and to bring some sanity to this change.

You know, Mr. Speaker, today in question period the opposition asked the Minister of Labour what plans he's got for disabled workers, another group of people with disabilities. We know that the government is about to cut the benefits for people who have disability benefits through WCB. We know that. We know that the government is about to cut the programs for people to recover from their workplace injuries. What is it in this government's agenda that a person who is merely seeking to level the playing field and has been harmed by an injury is the very class of people that this government attacks, no matter how their disability came about?

Injured workers; people with disabilities, physical or mental; seniors with disabilities; young people just about to reach adulthood; and those who have spent countless, countless hours, as my colleague has pointed out, in training and highly motivated…. There is so much to say. I hope every MLA — and, I must say, particularly the member for Vancouver-Burrard — goes home and reads their mail, takes the time that we're about to have in our constituencies working with our constituents in our neighbourhoods to contemplate supporting my colleague's amendment that we are debating now. It would be the best thing any Liberal MLA could do on behalf of their constituents.

I note the hour. With that caution and that hope and that plea from the opposition to the government that they go home and consider supporting this amendment, and noting the hour, I move that we adjourn debate on this amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: With that, we certainly want to wish members of the House a safe trip home — and as they work hard in their constituencies for the next week. I would move the House do now adjourn until the next sitting of the House after today.

	NAYS — 52

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	van Dongen	Nettleton
Roddick	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Stephens	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Anderson	Orr
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Cobb
Visser	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter