Hansard -- Wednesday, May 29, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 8, No. 8 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3681

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		3681
	Transportation Investment Act (Bill 57) Hon. J. Reid Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 59) Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3682
	Whalley Chiefs baseball club E. Brenzinger Airspace Action on Smoking and Health organization J. Kwan Energy production in B.C. B. Penner

Oral Questions		3683
	Negotiations with physicians J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Role of Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care J. Kwan Hon. K. Whittred Agriculture and livestock industries in B.C. W. Cobb Hon. J. van Dongen Impact of air travellers security fee on small and rural communities W. McMahon Hon. R. Thorpe

Speaker's Ruling		3686

Recommittal of Bills		3686
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) Hon. G. Plant

Committee of the Whole House		3686
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54) (continued) Hon. G. Plant

Reporting of Bills		3687
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Third Reading of Bills		3687
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Tabling Documents		3687
	B.C. Rail, annual report, 2000 Forest Practices Board, report, 2001 Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2001

Petitions		3687
	G. Trumper I. Chong Hon. S. Santori W. McMahon R. Hawes H. Long J. Kwan

Personal Statement		3687
	B. Lekstrom

Petitions		3688
	Hon. L. Stephens

Tabling Documents		3688
	Legislative Assembly Management Committee, annual report, 2001-02

Second Reading of Bills		3688
	Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402) R. Sultan

Committee of the Whole House		3688
	Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3688
	Sea to Sky University Act (Bill Pr402)

Committee of the Whole House		3688
	Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3688
	Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Committee of the Whole House		3689
	Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38) J. Kwan Hon. S. Hagen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		3695
	Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 38)

Committee of the Whole House		3695
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce

Reporting of Bills		3706
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Third Reading of Bills		3706
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

Motions on Notice		3706
	Third reading of Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) (Motion 34) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of the Whole House		3710
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (continued) S. Orr Hon. M. Coell J. Kwan J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills		3724
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Third Reading of Bills		3724
	Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27)

Motions on Notice		3725
	Third reading of Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (Bill 27) (Motion 35) J. Kwan J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell

B. Locke: It is my pleasure to introduce in the House today two special women. Bev McGee, a great supporter of mine, and my mom, Hilda Burns, are in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, after 22 years of serving us in the legislative dining room, Betty Turko will be retiring on Friday, May 31.

Just think of that. Betty has been working since March of 1980. Think of all the exceptional people she's met. [Laughter.] Think of all the stories that she has to tell, and think of all the memories that she'll take with her.

Hon. G. Campbell: Betty has said to me that she believes her employment in the legislative dining room is, in fact, a confidential cone of silence, so no one has to worry. I do think this: we will all have memories of Betty's exceptional service to each and every one of us and to our colleagues who came before us. On behalf of the entire Legislature, I would just like to say thank you to Betty for over 20 years of exceptional service to us all.

P. Wong: I'm pleased to introduce a group of 18 people from Surrey-based Fraser Valley Taiwanese Association. They are involved in many small businesses, including real estate, metal fabrication, insurance and finance, arts and printing, electronics and health. This group is led by president Fei-Lin Kung, former president Ching-Taun Kuo, Mr. Shun-Chin Lee, Linda Su, Chi-Chen Wang, Michael Chen, Richard Tseng, Jackie Tseng and Chi-Cheng Chung.

My hon. colleague Dave Hayer will introduce the other delegate members. Will the House please make them most welcome.

W. Cobb: It is my pleasure to introduce my daughter Toni and her boyfriend, John. They're down here holidaying from the Cariboo, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd like to welcome to the House today Paul Smith of Labatt Breweries and Jeff Gaulin of Molson Breweries. While you think they may be competitors, they do come together under the association known as the Western Brewers Association, and the association is represented by Daniel Fontaine.

G. Trumper: In the precincts today we have students from grades 5 to 7 from Hot Springs Cove school with their teacher, Mr. Bown. Hot Springs Cove is about a 1½-hour boat ride from Tofino. It's a small aboriginal village. This is probably, for many of those students, the first time that they have been to Victoria. I would ask you to please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Visiting the gallery today is Heather Mackenzie. She's the president of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the achievement of a tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic Elementary School in Mission with their teacher Ms. Heron and a number of adults that are along helping. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to join my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington in welcoming members of the Fraser Valley Taiwanese Association. There are over 18 members from my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead visiting Victoria. They supported me last time at election time, including Dr. Leo Wang, who is the vice-president of the association; Sandy Chen, who is a director of the association; Mei-Huei Chen Chung; Tonny Lin; Yi-Chen Lin; June Wang; Shu-Hsieng Weh; Hsiu-Chen Lai; and Ling Na Chen.

T. Christensen: I'm told we're joined in the House today by a pillar of my community. I haven't seen him up there yet, but I'm sure he's there. This gentleman is a strong volunteer in my community, a businessman. He's a former mayor. He's a former MLA from 1986 to 1996, during which time he served Her Majesty in a number of portfolios as a minister of the Crown. I would ask that the House please give a hearty welcome to Mr. Lyall Hanson.

I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce two constituents of mine who are here to watch question period and the proceedings of the House. They are Lyse Burgess and Andrew Weaver. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

Hon. J. Reid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transportation Investment Act.

Hon. J. Reid: I move that Bill 57, intituled Transportation Investment Act, be read a first time now.

Hon. J. Reid: British Columbia's economic vitality is in many ways dependent on our transportation system. In order for British Columbia to continue meeting our transportation needs, we need to make substantial additional investments in our highway infrastructure. We must also look for the most efficient, cost-effective way to develop that infrastructure. This will ensure that the available transportation dollars fund as wide a range of projects as possible.

The Transportation Investment Act will authorize the Ministry of Transportation to enter into concession agreements with private sector investors. It will allow those concession operators to construct, improve, operate and maintain highways. Private sector investors will be required to meet provincial highway standards for safety, design, construction and maintenance.

This act provides the necessary legislative flexibility for the ministry to explore and develop opportunities for public-private partnerships. It also allows British Columbians to access improved infrastructure far sooner than would be otherwise possible. For the travelling public it means providing roads that are consistent in quality and standards. For commercial users it means more reliable means of moving goods.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech outlined our government's commitment to explore more private sector investment in our economy. We are fulfilling that commitment. I'm introducing the Transportation Investment Act for first reading to allow for public consultation this summer before it is debated in the House in the fall.

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

Bill 57 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

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

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59, Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, is introduced now to facilitate public discussion over the summer. It will be debated in the fall. This bill keeps three new-era promises for electoral reform. It keeps the new-era promise to repeal the law that restricts third-party advertising during election campaigns. It also keeps the new-era promise to outlaw donations from charities to political parties. Charitable organizations, defined by the common-law test for a charity, will be prohibited from making political contributions to elections or recall campaigns. Charitable organizations will not be prohibited from contributing to initiative campaigns.

Lastly, Bill 59 also keeps the new-era promise to eliminate loopholes on disclosures of financial contributions to political parties to include donations of labour, as is required in municipal elections. This bill will ensure the disclosure of any donation of labour during an election or recall campaign where the individual donating his or her services and time is being compensated by an employer. The amendment does not apply to unpaid volunteers or to donations of professional services made by self-employed people. These amendments are part of this government's ongoing commitment to electoral reform in British Columbia.

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

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

E. Brenzinger: I would like to share with the House another great community sports story. We have heard plenty of hockey updates over the last few weeks, but I would like to turn your attention to the great North American summer tradition of baseball. The Whalley Chiefs baseball club have their home in my constituency. They play in the B.C. Premier League and have a record of 25 wins and 14 losses for the year.

Now, most baseball fans will have heard of the great pitcher and Canadian, Fergie Jenkins. Those who follow the game may also recognize names like Larry Walker, Ryan Dempster or Jeff Zimmerman, all natives of our great province. Aaron Mayette, who plays with the Texas Rangers, and Kevin Nicholson of the St. Louis Cardinals were once proud Whalley Chiefs. Their hard work, talent and dedication to the sport they love have turned their dreams into a career. Other Chiefs who have been drafted by professional teams include Cole Armstrong, Jordan Kissock and Kevin Johnston.

Baseball is alive and doing well in B.C. This year we expect another Whalley Chief will be selected quite high in the upcoming major league draft: Adam Loewen. He is a hard-throwing, left-hand pitcher. Recently Adam, along with Jeff Francis, another young pitcher from North Delta, were featured in a USA Today column, further recognizing baseball's growing interest in B.C.'s talented youngsters. In fact, according to the Major League Scouting Bureau, Surrey has more

Like many community groups, the Whalley Chiefs are trying to improve their facilities. They would like to have their ballpark upgraded so that the field matches the calibre of players they produce. Fortunately, one of the Chiefs' greatest assets is hard-working volunteers who work to make this dream a reality. It is my hope that we can find a way to help the Whalley Chiefs create a ballpark in Whalley that can allow the organization the ability to focus on the pride of the team: the players. Whalley and all of Surrey are very proud of the Chiefs and the tradition of excellence that they have established.

J. Kwan: I rise today to speak to the matter of clean air and to highlight the work of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, an organization dedicated to the achievement of a tobacco smoke–free environment for all British Columbians, including those who work in the hospitality industry. This organization is not alone in advancing the public understanding of the science on tobacco smoke and health. Health authorities around the world are unanimous in telling us that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, even at the bar or the lounges.

The science is also clear that the ventilation of a designated smoking room is, at best, a cosmetic solution intended to take away some of the smell of smoke. Most of the toxic chemicals in smoke, such as carcinogenic gases, cannot be filtered and are the ones that you can't see, taste or smell. The bottom line is that ventilation is not intended to make the air in a designated smoking room safe.

Every year Airspace takes the time to publicly acknowledge those who assist the tobacco industry in its war against humanity. In the fine tradition of parliament, I'll be leaving with the Clerks, to be shared and viewed by members of the House, the often-ducked, rarely coveted Airspace Bedfellows Award. I quote from the document: "The Airspace Bedfellows Award for distinguished and exemplary service to the multinational tobacco industry at the expense of worker, child and public health in the province of British Columbia has been awarded to the Minister of Labour this year."

B. Penner: I would also like to speak about protecting air quality and comment on a rapidly growing source of electric energy which doesn't produce emissions.

Members will know that last week the Washington State regulatory agency looking into the Sumas Energy 2 power plant proposal reversed their earlier unanimous opposition to the project and recommended the project be approved by Governor Gary Locke. The 1,000 tonnes per year of pollutants emitted by SE2 would exacerbate already significant air-quality problems in the Fraser Valley on both sides of the Washington State–British Columbia border.

Fine particulate matter — that's PM 10 — concentrations currently exceed Canadian 24-hour criteria on certain days, as do maximum hourly ozone concentrations. In the eastern Fraser Valley levels of fine particulate have been temporarily recorded at levels more than 70 percent higher than what is considered safe.

We are not alone in our concerns. A recent report released two weeks ago in California concluded that dirty air causes or contributes to the deaths of 9,300 Californians every year, more than the number of deaths in that state attributed to traffic accidents, homicide and AIDS combined.

Contrary to some reports, SE2 is not proposed to be a cogeneration facility. Rather, the natural gas burned at the plant will be for one purpose. The natural gas burned will be used to power the plant. Cogeneration, however, entails multiple uses for the energy consumed.

This is the case at the newly operational Island cogeneration plant near Campbell River. By replacing older boilers at the Elk Falls pulp and paper mill, which were used to process steam, about 240 megawatts of electricity are now produced with almost no net increase in most criteria pollutants. Clearly, cogeneration is preferable from an energy efficiency and human health perspective.

I've spoken in the past about the power of small hydro projects, which divert small amounts of water to generate significant amounts of electricity. This private industry is now growing in British Columbia.

There is also potential for wind energy. It is no longer experimental. Washington State has 178 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, with another 800 megawatts planned or proposed.

California has 1,671 megawatts of installed wind capacity. Even Texas, not normally thought of as a green state, has 1,096 megawatts of wind energy. In Canada, Alberta has about 55 megawatts of wind energy.

B.C. is behind in this area, but some time next year we may see the first wind towers being constructed on Vancouver Island as part of B.C. Hydro's wind demonstration project.

Wind energy may not be the answer for all of our growing electricity needs, but along with cogeneration, small hydro and other alternatives, wind energy should be part of our energy portfolio.

J. MacPhail: British Columbians are in a high state of anxiety about their health care system. Many feel

like it's high noon. The Minister of Health Services said just moments ago that he would have a statement after question period. I'm afraid that British Columbians have learned to be very wary when this government says it has a plan to resolve this dispute.

Everything it's done so far has done nothing but inflame and prolong the dispute. Every day more and more patients are not getting the care they need and the care they deserve.

I ask the Minister of Health Services: what assurances can the minister provide British Columbians that whatever he's planning will not just unify the doctors in their job action, inflame the situation and result in even more chaos and confusion for patients?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is individual British Columbians that have been paying a very big price due to the fact that some physicians in the province have decided to deny them access to health care.

I have certainly had communication from a lot of doctors who actually have taken the time to recognize that there's $392 million in new money on the table, that there is a fair proposal there, that they will be well compensated, and that it will address the issues around recruitment and compensation.

We as a government are not going to stand by when we see people who are writhing in pain on the floors of their homes waiting for back surgery or when we see patients in Kelowna who are being denied access to urgent care because their doctors won't care for them. We have made it clear today that we are prepared to take action. If the BCMA is not prepared to bring this to a conclusion quickly and restore patient care in this province, we will take the action necessary to ensure that those patients can once again count on health care in this province.

J. MacPhail: I'm disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because I was looking for something new. This is what the Minister of Health Services has been saying for weeks, despite repeated offers of assistance from the opposition to assist in settling this dispute.

There are those that are very close to this government who have said that this government has screwed up this dispute from the beginning. We wouldn't be here today if the government had lived up to its binding arbitration process that it agreed to and gave its full support to. Now it's a game of chicken, and British Columbians are having to pay the price of seeing who will blink first.

To the Minister of Health Services: instead of using ultimatums, wouldn't it be smarter to first try to demonstrate some goodwill, admit that it was wrong to rip up the binding arbitration process and establish a new binding arbitration process for all future disputes that's fair to both sides?

Hon. C. Hansen: As this member knows very well, the binding arbitration process that she is referring to was put in place by her government. There were four items in the terms of reference. I will even give credit to the previous government — to the fact that they did not agree to an open-ended binding arbitration process. There were conditions. The arbitrator had to consider the financial circumstances of the province and had to consider the administrative and management needs of the health authorities. The arbitrator did not do an adequate job of that, and we had grounds to appeal that arbitration. That member knows that.

I would like this member to stand up in this House and tell this House which programs she would like to see cut in the provincial government in order to come up with the extra $300 million to $400 million a year it would have cost had we gone through with the full ramifications of the McEachern arbitration award.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually surprised by the admission of the Minister of Health Services. Now he admits that he could have chosen a court appeal process that would have been fair. Instead, he decided to rip up a contract. That's what he did. No wonder doctors are saying that this government has messed up this dispute and that they have lost confidence in this minister. They're demanding that he and his colleague the Minister of Health Planning be fired.

Even B.C.'s top heart doctor, a senior Liberal fundraiser, has called on the Premier to fire these ministers. But you know what? I don't know whether I would go that far, but I would ask the minister this: if his ultimatum, which he continues to do to inflame the situation, backfires and if, as a result, B.C.'s health care system descends into further chaos, will the minister do the right thing and step aside from this dispute and ask the Premier to hand it to someone who hasn't earned the pathological enmity of the doctors and lost the trust of patients and who may actually have a chance at getting this dispute resolved?

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to recognize that there are thousands of doctors in this province who want to get on with putting patient care first. We want to get on with putting patient care first.

We have tried and tried in every way possible to get the BCMA to come back to the negotiating table so that these issues can be resolved. They asked for binding arbitration. We offered them binding arbitration. They asked for things to be negotiated. We said: "Yes, let's negotiate it." There is a point at which we have to provide the strong leadership necessary to put patients first in this province, restore care for patients throughout British Columbia, and we are prepared to do that.

J. Kwan: It's not only patients and doctors who have lost trust in this government's ability to manage the health care system. The opposition has learned that one of the Premier's own cabinet ministers is requesting and asking questions around the health care cuts.

The opposition has seen an e-mail which was sent last week on behalf of the Minister for Long Term Care to public servants from one of her own senior ministry officials. In that e-mail, the minister instructs the bureaucracy to provide her with answers to some very serious questions about cuts to health care. Apparently, she couldn't get answers from her own cabinet colleagues.

To the minister of state: why did she not express these very serious questions and concerns, which the opposition shares, before and not after she turned seniors' lives upside down? Will she table in the House today the questions she posed to the public servants?

Hon. K. Whittred: Well, what a surprise that a minister is taking the responsibility to ask questions about the very people that fall within the jurisdiction of that minister. This government was committed to embarking on a long-range plan that would provide for the benefit of patients in this province, and that is what we are endeavouring to do.

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

J. Kwan: The minister should be asking those questions at the cabinet table, not of her senior officials within the ministry.

In that e-mail, the minister's official says that the minister of state has asked for answers to a number of serious questions before she attends a conference of private long-term care providers. The e-mail asks why the North Shore health region is facing more cuts to care for seniors and mental health than any other region. "Are health authorities ensuring alternatives are in place" before eliminating programs that currently provide quality care for those who need it the most?

The minister did not bother to ask these questions before the cuts were implemented. Now we have to ask them on her behalf. Perhaps the Minister of Health Services could answer these questions for her own minister and cabinet colleague.

Hon. K. Whittred: The question that the member opposite has read is an illustration of exactly what my job is. My job is to attend to the long-term care issues…

Hon. K. Whittred: …around seniors in this province. For me to ask a question about the dispersal of those services in a health region, I think, is part of my job.

Livestock production has played a major role in the economy of my riding for over 100 years. However, ranchers today are competing on an international scale that they never dreamed of, could never have imagined, a generation ago. Can the minister tell us how British Columbia's livestock industry is performing in this highly competitive business?

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is correct. The livestock industry has done very well this past year. Returns in the industry are up 14.5 percent.

I think a lot of the credit goes to the men and women who work on our ranches for their innovation, their dedication and their competitiveness. They are throughout rural British Columbia. They've done a great job. They generate a lot of jobs in those communities as part of their service industry.

Two concerns, both revolving around the U.S. farm bill. They're concerned about increased subsidies and the country-of-origin labelling provisions in that new farm bill. We look forward to working with them on that, and I look forward to seeing the member's constituents at the annual meeting on June 7 in Dawson Creek.

Agriculture is often overlooked as a segment of our B.C. economy. Can the minister tell me and my constituents what the future outlook may be for this important sector?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I guess if I were a rating agency, I would characterize it as steady and positive. B.C. agriculture has some major strengths, and one of those is our diversity of many different commodities. When some sectors are down, others are up or going along in a strong fashion. We also have a very stable industry that grows a certain amount every year. It has a very good record of growth, and certainly we're optimistic about that growth continuing.

Agriculture operates in all parts of British Columbia. Even in the GVRD we have a major agricultural industry. They had an open house on the weekend, which I thought was very good. Farmers and ranchers are looking to an active and meaningful relationship with our government to help create the conditions for ongoing growth in this sector.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I understand that the minister was recently in Halifax at a provincial-territorial conference on tourism. I have heard from a number of my constituents about the reduction in airline services, particularly to those communities that rely on air travel to connect to other centres. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what was discussed at this conference and if there was any discussion about small communities and airline services?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there were extensive discussions last week at the tourism ministers conference on air travel to rural and small communities across Canada. I had meetings with Robert Milton, the chief executive officer of Air Canada. I'm having follow-up meetings in the coming weeks with Air Canada officials.

Our government, as have other governments across Canada, has asked Air Canada to make sure they let our communities know what's happening well in advance, that they consult with communities and that they understand the importance of air travel to small and rural communities, especially to communities that depend on tourism. We are working on this issue. We will continue to work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary question.

W. McMahon: A number of people in my constituency are very concerned about the federal government's recently imposed air travellers security charge. While this extra fee is intended to support increased security measures in airports, some tell me that very little actual security improvements are taking place and that the fee is a hardship for smaller communities. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us if anything is being done to address concerns about this fee?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Again, this was a very topical issue at our tourism ministers conference last week in Halifax, and all tourism ministers across Canada have made it our number one priority in the coming months. Following my meeting in Halifax, I travelled to Ottawa where I had the opportunity to meet with Minister Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada. Mr. Martin has committed to a review of the air security tax. That review will be completed this fall.

Mr. Martin has also asked British Columbia to participate in that review, and we will be participating in that review to ensure that the air security tax provides the security but that our rural and small communities and our tourism industry throughout British Columbia is not disadvantaged. British Columbia is going to work with Canada to find the solution for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on May 28 the hon. Leader of the Opposition rose, as she stated it, "to seek advice" from the Chair about events that occurred in the Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process. The decisions made by that committee are not subject to review by the Chair, and matters arising in committee are invariably settled in committee unless they come forward as part of a report to the House.

It is reasonable to assume a report will be coming to the House from the committee, and when adoption of the report is moved, the member may raise such questions as she deems appropriate.

Hon. G. Plant: By leave, I move that the proceedings relating to third reading of Bill 54, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, be declared null and void and that the said bill be recommitted forthwith with respect to section 73.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment to section 73 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended.

Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 54, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. Reid: I have the honour to present the annual report for B.C. Rail for the year 2000.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two reports: the 2001 report from the Forest Practices Board and the 2001 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission.

G. Trumper: I would like to table a petition. The petition is signed by 154 of my constituents requesting from the Ministry of Human Resources the extension of a preschool study qualifying low-income families to the end of the fiscal year, June 2002.

I. Chong: I rise to table a petition from FAIR, families against imposed reconfiguration. They are opposed to middle school reconfiguration by school district 61. It is signed by 3,183 individuals.

Hon. S. Santori: I rise to table a petition from 4,100 citizens of the West Kootenays with respect to the closure of the Kiro Manor long-term care facility.

W. McMahon: I rise to present a petition. This petition has approximately 3,100 signatures asking government to consult with the community of Revelstoke to keep Moberly Manor open.

R. Hawes: I rise to present a petition signed by 10,500 of my constituents requesting that acute care, critical care and maternity remain open in Mission Memorial Hospital.

H. Long: I rise to table a petition that I received from the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association and Sunshine Coast Water First. Collectively, they've received 5,082 signatures. The petition urges the government to prohibit all industrial activity within their community watershed and to transfer control of the community watershed to the community.

J. Kwan: I rise to table two petitions. The first contains the names of 191 residents from the constituencies of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Nelson-Creston, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, Penticton–Okanagan Valley and Cariboo North. The petitioners call on the government to put an end to its mean-spirited attack on youth, seniors, the poor, the sick and the disabled and to respect legally binding contracts. Further, they call on the government to remind the MLAs that it's their role to listen to, consult with and represent the needs of their communities and not simply to impose the government's agenda.

The second petition is signed by 17 residents of my constituency. They express their deep concern about the cuts the government is imposing on schools, hospitals, social services and the public service. They note that it is the most vulnerable in our province, and especially our children, that these cuts hit the hardest. They call on the government to restore funding to these vital public services and commit itself to putting the needs of people and communities ahead of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that petitions are to be put forward without political comment.

B. Lekstrom: I rise to make a personal statement in relation to a point of order brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

B. Lekstrom: The point of order raised on the afternoon of May 2, 2002, implied that I received a $6,000 stipend for the work I was doing as chair of the government caucus committee on the offshore oil and gas task force. The Leader of the Opposition was incorrect. At no time did I receive any stipend for the work I did on behalf of and as chair of the committee on this task force.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to clarify this matter.

Hon. L. Stephens: I rise to present a petition from the Rainbow old age pensioners organization and 400 members of my Langley constituency in regard to health services at Langley Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present herewith the Legislative Assembly Management Committee annual report for the period April 2001 through March 2002, pursuant to section 5(9) of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.

The Sea to Sky University Act is a private bill establishing a new university in British Columbia. SSU will be a private, non-secular, non-profit liberal arts institution with enrolment of initially 400 and ultimately 1,200 students. It will offer British Columbians expanded academic choice and a high-calibre internationally oriented curriculum subject to rigorous quality standards.

R. Sultan: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr402, Sea to Sky University Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr402, Sea to Sky University Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 58; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 58, Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 38; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: Related to section 1 but actually the entire bill itself, I'd like to ask the minister some questions around the consultation process that took place with this bill.

During estimates debate on March 7, I asked the minister about the changes to the Environmental Assessment Act and with whom he would be consulting on these changes. When the question was asked of the minister on the major reform of the environmental assessment process — who would be consulted and who has been consulted — the minister responded as follows, and I quote from Hansard: "There is a committee in place which has had two meetings so far to discuss these changes. The committee is made up of five environmentalists representing environmental organizations, one from labour, one from the UBCM and four from business. There is also a first nations group in place being consulted."

The question was then asked of the minister: "Does the minister have the names of these groups?" The minister responded by saying: "Yes, I do."

Then several weeks later the environmental assessment office sent me some more specific information around the consultation procedure. I was given a list of the people who currently sit on the environmental assessment advisory committee, with the following statements. The EA advisory committee provides advice and feedback to the EAO, the environmental assessment office, on implementation of the environmental assessment process and the development of policy regulatory initiatives. This group assisted in the development of the act and continues to act as a standing advisory committee to the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office.

The statement was accompanied by a list of the people on the committee. I won't go through the list again.

Could the minister please outline the exact consultation procedure he or the environmental assessment office had with the advisory committee and this list of individuals? How many times did the committee meet? What was the result of that process? Was the committee supportive? Did the minister accept submissions from members of the environmental assessment advisory committee? If so, who?

Hon. S. Hagen: The consultation process which took place involved two conference calls, one meeting that I held with environmental groups and a follow-up meeting between my staff and environmental groups. As you know, the briefings on the basic elements of the bill have been held with members of the EA advisory committee composed of 12 representatives of various stakeholder groups: local government, labour, industry and environmental.

As the member also knows, it's not normal practice to circulate a bill to the public prior to the introduction in the Legislature. When the current act was being developed in the mid-nineties, the public had access to an earlier bill that had been introduced in the House but was then withdrawn. Considerable consultation has since taken place with the development of the regulations.

J. Kwan: After second reading debate, where I expressed concerns of the West Coast Environmental Law Association that no consultation had been done, there seems to have been a discrepancy around the consultation. Since that time, members of my staff have been in contact with Karen Campbell of West Coast Environmental Law. As the minister is aware, she's also a member of the environmental assessment advisory committee, one of the people supposedly consulted on this issue. Here's what she had to say. The minister can correct the House if he disagrees with the chain of events.

According to the minister in estimates debate and the material provided by the environmental assessment office, the advisory group "assisted in the development of the act," while I've learned that the committee never once met as a whole group to discuss the changes. Apparently, the members of committee representing the environmental groups, like West Coast Environmental Law and the B.C. Environmental Network, attended a 27-minute-long briefing on the changes and were able to participate in two conference calls.

They were advised on what changes there would be. There was no opportunity for discussion, no opportunity to provide submissions and no opportunity to offer suggestions about changes to the new act. This is beginning to sound like a real stretch of the definition of consultation. There was no opportunity for participation to develop the bill, like there was with the original one. This really fits in with Bill 38's drive to remove all legislated public consultation requirements.

However, the subgroup of the committee did apparently get one message across. They were deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. The one group that is supposed to be consulted on environmental assessment is deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. I fear that this sets a very bad precedent for any consultation under the new act.

Perhaps the minister could let me know if my account of the events is accurate so far.

Hon. S. Hagen: Under the new process, the approach to public notification, access to information and consultation will be very similar to that in place now but with an increased emphasis on providing the information electronically. Public meetings and public

I'm also advised by staff that after their first meeting with the environmental group, there were some changes made to the draft legislation.

J. Kwan: The chain of events: did that actually occur? The people the minister was supposed to consult with say otherwise.

I'd like to bring the House's attention to a letter from the deputy minister of the environmental assessment office that she wrote to the members of the advisory committee, dated May 9, 2002 — the very day the bill was introduced. Wouldn't it be surprising after all that consultation? Here's what the letter said. I'll just quote parts of it:

By the deputy's own admission, there has been insufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation. There you have it, right from the deputy minister herself. Let me just quote again: "Unfortunately, there has not been sufficient time to allow for in-depth consultation on the provisions of the bill." Could the minister explain exactly what consultation occurred and why there was not sufficient time for consultation, since this government has been in power for over one year, and the minister talked about consulting on March 7, over two months ago?

Also, the letter says: "I can say that certain key changes have been made to provisions of the bill as a result of the feedback received from committee members…." Perhaps the minister could let the House know what those key changes were, since Karen Campbell says she couldn't imagine the bill being any worse than it is right now.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm very pleased the member read that letter out from my deputy minister, because of course it confirms exactly what I said just prior to that, so I appreciate that very much. It substantiates what I said.

As I mentioned before, there were two conference telephone calls of all stakeholder groups. There was a meeting that I held with the environmental sector, followed up by a meeting with my staff, the members of the EA advisory committee composed of 12 representatives of various stakeholder groups, local government, labour, industry and environmental. I'm confident that there has been sufficient consultation on this bill. I think it's a great bill.

It also fulfils several new-era commitments that our party made during the election campaign. I'd just like to list some of those commitments: a thriving private sector economy, enhanced competitive business climate, sustainable resource development, a scientific and principled approach to environmental management, balanced decision-making, eliminating federal-provincial overlaps, open and accountable government, and reducing red tape and regulatory burden.

J. Kwan: If the minister's answer to my questions is a demonstration of the consultation process, then I understand what happened there. The fact of the matter is that the minister has no intention of listening to the people, no intention of actually answering the question. My question to him was: if consultation in fact took place — the deputy minister says in her letter that consultation did take place and that changes were made to the bill — what were those changes?

The minister just bypassed all of those questions and went on some rhetoric about the new-era commitment, which had nothing to do with the Environmental Assessment Act consultation process.

Let me just advise the minister, then, of this information. Karen Campbell's position has since been backed by other members of the environmental assessment advisory committee, including Lloyd Manchester, Pat Moss and Alan Young.

Pat Moss, chair, environmental assessment caucus, B.C. Environmental Network and member of the environmental assessment advisory committee.

I have to wonder: if a significant percentage of the advisory committee is against the changes and the lack of consultation, how can the minister stand up and defend the contents of this bill? If every single environmental representative is against the changes and the way they have occurred, how can the minister claim this approach is balanced, and how can the minister even just pretend that consultation actually took place?

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the patience of the member opposite. I thought the meeting that I had was a very good meeting. We had a full and frank discussion as a group around the table in my office. I have lots of these meetings with various groups. I remember this one specifically because of the quality of the people attending that meeting.

I mentioned the changes that came out of the conference call meetings. One of the changes, which was a very major change, was that we did away with the power of the minister to waive projects out of the process. The second change was to ensure that we could regulate public consultation requirements. We would actually have it in regulation to make sure that there was full public consultation.

I just want to talk a bit about the benefits of this act to the people of British Columbia. I think this has profound meaning to the environmentalists as well.

It preserves the features of the current process which work, such as process management by the environmental assessment office, but with clearer accountabilities; reviewability of projects established primarily by regulation, with an option to designate projects to be reviewable where this is in the public interest; environmental assessment certification of projects based on balanced ministerial decision-making; assessment of the same broad range of effects — environmental, economic, social, heritage and health, with a strong focus on environmental protection; flexibility to custom-designed review procedures for individual projects; procedural simplification and greater ability to focus on technical issues; ability to maintain current levels of public involvement — very, very important; more cost-effective — ability to review the same number of projects for less cost; more timely — reduced overall review duration; greater procedural choice for proponents; and finally, enhanced federal-provincial review cooperation — very, very important now that we're trying to attract investment back to the province of British Columbia — so that we can make the procedures move in tandem between the province and the federal government instead of one after the other.

J. Kwan: Since the Liberal government has decided to invoke closure on all of the bills on the order paper and shut down essential dialogue, we're extremely limited in our ability to go through this legislation as thoroughly as it deserves. There are over 40 sections in this bill that I have identified as needing substantial review and debate. However, with this government's arrogant decision that debate is not needed nor wanted in this House, it will likely pass by all the backbench MLAs toeing the line.

We can see just from the minister's comment just now on the questions around consultation that not only did he not address the issue around consultation…. The minister says, "Well, I feel satisfied with the consultation," notwithstanding that all the people whom he's supposed to have consulted with do not feel satisfied with the consultation. They wrote to the minister and said: "You know what, minister? We were not consulted. We were simply informed, and the changes took place…. We're not satisfied with it. We feel that it actually harms the environment in terms of what this act is pushing through."

Well, that doesn't matter, because that's good enough for the minister. He feels satisfied. He talks about the rhetoric in the New Era document.

Part 3 of Bill 38 outlines the new environmental assessment process, one that sets this province back at least 20 years and completely guts the legislative requirement for consultation with first nations and other stakeholders. The project committee stage is gone. Public advisory committees are gone, and the environmental assessment boards are gone.

The provisions in the current legislation are the backbone of public consultation and participation in the process. Without them, communities, first nations and concerned citizens will lose their guaranteed consultation.

Removing the legislative provisions for the environmental assessment board is a major blow to the independency of the process and the opportunity for experts on specific matters in specific regions to be directly involved.

The really disappointing change, however, is the removal of the project committee stage, which was legislated to include representatives from the government of Canada, the government of B.C., affected municipalities and any first nations whose traditional territory is involved. Bill 38 will remove this much-valued guaranteed involvement in the process.

Furthermore, the elimination of public advisory committees will do certain harm to the ability of the public to be involved. The whole process will be lost under part 3. By removing the project committee stage and moving towards this "flexible" approach, this legislation removes the public's guarantees for public notice and participation. Furthermore, it grants far too much power and discretion to the minister and the executive director. This is supposed to be an open and account-

able process steered by the public, not subject to political interference. Concerned citizens will no longer have the opportunity to actively participate in the direction an assessment proceeds. Instead, the minister or the deputy minister can arbitrarily make crucial decisions that should be left to stakeholders and those with local expertise.

The Chair: Before the minister responds, please, I just want to confirm that section 3 was passed.

Hon. S. Hagen: I really do appreciate that question, because it's important. I'd like to answer the question to the fullest extent that I can.

The environmental assessment office will set consultation requirements for each review, including the role and responsibilities of the proponent. Once set, they will be binding.

There will also be an ability to modify those requirements if circumstances change. This is very similar to the approach under the current act. While the intent is to establish consultation guidelines in the environmental assessment office's operating procedures, there will also be a power to make regulations with respect to consultation requirements.

One of the attributes of this new act is that it is an open and transparent process. Public notification, access to information and consultation are fundamental elements of good environmental assessment and will continue to be an important part of this new process. Requirements for public consultation will be set early in the project review, and once set, they will be binding. Public meetings and public comment periods will continue to be a feature of project reviews.

The project information centre, currently called the project registry, will facilitate open and transparent reviews by ensuring public access to information about project review. Over the next three years access to information will be provided primarily by electronic means. There will also be power to make regulations with respect to consultation requirements. I'm confident that the process as laid out is a good, open and transparent process.

There was a question asked with regard to first nations interests. This is very important to me. It's very important to this government. It's a key issue. The environmental assessment office will have to ensure that any fiduciary and constitutional obligations towards first nations are met, their concerns are identified and adequate efforts are made to address them. First nations will be provided with information on projects during the preapplication period and will have opportunities to identify how their interests may be potentially affected. First nations may be invited to sit on technical working groups where issues of concern to them are under discussion.

J. Kwan: The minister's answer is telling. On the one hand, he says: "There is consultation. Don't worry; be happy. All is the same." In reality, everything is different and is stipulated in this act.

The public are asking those questions as well. In fact, just this morning a letter arrived from Francine Roulston of the Stó:lo nation. She said that she had been in contact with the environmental assessment office just this morning, but their answers from the environmental assessment office left her unsure and concerned. Let me just quote parts of the letter that she sent to the opposition:

Then it goes on to talk about how they'll proceed and make sure that they'll review the bill and also participate in the process to make sure that their voice is heard.

On the sections that strip the public of its right to consultation, there are major concerns around aboriginal rights. First nations groups in this province have grave concerns and are gearing up for court battles against this legislation. It is worthy of note that they already have quite an arsenal of court decisions ready to fight this bill in the courts and with the treaty negotiations. This bill will do nothing to get B.C. back on track, to get B.C. in business, as it exists now.

On behalf of the first nations groups like the Stó:lo nation, the Hupacasath nation, the Lil'wat nation and others, they want to urge the government to reinstate legislated requirements for consultation before it is too late. The new act directly undercuts the court's affirmation of the role of first nations by removing them from the process altogether. Removing consultation with aboriginal rights and interests from the environmental assessment process means that aboriginal governments may have no option but to go to the courts or resort to public protest to ensure that their views are considered. The government's deliberate removal of a cooperative mechanism in this new act may result in greater uncertainty and more delay for project proponents in the long run.

Let's look at some of the court decisions. The list obviously starts with Delgamuukw and the Haida cases, which establish the requirement of consultation regardless of title. Then there is the Taku case. In Taku River Tlingit first nation et al v. Ringstad et al, 2002 BCCA 59, the B.C. Supreme Court held that the government had failed to consult adequately with this

northern first nation and forced the government to reconstitute the project committee to consider whether or not the sustainability of the Taku River Tlingit would be affected by the mine development.

Also, there is the Adams case, where the Supreme Court of Canada stated that federal and provincial governments cannot create legislation with discretionary powers that could infringe aboriginal rights without providing guidelines. Here's a quote from paragraph 54 of the case:

It seems highly unlikely that the courts would uphold a statute that provides for broad provincial discretion over major projects with no guidance for protecting and accommodating aboriginal rights.

Of course, there is the Labrador Inuit case that I described during second reading stage. It states: "…the process of environmental assessment is not a frill engrafted on the development process; nor should it be regarded as an administrative hurdle to be gotten over in the march towards economic development. It is, rather, an integral part of economic development."

It is clear that Bill 38 will contribute to increased uncertainty in treaty negotiations and will strip many communities and individuals of the right to participate. Using the words of a member of the government's own environmental advisory committee, I can't imagine this bill being any worse.

Can the minister please advise this House: has he sought legal opinions on this matter, on the potential violation of the rights of aboriginal people for consultation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I'm advised that we have indeed consulted with several lawyers. I think the key issue here is that the environmental assessment office will have to ensure that any fiduciary and constitutional obligations toward first nations are met. The government is intent on that. We're focused on that. I have been meeting with first nations groups throughout the province since June 5 of last year, and we've established some very, very good working relationships with those groups not just on the coast but throughout the interior of the province.

J. Kwan: You know, I have no doubt in my mind that the environmental community organizations, some of whom are here today watching this debate, and the aboriginal community and organizations, some of whom are also here today, have every good intention to want to consult with the government. The problem here is this: the government is not reciprocating that good intention to the organizations from the environmental community and from the first nations community.

The minister keeps on getting up to say: "Don't worry; be happy. Everything is just fine." Then why would we get a letter just this morning from the Stó:lo nation saying that they are concerned? Do people just dream this up, or is the minister making this up as we go along? That is the discrepancy that is before us today. What he says is one thing. The reality, when you check with the people who he said he was talking with, who he had been talking with, who he truly consulted with, is that they say otherwise, and they say it on record in writing to the minister. It is now being registered in this House.

This bill, Bill 38, is absolutely outrageous. It can cause undue harm for British Columbia in a variety of ways. Environmentally it could set British Columbia back some 20 years on environmental protection. The original act was done in true consultation with all concerned. They were at the table. That was consultation; this is not. Taking away, in legislative language, the requirement to ensure that first nations people are at the table for consultation is a complete violation of the court decision. What the government is setting up is huge uncertainty in the area around aboriginal rights that will not bring certainty to British Columbia and that will not help in the economic recovery of British Columbia.

The minister needs to go back and review how he is harming British Columbia on all these fronts. The opposition will not be supporting part 3, "Environmental Assessment Process," in all its sections, because every section strips away the authority of the people who used to have a role to play around the environmental assessment process. This strips away the ability to ensure there is no political interference with the environmental assessment process. It allows for the government to put its dirty fingers into the cookie jar and to smear the entire process.

All that does is do harm to British Columbia in the long term. It's not even helping the proponents in the long term, because all it does, potentially, is have long-lasting negative impacts that will cost the proponents in the long term, cost British Columbians in the long term and, of course, delay the progress that is much needed in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hagen: In listening to the member opposite and having her suggest that what we're doing here could cause more harm to British Columbia and more harm to our economy, I have to say it would be impossible for anything to damage the economy of B.C. more than the government that was in power from '91 to 2001. It wouldn't be possible for anything…

Hon. S. Hagen: …we did to damage the economy more than those people did in their government in the ten years.

I want to make another couple of points here. My staff tell me they have just completed a two-full-day meeting with a first nations working group, which was very productive with full and open consultation. I want to repeat that the consultation process will indeed be in the regulations, so we will actually regulate what the consultation process will be. This act now brings British Columbia into the same position that all of the other provinces across Canada are in, which is that they operate their environmental assessment acts without committees.

I can't help but note that the two members who were in the previous government that did so much damage to the province economically were part of the government that appointed a special environmental adviser to the SkyTrain expansion, the largest project ever undertaken in the province, without consultation groups.

I just want to enlighten the two members opposite on why we need a new act. We need a new act because we are committed as a government to high-quality environmental assessment of major projects, and we'll achieve it with this new bill. The bill replaces the current one-size-fits-all approach with much greater procedural flexibility, something that the members opposite would not understand, I'm sure.

The current act is too inflexible, cumbersome and prescriptive. The process has sometimes been ineffective and inefficient, with uncertain overall review durations. That's the sort of thing, under the old government, that drove investment out of the province. We need legislation that will enhance the ability to harmonize better with the federal review process. I'm sure they would agree that it is important to enhance our ability to harmonize this process with the federal process. Otherwise, it delays things and drives investment capital out of the province.

The bill allows broad discretion to customize review procedures and to adapt to strategic government priorities in order to improve the province's investment climate without compromising the environment. That's the balance the two members opposite don't understand. They don't understand the balance that we need to achieve between the environment and the economy so that we can improve our economy without negative damage to the environment.

I just want to reiterate that the changes in this act are consistent with the practices of other Canadian jurisdictions.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister this question on section 51. Section 51 states: "The act does not apply to any activity, construction, operation, modification, dismantling or abandonment that, immediately before this subsection comes into force…." Could the minister please advise what this means? Does it mean that the current projects would go through the new process? Or would they go through the old process?

J. Kwan: The application of it to come under the new act, I think, will jeopardize the environment and

the process that needs to be followed for these projects. These projects have already been in the process, and for it to revert to being under a different process all of a sudden, midstream, is wrong.

Of course, perhaps I know what the rationale from government is on this. The new process is a less stringent process on assessing environmental protection. That's the government's intention: to take away environmental protection at every turn, even projects that are already into the process for environmental assessment.

The opposition would not support this section of the bill. It is wrong to do such a thing, and we will not be supporting this section of bill — section 51.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the committee rise, report resolution without amendment.

Bill 38, Environmental Assessment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

J. MacPhail: In the gallery today there are various people from environmental organizations here to observe the proceedings, probably with sadness. Peter Ronald, Suzanne Connell and Laura Carlton are in the gallery from the Georgia Strait Alliance. Also here today is Tom Hackney with the Sierra Club of B.C. and the Georgia Strait Crossing Concerned Citizens Coalition. Also, another concerned citizen in the House today is Ryan Durand, who is an environmental planning technician, and his father David Durand, who is a community representative on the project committee from Christina Lake. Would the House please make them welcome.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 49; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have with me my deputy minister, Lee Doney, and my senior policy analyst, WCB, Michael Tanner.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, because of the extreme time constraints, we're allowed from four to 5:30 on this matter. Because of the government invoking closure, I'll be examining only sections 8 through 11 of Bill 49. I'm not sure what people think is so funny about that.

J. MacPhail: This is repealing section 22(1) of the Workers Compensation Act and replacing it. It changes the compensation for an injured or ill worker from 75 percent of the worker's average earnings paid during the lifetime of the worker to 90 percent of the worker's average net earnings. It also removes the phrase "payable during the lifetime of the worker."

My question flowing from this is: will workers who are currently receiving compensation for a permanent total disability continue to receive compensation during their lifetime?

J. MacPhail: If one were to compare the compensation that an injured worker with a permanent total disability received before the passage of this legislation versus after the passage of this legislation, on average, what's the difference in the compensation for an injured worker?

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear. You're looking for the comparison between a person who would be on WCB benefits now with a disability that goes past age 65 into retirement, as opposed to when the new legislation comes in and that benefit ends at 65. The difference would be somewhat dependent upon the type of injury. I'm just trying to give you an average comparison here — make sure I've got this correctly.

In the general sense, if a wage earner was making $40,000 a year, they would receive $534 and change a week under the new program. Under the old, or existing, system they would have received $575. That's somebody with a $40,000 income.

It would obviously vary depending on the nature of the injury. The more severe an injury, the difference…. If it was somebody on a $30,000 income, they would receive $9.50 less per week.

J. MacPhail: What is the consequence for those two workers with a permanent total disability as a result of the removal of the phrase "payable during the lifetime of the worker" from the legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: What that means is that under the new system, the monthly benefit they would have been receiving ends at age 65. At that point they'll be given an annuity of 5 percent of what their benefit had been, awarded to them during their age as they were growing to age 65 — I guess is the best way of putting it — and they're able to match that annuity. At age 65 their monthly benefit ends, whereas in the instance of right now that would have continued on.

J. MacPhail: What's the reduction for each of these workers' examples after the age of 65?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't know whether I'm not speaking into my mike, or maybe the minister was overwhelmed with that award he received earlier. I'll try to speak more closely into the mike.

What is the amount of the reduction that a worker would receive after the age of 65 under the old rules compared to the new rules with those two examples the minister quoted?

Hon. G. Bruce: To the member: I can't give you an average. First of all, when someone reaches age 65…. How long are they going to live thereafter, if you're taking a 75-year-old or an 80-year-old or what have you?

Let me give you an example, if I can. It would come in respect to a person who lost an eye. I'll just kind of run it through, if this works for you.

This particular individual is able to go back to work after ten weeks. Under the current system, they would be getting a yearly award of $4,300 with the full CPI, which would come out….

They would receive, on a functional loss to age 65, $89,936. Under the new system, with the yearly award of $4,006, they get a retirement benefit payable at age 65. That's the 5 percent annuity. That would be $58,458 in total. Compared to Alberta, that would be $15,000, and in Ontario that would be $13,920.

J. MacPhail: We're dealing with British Columbia here, and the minister is taking away benefits from working people. That's a surprise to a lot of working people. I'm not sure that it will mean any comfort for working people who have been injured on the job that the minister is in a race to the bottom with Alberta and Ontario for working people. They're in the race to match the benefits for the richest in the country with Alberta. Those who make the most amount of money will pay the least amount of taxes, the same way they do in Alberta and Ontario. The price to be paid for that now is that injured workers will be receiving less money.

Maybe next year injured workers can expect to receive the same amount that they'd receive in Alberta and Ontario. Gee, that's really good news.

Under this system, the example that the minister just gave us, the injured worker is, on the average example, $40,000 worse off in his lifetime. From $58,000 he would have received….

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. When I say "he," I mean "she" as well. I understand that there are both genders in the working world.

He would have received $40,000 less — $58,000 versus $89,000. I'm sorry; it's $31,000. My apologies.

B. Penner: In the gallery is a group of 24 students from Greendale Elementary School in Chilliwack.

They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Minato. I think this is an annual event for her and for her school. It's my pleasure again to have had an opportunity this year to meet with the class and the students. I had a few moments to receive a few questions before the bells rang to bring us back here.

They are accompanied by a number of adults — at least five, I think. I wish them well, and I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: First of all, let's be clear. Anybody receiving a WCB benefit today will continue to receive that same benefit tomorrow, when this legislation is passed.

However, I want to be clear to the hon. member that we're not doing this because it's fun. We're doing this because of two things with respect to the review and the reworking of WCB in the service delivery side of things: to make it more effective and to be there for the people who are in need of it. Also important is the fact that the system is under financial duress. It's virtually at risk. We have a $287 million deficit, and one can't just carry along on that deficit. We'll have a $900 million deficit by the year 2005.

The member knows all too well that the workers compensation system has to be changed. Their government, in fact, undertook a study — the former administration, the NDP government, with this member opposite — and some $7 million was spent on that study. It was very clear that changes have to be made, and we're bringing forward those changes.

I am not hiding anything in respect to saying that benefits will be less for people that find themselves in need of the WCB injury program after the June 30 date. They will be, but more importantly, which I have to make sure as minister responsible, is that the benefit system is there in place for workers in the future and for people already on the system. If I were not to make significant changes, that system would be greatly at risk.

Even with the changes we're making, we will still have amongst…if not the best WCB benefit program in Canada.

J. MacPhail: This government chose to take a whole bunch of studies and select out of each study or review all of the benefits to change WCB that would assist the employers and harm the workers. That's what this legislation is about, completely.

There is nothing in this legislation that benefits injured workers, and frankly, Mr. Chair, today we will be having legislation rammed through — everybody will be sitting silent here, ramming it through — that says a worker injured before June 30 is more important than a worker injured after June 30.

That's exactly what we're doing here, because the government wants to assist the WCB out of a deficit that the minister keeps saying will be $900 million in three years. The fluctuation of deficits and surpluses in the WCB changes each and every year. Once again, this government didn't choose to reduce costs of WCB by preventing accidents, injuries or deaths. They chose to say: "If you're injured, you're going to have less."

Actually, Mr. Chair, the amendment is the entire set of pages, so I have a copy here for the minister. Or can I refer to this, and then I'll table yours? Yes. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chair, that copy is for the minister.

J. MacPhail: What this legislation does — let's be clear — is say that this government is eliminating lifetime pensions for people who are injured on the job. That's the new-era version of assisting working people in this province. Every single time this minister rises to table legislation that affects working people — not their self-employed friends, not their real estate agents or their lawyers; ordinary working people who are injured or become ill while working — working people are worse off in this province.

What this amendment does — it's rather lengthy — is amend section 22(1) by adding text. It's a long amendment, but the thrust of this amendment is this. It is saying that lifetime pensions are deserved. There is no justification for removing that from injured or ill workers in this province. Eliminating lifetime pensions and replacing them with the post-retirement benefit is perhaps the most offensive change made in Bill 49. It is a direct attack on disabled workers. There's no other way of describing it.

While this government gives tax breaks to the richest in the province, they take money out of the pockets of people who are injured on the job. Workers who are injured or become ill as a result of a workplace accident or disease do not have the opportunity to pay into a pension fund and then reap the benefits of the pension from their employer. That's gone. That's what this legislation has done. And we're ramming this through, probably so we can ram something down the doctors' throats. The legislation doesn't allow for these workers to pay into an employer pension fund.

They don't make contributions to CPP. Receiving a lifetime pension for a workplace accident ensures that they are financially provided for in their old age. That's what this does. It makes them whole. It makes them whole as if they had continued to work and had not been injured or become ill.

Taking away the lifetime pension off-loads the employer's economic responsibility for workplace injuries

and diseases onto the public income assistance and health care system. That's a direct subsidy to employers. Make no mistake about it. The minister will rise up and say: "Oh no. No, it isn't." But it is. This government that claims that no subsidies will be given to employers just received a giant one today.

What this amendment does is take the government at its word that there shouldn't be employer subsidies — that the taxpayers shouldn't have to be responsible for the lifetime assistance of a person injured or who became ill on the job. That's all it does. It's a lengthy amendment, but that's all it does. It says lifetime pensions are an appropriate payment by an employer when a worker is injured at work or has a disease as the result of his or her work. That's all it does.

If this government is true to its commitment to remove employer subsidies and not play cutesy, then every single Liberal member will rise and support this amendment.

J. MacPhail: I'll wait a minute, Mr. Chair, and I would appreciate it if the members could clear quickly. We have limited time.

We've dealt with the system of removing the pensions, axing the lifetime pensions for working people. There's another change under this section in the compensation for injured or ill workers. Under the current system disabled workers receive 75 percent of their gross income in compensation benefits. Under Bill 49, this legislation being brought in, workers will receive only 90 percent of their net income in benefits. This is 10 percent less than their net income.

In addition, disabled workers, particularly those in a non-union workplace, also lose the contributions that would be made on his or her behalf if at work: vacation entitlements, a pension plan and medical and life insurance. To say that workers receive more on compensation than at work is false. It is a myth, but it is one spread by this government.

Can the minister tell the House why workers disabled by a workplace accident or disease should receive less money in workers compensation benefits than they regularly earn when they're at work?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll just canvass a few of those points. The member had wondered about the aspect of people receiving less, and that's what we're still talking about here, in the 90 percent of net versus the 75 percent of gross.

Currently, employees that would find themselves injured are in a situation where they're reviewed at the end of eight weeks to see what their earnings would have been back during the past year or so, so they could average out their benefits.

What traditionally happens when the review is undertaken is that the amount of money the injured worker was receiving in the first eight weeks usually is less when it's then calculated over a greater period of time. We have changed that eight weeks to ten weeks, so now that calculation of ten weeks extends the additional two weeks of an increased payment to an injured worker to the tune, in overall compensation provided by WCB, of some $27 million.

What's the relevance of this? It's the fact that that actually applies to about 85 percent of the people that are injured and receive benefits through the WCB. The second part is that these benefits, when reviewed at that ten-week period in respect to what they should then be receiving, are also looked at from an individualized standpoint, which is currently not the case. What we've done in that regard is take a look at the individual and at the number of dependents they may or may not have. Depending on that, their benefits will go up if they have dependents or will be at the level based on the 90 percent of net earnings.

When one is doing the calculation of averaging income to determine benefits, we also now allow within this the inclusion of EI benefits, which was not the case but now will be. Where an employee is perhaps a fisherman or something, during the course of

their job they receive EI benefits on a consistent basis. In other words, they're on, and then they're off, so that's been able to be taken into account. The approximately 85 percent of those people that find themselves injured and receiving benefits from WCB will actually see an increase in this regard. I wanted to make that point clear.

On the 90 percent of net versus the 75 percent of gross, the other thing one must take into account is that an injured worker is also receiving an additional 5 percent benefit, which works out as an annuity or can be given to them as an annuity at age 65. They can also top up that 5 percent with an additional 5 percent. At age 65, with the injury they may have received, you take 5 percent of their benefit, and that part is added in and passed on to them at age 65 when they retire.

J. MacPhail: Gosh, why didn't I figure out that this was good news for injured workers? Why didn't I figure it out that when the minister stands up and says there's going to be $100 million of savings in workers compensation, it means it's good news for the injured worker? Listening to the minister right now, you'd think: why aren't the galleries full of injured workers throwing flowers, rose petals, on the head of the minister?

Actually, I can't imagine why they're not. Maybe it's because the minister is obfuscating. Maybe it's because the minister is trying to make a bad deal look good. Can the minister answer this question? How much money has he booked in savings from this change from 75 percent of gross income to 90 percent of net? How much has the minister booked in savings to give to the employer?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not obfuscating at all. The statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition that there was nothing in this at all for injured workers. I am not standing here today purporting for one minute that this is a better system in respect to the lifetime benefits package that was currently in place.

I have to get the financial sustainability of the WCB system in hand. It wasn't managed properly, and I'm not going to belabour the fact of your ten years there. I'm not going to belabour that fact. It wasn't managed properly. We're in a deficit. I've got to make sure the system is protected, so we're making changes. Understandably, those changes are going to cost. They are.

To be able to manage this system, there will be $98 million in all the adjustments that we're making. I'm very clear on that. I made that clear in the press conference in detail, in the background material that I'm putting out. The statement was made that there were no other benefits. In fact, the 85 percent of the people that represent as first-time-through of about 170,000 cases a year that WCB goes through will see an increase.

I'm not looking for rose petals. No, I'm not at all. I'm doing this; I'm fixing it. You knew you could have fixed it. You chose not to fix it as a government, so I am fixing this. Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to go on at great length about what wasn't done and about what we are doing here, but I know that the Leader of the Opposition has questions. I'm quite happy to answer those questions.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I guess it was in real trouble during the 1990s. The WCB was in surplus or balanced each and every one of those years, worker health and safety were improved, and benefits weren't cut. Gee, that sounds like a disaster, doesn't it? That sounds terrible. Maybe it was because in that period of time the benefits and assistance were given to reducing injuries and illness, and where injuries and illness did occur, we supported the worker and the family. I stand by this today.

What this government wants to do is take 100 million bucks out of the pockets of injured workers and give it to employers and not demand one cost-saving exercise of the employer that prevents injury and illness. That's what we've done. At the same time, the minister stands up and tries to say 85 percent of people would be better off — not true. It's not true at all.

We have to look at this in the context of what else this government is doing with the Workers Compensation Act. The government's in the process of cutting what they call red tape. I hope it's not blood-soaked red tape.

They're getting rid of regulations that include health and safety regulations. One-third of the health and safety regulations are going to be cut. Without any question whatsoever, that will mean less health and safety protection for workers and more workplace accidents and deaths — without question, absolutely without question. At the same time, workers that are disabled and the surviving members of workers who are killed on the job will receive lower benefits.

Can the minister please explain what incentive Bill 49 provides for employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace to prevent workplace injuries and disease from occurring, also in the context of this minister going to cut one-third of health and safety regulations?

First of all, let's be clear. It was your government, the former NDP administration, that actually gave the money back to the employers. Nearing the end of their mandate, they saw fit….

You know, when you have an insurance program, you have to be able to forecast out those injuries. You see, what you're doing in an insurance program is that you have somebody that's injured, and you have to understand how long they're going to be alive and

forecast out how much money you need to have in reserve to be able to pay the benefits to that person.

It isn't a year-to-year thing. It isn't: "Oh my goodness, there's a huge bubble here. A whole pile of money came in. This is great; it's wonderful. Let's just carry on. By gosh, at the end of the mandate when we're in political trouble, let's try and hand some money back to people."

The problem is that you can't do that, because you actually have real live people that are dependent upon the fact that you have set aside enough money to look after them. They're injured, and they're looking for that benefit, so you have to project that out.

What happened under the former administration was that they did receive a windfall. The markets were strong, and they had a surplus position. Rather than doing the actuarial work that was necessary and being cognizant of how many people were on the system and what it was going to cost to be able to sustain them in the future, they chose to give that money back to employers.

Let's be clear. With the work that we're doing here in this bill, there is no return to the employers. What we're trying to do is hold the premium rates as they are today. If we did not make these changes, we would see an increase in premiums of some $300 million. That's how you come to about $900 million in deficit by the year 2005 in an economy that has been slagged by this former administration, the former NDP government.

Small business and business right through this province have been hammered time and time again by an administration that was just plain neglectful of what needed to be done in a WCB system. They left it, and they got thrown out of office. Now what we have to do is fix the mess they left, and that's in fact what we're doing. By doing this, we will make sure that the very people that are supposed to be protected by WCB will have benefits there to put in their pocket to look after them through their lifetime.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear who runs the workers compensation system. Let's be clear. Even though this minister is the first minister to interfere directly with the Workers Compensation Board, on behalf of allowing people to die from secondhand smoke, let's be clear who runs the Workers Compensation Board. It is a group of employers and representatives of employees. It is set up as an independent system. This government doesn't put one cent into workers compensation, so for him to stand up and somehow say it was the fault of the previous government, either he's deliberately misleading, not telling a truth, or he's trying to let his buddies the employers off the hook. The system isn't run by government. It is an independent system with not one tax dollar going into it — not one.

That wasn't good enough for this government. Even though not one tax dollar has gone into it and it's operated completely independently of government by employers and employee reps, he didn't like that at all. He wanted to take money out of workers' pockets and give it to employers. That's the kind of unprecedented interference….

You know what? The member for North Vancouver–Seymour says: "Well, if you don't like the answer…. He's giving you an answer." Yeah. This minister's rule about solving a deficit is to steal money from workers and give it to employers. It's like they do everything: steal from the poor to give to the rich. That's exactly this government's motto. I asked a question about what this government is doing to interfere on the side of workers to prevent accidents and injuries and illness. This minister stood up on a rant and didn't answer the question, because he's doing nothing with his employer friends to prevent illness and injury and deaths of workers.

Hon. G. Bruce: Revisiting history is incredible. It was the former administration, the former NDP government, that fired the board. I think it was 1995. They fired the board and put in a panel of administrators.

Hon. G. Bruce: The former administration was absolutely within their right to stand up and fire that board.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. We didn't steal from workers to give to employers, like you do.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know why they fired the board? They fired that board because it had become deadlocked. They had this group that was employers and employees. They came to the board not with the interest of running the WCB system as a whole, for the benefit of the injured workers. They adjudicated and tried to make decisions on the basis of what was best for their own self-interest.

What this legislation does is provide for a whole new governance model so that you can have a board — a chairman, a couple of representatives from the general public, a person with actuarial experience, a worker representative, an employer representative and a person who has professional experience and has worked with injured and disabled people — of seven come to represent not any of those specific interests but the interests of the entire WCB system so that it's there to protect and be there as a benefit system for injured workers.

The Leader of the Opposition asked, in respect to the whole aspect of occupational health and safety and job protection…. Absolutely right. This particular bill does not address that particular issue at this point — very clear about that. I have also made it clear that we'll be bringing more legislation through in the fall. In that legislation will be issues dealing with occupational health and safety. There'll probably even still have to be another time of bringing legislation through in the spring a year from now dealing with all of this.

There also has to be a significant cultural change in how all of that works between the WCB system and the employers and employees. That's why we're bringing in the new governance model.

The hon. member was absolutely correct — their former administration, in firing the board when they did. We replaced the panel of administrators. Now, with the passage of this legislation, we'll be putting a new board of directors in so they can get on with improving the service delivery of the WCB system and bringing financial sustainability to the WCB system, to try and hold rates so that they don't get out and become uncompetitive and to make sure that their benefits are amongst the best of any WCB system in all of Canada.

J. MacPhail: Every time this government takes action by legislation, they take away from workers and give to employers. Let's review the history of WCB in the 1990s: six consecutive surpluses totalling $1.5 billion; during that period of time, $720 million rebated to employers. Wasn't that awful? A surplus of $1.5 billion: this is the record that the minister says is so awful. Over $700 million was rebated to employers. Employer assessments declined during that period of time by 22 percent and are now at the lowest average rate since 1991.

It's true: the WCB did have an operating loss at the end of 2001 of $280 million. That was primarily, almost exclusively, due to a decline in investment return. The rate of return in 2000 was 10 percent; in 2001 it was 7 percent.

It is simply not possible for the board to forecast a $900 million loss over the next three years. The investment returns for 2001 were possibly an exception due to the events of September 11. Surely, given the great investment expertise at the WCB, they would protect against that.

I must say it is embarrassing for this minister to stand up and do a substantial rant that somehow the nineties were bad and that he's going to make it all better. Yeah. Who he's making it better for are the employers in this decade at the expense of the workers. Shame on him.

Hon. G. Bruce: The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct in those numbers that she was referring to relative to the earlier years of the nineties. Again, I come back to….

Hon. G. Bruce: …the actual surplus had come to $75 million. This year it has a deficit — this year unaudited. Of 2001 it has a deficit of $287 million. You lived on a bubble. It shouldn't be surprising. It was how the administration of the past ten years ran the entire financial affairs of the province. You didn't….

Hon. G. Bruce: They weren't surpluses. It was how you tried to pretend that your budgets….

The Chair: Order, member. Order, please. Let's listen to the minister's response.

Hon. G. Bruce: The surpluses that were given back weren't real surpluses. They were simply a situation where they had a bubble of that year — a little simple forecasting out of how many people…. What we're talking about here are the very people we're trying to protect and making sure we have the money in the system so we can pay the benefits for….

Hon. G. Bruce: It's got nothing to do with rich friends. They're not…. The former administration gave all those people the money back when they shouldn't have given the money back, because they knew they were in political trouble. That's why they did that. That's why they did the ICBC rebates too. They knew they were in political trouble.

All you had to do…. You've got real, live people who are injured and are looking for benefits, hoping somebody's paying attention to make sure there's money in that injury fund in the future. They didn't pay attention to that. You didn't pay attention to that.

We're faced with $286 million in deficit in 2001, $422 million by 2002, $301 million by 2003, $251 million by 2004 and $181 million by 2005, giving us a $1 billion-plus-change deficit by 2005. What do we do — sit there, and let's just hope?

I can't do that. I can't do that for those people who are depending on the fact that there will be benefits for them under this system today and in the future. We're bringing about the very changes that you could have brought about. We're fixing what you shouldn't have done in the first place, which was give back the surpluses. You shouldn't have given back the surpluses at the end of your mandate. You were out of control at

that point. You were trying to win friends; you couldn't do it. That's all that really amounted to at the end of the day.

Now we, as a new government, are faced with, yes, putting a new governance structure in place, having to adjust the benefits packages in this thing to make sure that it's sustainable and trying to maintain and hold the rates. We're just trying to maintain and hold the rates, not reduce the rates. That's what we're attempting to do here. We know there's more that has to be done. We'll be canvassing that through the summer months — occupational health and safety and spousal benefits, those types of things. We're going to get this house in order, and we're going to get this WCB system back on the road. With the changes that we're making, we'll in fact still have amongst the highest benefits of any WCB system in Canada.

J. MacPhail: Who rebated to the employers the $720 million during the nineties? Who rebated it?

Hon. G. Bruce: There was $103 million that was credited at the end of 1999, not $720 million.

J. MacPhail: Exactly. The board did it. The government didn't have anything to do with it — absolutely nothing. The minister stands up and says — quite improper parliamentary procedure — "Your government did it."

There was a surplus. The WCB is run by employer and employee representatives. Every time there was a surplus, the WCB board voted to reduce assessments and rebate employers. The employee reps on the board at the time said: "Oops. You'd better be careful. You'd better protect…" — and this is all on the record — "in case the investment returns aren't as lucrative in the future." But oh no, the WCB, independent from government — I think the minister maybe needs a lesson on how WCB operates — lowered their assessments and gave the returns to the employer. Fair enough. The employers' advice was taken, not the workers' advice, and every time there was a surplus throughout the 1990s, employers benefited.

The first time there's a deficit, what does this government do? They don't say to the board: "Manage it." What does this government do? It interferes for the first time on behalf of the employers. That's exactly what's happening here. This minister is deliberately misleading to somehow suggest that the government had anything to do with returning the money to employers — absolutely anything to do with that.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll stand completely corrected. I and millions of other British Columbians now fully understand what took place, and we all believe the Leader of the Opposition, who was then a member of the government, and why they did or didn't do whatever they did or shouldn't have done or should have done.

Hon. G. Bruce: There again, you see, the problem is that at the end day statutorily the government has the responsibility to make sure that the WCB system is working and is operational.

Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely, because it was your administration that fired the board in 1995. Correct me. I could be wrong in that. I believe so. It was the NDP administration that fired the board in 1995, then proceeded to dilly and to dally but understood that there was a problem.

The NDP government understood back then that there was a problem and had a royal commission. They spent seven million of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on that royal commission to bring forward a report of those things that needed to be attended to at the WCB. They understood.

They spent that amount of money, I would think, not just because they were on a fishing trip, not just because they wanted to go and blow $7 million, but because they realized there were things that needed to be undertaken, worked on and improved.

That came back to the government of the day. The government took it very neatly and nicely and put it on the shelf in behind the minister's office. There were five or six volumes of it. They simply proceeded to ignore all that was in there and did nothing. Now we have the situation where we as a new government have to fix the mistakes that were there in the past.

J. MacPhail: Thank God we're having this debate. It's too bad this government's ramming through this legislation, because this minister would continue to mislead the public that somehow his actions are to correct mistakes of a previous government. Somehow this minister is interfering on behalf of his employer friends when the employer friends had already taken from the kitty throughout the 1990s.

I also need to correct the record, and then we're going to move on. I'm not going to allow the minister to continue to mislead the House as we continue to debate.

J. MacPhail: To mislead the public. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. He had to be corrected. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I will not continue to rise to have to correct the wrong statements the minister is putting on the record that the WCB implemented many of the changes of the royal commission that didn't require legislation — many of

the changes. That's why the accident and illness claims rate went down, down, down.

The Chair: I understand we're going to defer division until after section 11.

J. MacPhail: This section is dealing with payments for total or partial disability for retirement benefits. The injured workers over the age of 65 will not receive periodic compensation. An injured worker will be able to receive compensation after the age of 65 if the board is satisfied that the worker would not have retired at the age of 65 but later. In that case the worker will receive compensation until the date that the board believes the worker would have worked.

That's the beginning of it. There are sections on payment for retirement benefits, the handling of money to be paid as a retirement benefit, retirement services and supports.

On April 26, 2002, the minister made a statement on the Day of Mourning: "Workplace deaths destroy productive lives and shockingly interrupt relationships, leaving survivors to struggle toward a resolution of emotions and thoughts — a resolution they may never reach." That's the end of this Minister of Labour's quote. This is also the case for workers disabled from occupational accident or disease, particularly those permanently disabled.

Can the minister explain how this government can then justify taking away millions of dollars from the pockets of older disabled workers by eliminating their pensions after the age of 65?

Hon. G. Bruce: I just want to be clear in our definitions here. Anybody currently receiving a WCB benefit today will receive the same tomorrow, once this legislation is passed, as what they're receiving today.

For a newly injured worker, after June 30, at age 65 the benefits they were receiving up to that part will cease. I've said that very clearly. They will also be awarded a 5 percent lump sum amount — the contribution that WCB will put aside. That same worker can also complement that amount by an additional 5 percent of their own if they so choose. At age 65 there will be a mandatory review of that individual's needs from the standpoint of additional things other than the benefit side. If it's deemed by the board, when that review would take place, that that type of benefit continues to them, it shall continue.

J. MacPhail: There are two different classes of workers in this province as of June 30: those who are injured or made ill on the job before June 30 and those after June 30. Perhaps the minister can explain how workers are to survive financially in retirement if a workplace accident or disease permanently disables them. What are they supposed to do now?

Hon. G. Bruce: This is a wage-loss retirement program. That's what WCB is about. Wages and income usually end at 65. These provisions that we've put in place…. Again, I want to be clear on this. At age 65 there will be a lump sum payment representing 5 percent of the benefits that that individual was receiving up to age 65. They can complement that by an additional 5 percent. They'll also have a mandatory review of their needs over and above the benefit side. Those things that they require will be provided through WCB. Through that process this is what the WCB will be providing.

Now, this is for people that are injured in the workplace after June 30. The people that are currently receiving WCB benefits as they are today will get the same amount tomorrow.

J. MacPhail: There will be a real reduction in benefits to workers. He admitted to that at the beginning. I'm asking the minister: what other sources of income does the minister anticipate a permanently disabled injured worker would have to make up the money he's taking out of their pockets?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't know individuals' income levels at age 65. Some people may have pensions, government or company pensions. I can't answer what each and every individual will have at that point.

J. MacPhail: No, but he sure is able to shovel it back into the pockets of the employer, regardless of when an employer needs it.

J. MacPhail: This amendment to section 23.2(6) is in response to changes being made to compensation paid to workers who reach the age of retirement. Under this bill, workers who receive compensation will have 5 percent of the amount of compensation they receive set aside in a retirement fund, as the minister has just explained. Once the worker reaches the age of 65 or the age at which they would have retired, the worker will receive in one lump sum all the funds that have been set aside in the retirement fund. Under the legislation presented in this bill, workers have the option of contributing 1 to 5 percent of their compensation payments to the retirement fund.

Not only does this legislation propose to desert injured workers during their retirement years, but it makes it excessively difficult for injured workers to contribute the 1 to 5 percent out of their own pockets. Subsection 23.2(6) allows a worker to ask for the 1 to 5 percent deduction only once during the entire time they're in receipt of compensation. It also allows a worker to cancel the deductions being made only once, regardless of how their life circumstances change.

This does not allow in any way for the flexibility that individuals need. A person's financial situation is never static; however, this legislation doesn't recognize the changing personal circumstances that people find themselves in. One to 5 percent of compensation could mean the difference between eating that week or not.

Not only does this bill abandon the injured workers of British Columbia when they reach the age of retirement, it punishes the worker who wishes to contribute to the retirement fund.

My amendment restores that flexibility to working people whose circumstances may change during the course of their lives. That's all it does. This government is so in favour of flexibility. This just restores the flexibility for injured workers to contribute at different times during the course of their lives.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'd like to check on the amendment.

Member, this amendment is consequential to amendment No. 8, which was defeated, and accordingly is out of order.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain the justification for giving a worker only one shot at determining contributions to the retirement fund.

Hon. G. Bruce: It would be administratively cumbersome to do that, just as this amendment that was just currently lost. The same answer to that.

J. MacPhail: Section 11 deals with the general indexing factor. It's repealed and then replaced with this government's version of fairness.

Compensation will be reassessed according to the percentage change in the consumer price index minus one. The percentage change cannot be less than zero or greater than 4 percent. The board will now only have to change the percentage based on the consumer price index in January. Currently, compensation is reassessed against the consumer price index in July and January.

Under the current system, workers' benefits are adjusted semi-annually and indexed to the rate of inflation. This section of Bill 49 says that benefits will be adjusted annually and not to the full rate of inflation, but rather to CPI minus 1 percent, as I explained, and capped at 4 percent.

Therefore, if the rate of inflation was 6 percent, they would only adjust the benefits by 3 percent. The current rate of inflation is 2.2 percent. Under the new system, the benefits would only be adjusted by 1.2 percent.

Some provinces — Manitoba, for instance — provide full indexing of benefits. Alberta deducts half a percent from the rate of inflation but does have a cap. The royal commission that this government likes to say was so good recommended that the benefits remain fully indexed and adjusted semi-annually.

All of the sections of Bill 49 that I've cited thus far are changes that take away millions of dollars from workers who have been disabled by workplace accidents or disease. In addition, the government has chosen to punish disabled workers further and not fully index their compensation benefits.

Can the minister explain why disabled workers' compensation benefits should be changed to take more money out of their pockets?

Hon. G. Bruce: To bring a context, although not to minimize the impact, this would affect somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 to 5 percent of people that find themselves in need of WCB benefits.

In the context of how this would be viewed relative to other jurisdictions, let's be clear again. I just want to restate it. The hon. member, I believe, already did. The fact is that the CPI right now is adjusted twice a year, semi-annually. It's full indexing. What we're undertaking here is the recommendation of Allan Winter, who did the review for us in this respect. We've changed this to annually. The CPI index will be reviewed annually at minus 1 with a cap of 4 percent.

Now, there's all sorts of different ones: Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba. They all have different scenarios. Alberta is CPI minus 0.5 percent. However, Ontario is half of CPI, then minus 1 percent with a 4 percent cap. Nova Scotia is half of CPI, and PEI is three-quarters of CPI.

It is a change. Absolutely, it's a change. It's all part of us trying to bring fiscal sustainability to WCB and to make sure that the benefits are protected, that the dollars are there to look after people that are in need of these benefits because they're injured in the workplace. It's a change — absolutely — but it's pretty much moderate in respect to what's reflected in other WCB systems in Canada.

As I said, when one thinks about WCB, you may think: oh, there are 170,000 people affected by this. Not to minimize the impact on the people that will be affected, but it's about 3 to 5 percent. Again, what we're talking about — let's make sure — is that of the people

who go through this system, by far 85 percent of them are usually looked after and through after 10 weeks on the system. The CPI adjustment will have no impact on them at all.

J. MacPhail: Time is running out, as always with this government. Maybe the minister could explain. So far everything about this bill is what workers will contribute to managing this fictional deficit. What's the employer contributing?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, let's be clear. It isn't a fictional deficit. It's a real deficit. We're there. We have a $287 million deficit this year. That's real.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, at this point the employers, of course, contribute everything, don't they? As you just stated here, the employer pays…

Hon. G. Bruce: …the premiums. Our premiums are virtually the highest. Ontario is higher now — only Ontario — because they went ahead and made some changes that they had to, which we are now having to.

We're hopeful that by the adjustments we're making now and how we're doing them, which still gives us a benefit package equal to or better than that of Ontario, the board as they take over — we'll put that new board in place over the summer months — hopefully won't be faced with having to put the rates up. Like I say, the rates, except in Ontario, are the highest in the country. We're trying to hold against that. However, that's not to say that the new board may in fact have to bring about changes relative to the assessments.

We think these changes are fair. They're done in such a manner that we can hold the rates and still provide amongst the best benefits of any WCB system in Canada.

J. MacPhail: Well, today the employer is contributing nothing. It's all coming out of the pockets of injured and ill workers.

This is a question I want to ask the minister. I predict that determining the percentage change in consumer price index once a year rather than twice will likely result in lower compensation being paid to injured workers. The minister calculated savings and announced savings as a result of this change, so he must have done this analysis. In the year 2000-01, what was the change in percentage between January and July that caused the expenditure the minister would now save?

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, it's not coming out of workers' pockets, the workers currently on the system who are currently receiving benefits.

J. MacPhail: That's what you're saying — that it's not coming out of the workers' pockets.

Hon. G. Bruce: I really don't think the member opposite meant to say that in regards to hoping that everybody went and got injured before June 30.

J. MacPhail: That's what you're saying by saying it's not coming out of their pockets. That's exactly what you're saying.

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, let's be clear. Anybody that's currently receiving benefits from WCB today will receive the same after June 30, when this legislation is passed, as they are receiving today. They will not see a reduction in their benefit. A newly injured worker after June 30, obviously not having been receiving anything, will receive a different level of benefit.

Hon. G. Bruce: For the member opposite I'll say the word "less." I'll say it's less because I want to make sure that the system is sustainable and that, in fact, for the people this system was meant to be for, the injured worker, it's there, and it's financially sustainable, and they can receive benefits which will be amongst the highest in Canada.

J. MacPhail: How about preventing any accidents or injuries? You're doing nothing in that area.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. As I said to the hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, we will continue to work in that field, as well, through occupational health and safety during the summer months here. I believe there is more work that can be done with that. There is more work that needs to be done in all of the WCB system as we put it back in shape. It is a large enterprise, and it's

a very significant problem and challenge that needs to be looked after. That is, in fact, what we're going about doing here today. It will be in several parts. I have mentioned that.

The Chair: We will go to division on sections 8, 9 and 11, as agreed upon. Then we will deal with 12.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, I move the amendment to section 12 standing in my name on the orders of the day:

Hon. G. Bruce: Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 49, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendment.

J. MacPhail: This is one of the few ways that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have to try to bring this government to a position of being democratic. Yes, there are 76 Liberal MLAs and two New Democrat MLAs. It's quite clear that on these extremely important pieces of legislation, it is left up to my colleague and me to raise all of the issues that affect the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives will be affected forever by this legislation.

What this motion says, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill should be recommitted. That's old-fashioned parlia-

mentary language that says: "Don't pass it now. Put it to a standing committee and call witnesses."

You know, there are people in the gallery today, like Sal Ruffolo, the president of CAW Local 333, and Lynn Bueckert, an expert in occupational health and safety, who are sitting here observing this debate. They want to have input into this legislation.

The minister did not in any way have public consultation on these changes — not in any way. In fact, if the minister dares to rise and somehow suggest that there was lots of public consultation, he's simply wrong. He had public consultation with the group of people that he listens to all the time. Those are the employers. Every single change in workers compensation is to assist and benefit employers and to harm working people. It's clear; that's exactly what it is.

We have more good news coming for working people in this province who are injured and ill from work-related disease and injuries. They're going to have their protections cut by a third. The minister says he's going to cut regulations by a third.

You know what? Our occupational health and safety regulations in this province are minimal compared to the state of Washington. They're about the same as the other provinces across Canada. Oh yes, employers complain in every single province about the red tape around WCB. That's because they would prefer not to be held accountable for preventing illness — well, some employers, Mr. Speaker. They would prefer not to be held accountable for injuring their workers and causing disease of their workers. British Columbia doesn't in any way stand out as a province bound up in red tape.

I guarantee this: if this government does not pass this motion and proceeds to implement this legislation, workers and their families will be harmed through no fault of their own.

There are others who wish they could have had a say with this government. They wish they could have had a say. They wish they could make a submission to this government to explain to this government what this legislation does. Donna Thomas wrote in from the Sunshine Coast; she wanted to have a say. Reinier Kanis wanted to have a say. Frank Keegan from Maple Ridge, an injured worker, wanted to have a say, and Michael Parkers from Langley, B.C., and Jim Parker from IWA Canada.

The Minister of Forests was at the border of the U.S. earlier in quite a glitzy little high profile there and got a nice photo in the paper of him handing out a few leaflets. I guess that's important work, but this government could do heck of a lot more to benefit forest workers by merely stopping the carnage that occurs to them in the forests.

Sidney Greenfield from Langley, B.C., wanted to have a say. Patti MacAhonic from Chilliwack and Carol Riviere from Vancouver wanted to have say. James Sayre, a lawyer, wanted to have a say. Michelle Laurie from Langley would make a submission.

Deirdre Whalen, Richmond; Marnie Klintworth and Larry Larson; Anne Davis; Jim Smith from Terrace, B.C.; Lynne Taylor from Vancouver; Gord Piper from Maple Ridge; George Taylor from Vancouver; Ruth Herman from Vancouver; Larry Stoffman from Vancouver; and Steve Hunt from Vancouver — all within the last few days — called in, wrote in, e-mailed and said: "We want to have a say about this legislation. We want to bring our witnesses, our stories, to this minister and this government about what these changes are going to do."

Let me just read some of the submissions that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I have received in the last couple of days about what these government pension cuts mean for injured workers. This is from a private sector union: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1518. Here's what their health and safety director said about government pension cuts:

"The government cuts" — this a quote from Jane — "to workers benefits are simply another assault on injured workers and their families."

I've read only a sampling of dozens of cases put forward. My apologies for being emotional, Mr. Speaker. This has been a small sample of the membership of United Food and Commercial Workers. "Multiply this a hundredfold, and you get the picture," says this group of workers.

The situation for injured and disabled workers in this province is a disgrace. The proposed cuts will make it much worse. This is a government that is going out of its way to pick the pockets of already destitute workers whose lives have been permanently altered. Why? To subsidize employer accounts with the WCB. Employers are making record profits over the past 12 months in this industry. Nice payoff for the Premier's financial backers — a kick in the face to injured workers in B.C.

That's one example of what will happen to workers who are injured in the future. The minister takes great comfort in the fact that he's red-circling workers now, and these are the words that he seems to take comfort in — that he's doing no harm to those very workers.

Workers who are injured or become ill after June 30 will be even worse off. This is from a workers compensation advocacy group. It's from James Sayre, a lawyer:

That's on behalf of 150 other members of the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group.

This is from Jim Parker, the safety director and fifth vice-president of IWA Canada:

I think my colleague and I — as an aside, Mr. Speaker — had the good fortune to meet with those two people.

I have many, many other letters here from people who want to be witnesses on this matter. Now that the truth is out about these changes and the harm it will cause to injured workers even more so and their families, they want to bring their stories.

Why can't they be allowed to do that, Mr. Speaker? Why is it that this government can't pause even for a couple of months and listen to the stories of the people directly affected? That's all this motion does.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, I don't take great comfort in this, as the hon. member across the way just mentioned. What we are doing is fixing a system that clearly, on all accounts, is in trouble. We're attempting to make sure that the benefits for the very people this system was meant to serve are there to be able to be paid to those people who are currently on the WCB system and those in the future who may find themselves injured and in need of a WCB system.

A couple of very important points in summation here. First, with respect to the consultation process, we had Mr. Winter and Mr. Hunt, two people that I commissioned to review the work done in respect to the royal commission and to consult with others in the field relative to the changes that needed to be brought about with the WCB.

I'd like to make it clear that that royal commission, which cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $7 million, was in fact commissioned back in 1998 by — I'll say it again — the former NDP administration, who then chose to do nothing. Indeed, there were over 3,000 public submissions to that royal commission. What people virtually across this province, both employer and employee, were saying and have been saying is: "This system is sick, and it needs to be fixed."

That's in fact what we're doing here today. There are other aspects of the workers compensation system that we'll be dealing with in the ensuing months, in the fall and spring of next year as well, but there is absolutely no doubt about it. It needed to be fixed.

The significant change that we're following is that which the royal commission stated. I'd just like to read it into the record one final time. This royal commission that was put in place by the former administration, the NDP government, stated, "In keeping with the principle that workers' compensation should provide compensation primarily for lost earning capacity resulting from permanent disability, wage-loss benefits should cease upon the worker's anticipated date of retirement, normally on the worker's sixty-fifth birthday. At this point the worker would commence receipt of a retirement income loss benefit" — which is in fact what we're putting in place.

The final point to bring out to everybody on the changes that we are making. I'll state this one final time in respect to the benefit side and the changes that we're bringing about. Any person currently receiving WC benefits today will not receive less tomorrow as this legislation is brought in. I want to make sure people understand that.

The legislation and the changes that we're bringing in are so that this system will be around in the future and will be there to look after the people currently on it. It will still be the most generous benefit system in Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Members, considering that we're all here and we just completed a division, I'll ask the question for third reading of Bill 49.

Bill 49, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; H. Long in the chair.

S. Orr: I recognize that we have been through this section before, but it was a while ago. As we're moving forward with this bill now, if it's okay, I'd like to ask some more questions of the minister.

I would like to, firstly, clarify again the issue that I've had, or my constituents have had through me, before. The definition of somebody who does not actually have an assistive device or does not actually have somebody that is with them during the day for assisted living…. I'm going to again specifically ask the question about the area that I am concerned is a little grey. That is HIV, bipolar, hep C and maybe rheumatoid arthritis. I'd like a little clarification on that, but at the same time I would also like to ask this question, and it can probably be implemented into your answer. I'm not sure, but I'll do them both, and you can let me know whether you want to answer them separately.

As I read this bill very, very carefully — and we've only got to section 2 — I have to link section 2 with section 26. This is very important to me. We seem to be just on section 2, so I'm trying to get through it. Section 26(2)(b) on page 14 says: "prescribing categories of disability assistance, hardship assistance and supplements which, without limitation, may relate to the purpose, duration or frequency of the disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement or the category of person who, or family unit that, is eligible for it."

How I read that in plainer terms is: is this power in the regulations to give you the flexibility — I don't

know what else to call it except flexibility — that allows the FAW, I guess it would be, to define the regulations? In other words, would those people I just talked about come under that section? What we have in section 2 is quite definitive in what it says about assisted living and assistive devices.

I hope that question isn't too confusing for you, but I see a link there, and I really want to clarify that.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a clarification for the member. Sections 2 and 26 are actually quite different. I realize they do appear to have some similarity, but 26 basically allows the minister to give different types of hardship or supplement through regulatory power, and section 2 is that the activities of daily living will be determined by the health professional and will include those people with medication management, mental disorders. There was a whole list, and I think we've been through those a number of times: personal care, banking, shopping, transportation and those sorts of things.

I think you mentioned HIV/AIDS and bipolar in your previous question. It would be the severity of the disease and the effects that would determine the eligibility. In some cases you would be covered under the definition, depending on the severity of the disorder you mentioned.

We have been through this before, and I'm sorry to have to keep going back. I realize we're having a hard time getting beyond section 2, but again, it's important for me to really have this very, very clear.

A lot of the people we've talked about…. The one group we have talked about before, actually, is what I refer to as the socially unemployable. We've talked about this before. The male or female in their late fifties, bipolar, will not be employable or will have a very hard time getting employment. That's the reality of life. I wish it were different, but it is the reality. It's those folks that really worry me. I just would like, again, some clarification on things like…. I think you said once before that if a person needed assistance just to go to the bank, that comes under the definition of assisted living. Is that correct?

S. Orr: I will finish this line of questioning. That's a very important point. I'm really glad you said that, because I think there's a little misconception about how hard this is as opposed to the flexibility it has in it. I'm going to leave my questioning at that. Thank you.

J. Kwan: The minister has stated over and over again that defining disability will be based on a functional assessment. Functional assessment is a tool that is in development in the province right now. To my knowledge, this tool was to be tried out in what was the North Shore health region.

Functional assessment is based on visual, cognitive and physical patterns of a disability. A functional assessment will be extremely restrictive in comparison with other definitions currently in use in this province and across the country. When a community advocate was asked whether or not the community supports the use of a functional assessment tool to define a person with disability, this community advocate answered that it was difficult to say, given that there's so little known about this new tool that is now under development.

In fact, the opposition received a letter from a social worker on this issue. I will quote just parts of this onto the record:

I'd like the minister to comment on this issue around functional assessment and its underdevelopment, because nobody really knows how it would work, and of course, on the impacts on the people who would now not qualify for disability under section 2 of this act.

Could the minister also advise the House specifically how many people are now on disability level 2 and how many people are on disability level 1? With the change that is in the legislation before us, under the redefinition of disability, how many people does the minister expect will be off disability level 2?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll answer the first part of the question while staff are gathering some information for me. The member is incorrect about the functional assessment tool that is under development as being one this ministry will use. She is referring, I believe, to an assessment tool that is being used by the Health Services ministry, and that won't be the same tool we use for assessment.

J. Kwan: The social worker actually has a different perspective than that of the minister, and that's a front-line worker who is out in the field right now doing assessments on people with disabilities. Once again, there's a discrepancy between what the minister knows and what he thinks is reality.

My question to the minister is around the numbers. How many people are on disability level 2? How many are on disability level 1? How many does he expect, as a result of the change of the definition in this act of those who are disabled, will be off income assistance? Would the minister please provide the answers to those questions?

Hon. M. Coell: Presently there are 45,000 DB-2 and 7,000 DB-1. We haven't done reviews of all of those people as yet, so it would be speculative as to how many will move into the persons with a disability category or how many would move into that of persons with multiple barriers.

J. Kwan: Even though the assessments are not done, the minister must have some inkling in terms of what those numbers will be and how they would change. In the estimates process the minister reduced the budget for those on income assistance, so he has to know or have some sense of how those numbers are going to change. Could he please give that information to this House?

Hon. M. Coell: We've made an estimate of the overall caseload, and that's the overall caseload for all categories, but we haven't broken it down as yet. I think the member may remember that in the service plan there's a 38,000 number that we wish to have the caseload reduced by. We have designated almost 10,400 a year of placement through the job placement and training programs.

J. Kwan: I expect there will be a significant number of people who will be reduced or cut off income assistance support under disability in this definition. The definition is a lot more restrictive. What that means is that people will not qualify for disability benefits level 2 under this new act, Bill 27.

I have a couple more questions on this section relating to people who have hepatitis C. Again, this is a letter sent in from the community. It's actually an e-mail to the minister himself. I'll just take a part of the questions here:

Hon. M. Coell: I would anticipate that the description of the client that was given would qualify them.

S. Orr: The reason I want to ask some questions is because we're at a very crucial part of this bill, and I want to make sure that we have clarity. Clarity is very important to me. This is as important to me as it is to anybody else. The minister will know that, because we have had many meetings, and he has opened his door to my questions.

I just want to confirm the 38,000 that was referred to in the last question. I need to know: is that over this year, or is that going to be over a period of time?

Hon. M. Coell: That is over the three-year service plan. The figure we have in for job placement, job training, is 10,400 a year. There are people who go off on their own and find their own jobs without our training and placement programs, so 38,000 is the target number.

J. Kwan: I just want to follow up with the minister on this issue. In an e-mail that the opposition has received, it actually talks on the issues around numbers and how many people will qualify for DB-1, DB-2, etc. Let me just ask the questions and put this on the record as well.

This individual had an opportunity to actually take part in a meeting with the Ministry of Human Resources on Monday the 13th, and this is the information that she's reporting back on:

The question to the minister, particularly on the 4,000 people, is in terms of from where the vast majority of these 4,000 people will come.

I also want to just make a comment as well. I know that this is a very important issue, the bills which we're debating right now. Yesterday we debated Bill 26, impacting income assistance recipients. Today we're debating Bill 27, people with disabilities. There are many people who are very concerned with the actions of the government, and the change the government is foisting on British Columbians could have detrimental impacts on people's lives. Make no mistake about it. People are indeed very emotional about these issues, and I understand that. I do.

I represent a community where many people depend on government support to survive on a day-by-day basis. It amazes me even just to see them survive. Knowing all the different challenges they face every day, I don't even know how it is that they manage to do it. So I do understand how hard and difficult this debate is for many people, but I would urge those who are in the gallery at the moment to please remain calm.

We, the opposition, are doing the best that we can. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and I are doing the best that we can to ask the questions on your behalf. We understand also that you want your voice to be heard in the Legislature. There's a proper place to do that, and we will be moving a motion forward to seek the government's support to ensure that your voices will be heard in the Legislature.

The Chair: Member, I think it's important that you address the Chair to the minister, please.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the crux of what the member was asking is the difference between persons with multiple barriers…. Is it different from B.C. Benefits?

The persons with multiple barriers will allow people with invisible barriers, who were not necessarily DB-1, to be identified and receive continuous assistance. In receiving the continuous assistance those people would also have the earning exemption increase at $300 a month, the continued medical benefits, the technical aids. If they were to be able to work part-time or in any method, they would have the workplace accommodations and the rapid reinstatement to the disability status or the continuous assistance status under the persons with multiple barriers.

J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't answer the question. The question was: where would the numbers come from? Is it going to be just a shifting of the people now on DB-2 who will be moved off into a different category called multiple and persistent barriers? Is that where the 4,000 estimate comes from? This actually came from an individual who met with the ministry, and the numbers were provided by the ministry to them. The minister has not answered the question.

Time is of the essence. It's a little after 7 o'clock right now. We have about two hours to debate on this issue. The government is bringing closure on this very important bill, so the questions that need to be asked will not be asked in this House. The minister is not answering the questions, and it makes the job of the opposition even harder to try and get clarity on what the intent of the government is around this bill and how people will be impacted by this bill.

Hon. M. Coell: I believe I did answer it. There will be people on basic income assistance now who, because of the invisible barriers that we spoke about, will move into persons with a multiple barrier as well as possibly people from DB-1. They will then receive the $300 earning exemption, the continued medical benefits and the rapid reinstatement if they leave income assistance for one reason or another, and they'll receive that continuous assistance again that they need.

J. Kwan: Is the minister anticipating that the people who would be joining the multiple and persistent barriers category would include people who are now receiving DB-2?

Hon. M. Coell: That would depend on the assessment. I can tell you that when the bill is enacted, everyone on DB-2 now will be rolled into the category of persons with a disability.

J. Kwan: Well, that's the problem, isn't it? The minister does not know the answers to the questions. The regulations are not before us. He's changed the definition of disability. Many people will not be able to qualify, even those who are now on disability 2.

There's a big question mark hanging out there. When the questions were asked of the minister around diagnosis, which diagnoses will actually qualify for people with disability, he was not able to answer those questions either.

Here we are in the last couple of hours of debate. The government is closing down debate on this bill. We're unable to get clarity from the minister on who's going to qualify, who's not going to qualify, who's going to get cut off and what the ramifications are for people with disabilities. We're unable to get answers from the minister. All he can say is: "I don't know." Then why are we debating this bill in this House? Why is the minister trying to ram through the changes that would actually impact people's lives in such a funda-

mental way that none of us can ever imagine because we're not in those positions?

Hon. M. Coell: It's the very same as under B.C. Benefits. Under B.C. Benefits the individual would require an assessment to determine eligibility.

J. Kwan: For the last time, Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, stop saying that this is the same as before. It is not. The minister knows the difference.

He is changing the eligibility criteria and definition of people with disabilities under Bill 27, section 2. He's taking away from the people who now require unusual and continuous monthly expenditures for transportation or for special diets or for other unusual but essential and continuous needs as a criterion for qualification. By that change many people will not qualify for disability 2. The minister knows that, so stop saying that this is the same.

He's trying to cast this cloud and pretence as though somehow people would not be impacted. The minister is trying to mislead the public. It's wrong for the minister to do that.

Hon. M. Coell: That is wrong. We are looking after the safety and security of people who are in need in this province and, hopefully, giving those that are able to work the ability to work and the support that they need.

As the member knows, there are tens of thousands of people with disabilities in this province who are able to work. The member should also know that there are twice the number of people unemployed because of their disability than people who do not have disabilities. We would like to be able to level the playing field. That's why we have a strategy for persons with disabilities to help them work. To help them do that, whether it's full-time work, whether it's assistance with employment, whether it's part-time or intermittent work or voluntary work, persons with disabilities will get support from this government, and they will have the ability for assistance, for opportunity, for independence.

J. Kwan: The minister persistently says: "Don't worry; be happy. There will be no change." Well, then I just need one answer from the minister on this account: is he now guaranteeing that the people who are now on disability 2 will not be cut off of disability 2 under this new definition in Bill 27?

If he can give me his guarantee on this issue, then I will retract my words. I will retract my words. Then I have misunderstood the bill. I ask the minister to give me the guarantee that nobody on disability level 2 right now will be cut off of income assistance or lose their disability 2 status because of Bill 27, section 2, redefinition of a person with disabilities.

Hon. M. Coell: The definition that we have been debating now for 14 hours is targeted to those most in need. The employment for people who are able to work…. No one is going to be forced to work. The people who are on disability 2 now will be rolled into "persons with a disability" once this legislation has been enacted and then won't be changed until reviews are done.

J. Kwan: Well, there you have it, Mr. Chair. The minister was not able to give me that guarantee, because he knows that with the change in the definition of persons with disabilities under this act, more people will not qualify than before, and some of the people who are now on disability 2 will be kicked off of disability 2 designation.

He knows that. He wants to colour it with all the words that say: "Hey, you know what? We're taking care of people." But you know what? In the new era of the Liberal government, taking care of people means attacking the most vulnerable, those with disabilities, the people who need the government support the most.

The Chair: Division has been called. Division on section 2 as amended is deferred.

J. Kwan: Section 3 deals with eligibility of family units. Eligibility is conditional on "each person in the family unit on whose account the disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement is provided satisfies the initial and continuing conditions of eligibility…."

What conditions will each member of a family face? What does the minister mean by "continuing conditions"? Will there be any category permanently exempt from needing to prove their continuing eligibility, and how long will a person retain their disability designation if they have to return to work?

Hon. M. Coell: The section is the same as the provisions in the Employment and Assistance Act, which we discussed last night. It just clarifies that a person must continue to be eligible. I'll give an example. If a person is eligible for a diet benefit, then the person must continue to be eligible for the diet benefit if they are to receive it.

J. Kwan: Are there any categories that would permanently exempt the person from needing to prove their eligibility criteria?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess, simply, everyone has to meet eligibility criteria for what they're applying for.

J. Kwan: How much income can a person expect if they qualify for disability benefits? We have been told by the Ministry of Human Resources information sessions that there will be two levels of income under continuous assistance. One level receives the maximum benefits for those who are severely disabled, and the other level will receive less than the maximum. What are the exact amounts that people will receive?

Hon. M. Coell: Under the persons with disabilities, in this act you would have no change for the current rate of $786 for a single. If someone was considered as a person with a disability but employable, in the temporary assistance they would also receive $786.

J. Kwan: On the supplement side there are changes, though, as we understand. Medical and extended medical: there will be a loss of 24 MSP visits. The user fees, which are…. It is unknown whether or not people will get these supports: glasses, hearing aids, assistance devices, animal costs, as examples. The bus pass: it is unknown whether or not people who may be working but receive a top-up from the ministry will be eligible for that. Dental: it is unknown whether or not they will get dental services. Schedule C: it is unclear in terms of what will happen with Schedule C. Nutritional supplements: that's unclear. User fees for doctor visits, medical visits, glasses, etc. — whether or not the government will be providing those supplements…. These are just a few examples that I want to bring forward — whether or not people will continue to receive these supports that they had been receiving.

Hon. M. Coell: Persons with disabilities will receive bus passes and all the benefits that are provided by this ministry now. I think the member did mention a couple that are in the Ministry of Health that we didn't provide before and won't be providing, with the changes made by the Ministry of Health.

J. Kwan: That's not true. Dental services, as an example: the ministry used to provide for it. The minister keeps saying: "Not me, not me. Somebody else. No change." It's not true. The minister either doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's getting misinformation, quite frankly. It's not true.

Hon. M. Coell: We will be providing dental services. They're not covered under the Ministry of Health. They're covered under here.

Hon. M. Coell: For persons with disabilities, there will be no change. Glasses will be covered.

J. Kwan: I just went through a list, the medical support list that I raised with the minister. He said: "Well, gee, all of those are Ministry of Health Services." If we break it down one by one, asking the minister, then he says: "Oh yes, it is Human Resources." Does the minister have a comprehensive list of what will be covered and what's not covered under this new act?

J. Kwan: No, the minister didn't, but you know what? In light of the clock that's ticking, as I said…. It seems to me that the minister, every time you ask him a question, can't give you an answer, and you have to break it down one by one to see if you can get it out of the minister. We're losing time quickly because the answers from the minister are inadequate and keep changing.

I wonder, then, if maybe the minister can provide a list to Hansard so that it is attached as an appendix to the debates so that we know and it is on the public record — what is provided for and what is not provided for.

Hon. M. Coell: I will provide the same list that I have already provided to the member, if she wants.

J. Kwan: On section 9. The minister is apparently having a round table sometime in June. I'm asking: if possible, will the minister ensure that members of the Action Committee of People with Disabilities and other Victoria-based groups also be invited?

I also want to ask the minister: why is the minister waiting until June before consulting with advocacy groups? Wouldn't it make sense to hold this round table prior to bringing this bill and Bill 26 to this House for approval? We've asked the minister that these bills be put on hold and for the minister to allow for the public to comment, and there will actually be a motion towards the end of this evening to do exactly that. Will the minister commit to ensuring that that consultation takes place now?

Hon. M. Coell: The round table that the member mentions is the table for the strategy for persons with disabilities for employment. It's my intention to put a table together of employers and people with disabilities and have some conversations over the next year with that group as to how we can help people with disabilities and also the employment community to recognize the value that people with disabilities have in the workplace and to level the playing field through that mechanism. You did mention one group that you suggested would be part of it. I'll take that under consideration.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister ought to have that consultation before the bill is before us. That would have been the proper way to do things. But instead the minister is just bringing forward the legislation, and then

Under section 9, "…each applicant or recipient in the family unit, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan." Who will not be required to do so? When will they be required to do so, and how will the Ministry of Human Resources determine someone's ability to work? What will happen if even those people who qualify under the new definition as persons with a disability will be required in some cases to seek work?

Hon. M. Coell: People with severe disabilities are not expected to work, but I can tell the member that there are people with disabilities who want to work. We've met many people who, because of the disability, can't find employment but want to work. Those are the people that we're going to work with. As I said, people with severe disabilities are not going to be required to work.

J. Kwan: I want to quote from a letter from the executive director of Tiger's Eye Society — from Caesi Bevis:

Who is going to be making the call to determine whether or not the employer let the person go for just cause or the person left due to medical reasons? Will the doctor's words suffice or will untrained medical professionals have the final say?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, the doctor's assessment would be part of that, as well as the individual's assessment of their own abilities.

J. Kwan: Did the minister say it's the medical assessment, so it will be the doctors who will be making that determination?

Hon. M. Coell: What I said was the doctor's assessment would be part of it, as well as the individual's own assessment of their ability.

J. Kwan: Is the minister then saying that if the person says they are not able to work, that's sufficient, along with a doctor's note?

Hon. M. Coell: The doctor's assessment and that of the individual will be major parts of that decision, but the decision will also be made by caseworkers, who are trained to do this.

J. Kwan: Oh, dear me, Mr. Chair. I mean, this is an example of why we're having such difficulties with this minister. You ask him a question, and he gives you an answer. You ask him for further clarification. The answer changes, and he adds a little bit more to it. We don't have that much time for the minister to go through that process — for him to not be able to provide an answer in this House. Every time he's asked a question, they seem to veer, and then new things are added and pop up.

Why can't the minister be straightforward, come clean and just tell people, instead of trying to pretend the issues raised are somehow non-issues, when he knows very well they're issues and gives answers that are, quite frankly, misleading — incomplete answers? They're misleading. Then adding bits and bits to it afterwards does not help the situation, and it wastes time.

According to the 2000-01 annual report from the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which I understand is going to be shut down by tomorrow, 38.1 percent of the complaints filed with the commission were on the grounds of discrimination based on mental and physical disability; 77.7 percent of all complaints filed were employment-related. In this province people with disabilities face discrimination in the workplace.

Unfortunately, something else the government has done in the past couple of months is to cut one-third of the B.C. Human Rights Commission's budget, effectively making it harder for people facing discrimination to access justice. As we understand, actually, there will be an announcement tomorrow that the Human Rights Commission will be gone — eliminated by this government. So even that last resort will be no longer be available for the people who have complaints.

Can the minister then advise: where will people go to make these complaints? If they get cut off income assistance and if they get cut off the disability rate, what will happen to them?

Hon. M. Coell: There is an appeal process in this piece of legislation that we'll be getting to shortly.

J. Kwan: I will go into the appeal process when the section comes up — the appeal process where the government is taking away the community's involvement, the independence of the appeal process, through tribu-

nals of appointed individuals from the government. So much for an independent appeal process. Now even the Human Rights Commission will no longer be available for the people who need it.

Hon. M. Coell: Just for clarification, I think the member would know that under B.C. Benefits, the former government appointed those tribunals.

J. Kwan: Wrong again. The tribunal process was such that individuals could choose their own representative on the tribunal for the appellant. The ministry could do the same, and together they chose a chair. The minister doesn't even know the process that is currently in place. For him to suggest that this process he's now changing under this act — to say that no longer will people be able to choose their representatives — is somehow the same and somehow has independence is wrong. The minister is once again trying to misinform and mislead the House.

Hon. M. Coell: For clarification, it was the B.C. Benefits board that the government introduced and appointed.

J. Kwan: I will go into the appeal process on the tribunal side when we get into those sections. The fact of the matter is that the appeal process is being diminished of its independence by this government, by this minister's action. The people who want to go to the tribunal will no longer have the opportunity to choose their representative as such, and the chair will no longer be chosen by the two sides' appointments. It is all going to be appointed government members on the tribunal. That is the truth of the matter. So much for an independent appeal process.

Noting the time, I actually have lists and lists of questions from community groups around section 9 of the bill, but I'm very anxious about the time. It is now 7:30, and we don't have a lot of time to debate, and there are still many sections of the act that we need to get into. I'm not going to be able to ask the many questions from organizations such as the AIDS Resource Centre from the Okanagan region, as an example, who have put questions forward to us, and from individuals who have put questions forward to us on section 9 to ask the minister.

The opposition will be voting against section 9. I think it's unconscionable for the government to require people with disabilities to put forward an employment plan. The fact of the matter is that people who are on disability — in fact, all people on income assistance — want to work. I know they want to work. The trouble they're faced with is that they're not able to work, particularly people with disabilities. For the government to force them to do an employment plan…. If somehow they don't meet the criteria, the conditions of the employment plan, they may actually jeopardize financial support from government. It's unconscionable. What the government will do is cause more hardship, more stress for the people who are faced with disabilities — stresses they don't need in their lives.

Hon. M. Coell: Just to clarify, I think I said once or twice that people with severe disabilities will not be required to have an employment plan.

J. Kwan: The minister can say that all he wants. The fact is that we just finished debating section 2, and the minister knows very well that with the limitations and tightening and narrowing of the definition of people with disabilities, more and more people will not qualify for disability. That's one.

Second, for the people who do qualify…. He just said it himself. The assessments will be made if a person actually loses their job, even with cause. They will be evaluated on whether or not the just cause for which people have lost their jobs would be accepted.

The minister can say, "Don't worry; be happy," all he wants, but the legislation says otherwise. You know what? It is the people with disabilities who will face the hardship, not this minister. Perhaps that's why he doesn't care. That's why we're debating this bill and he's going to support this bill.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that at a number of opportunities now I have said that there are tens of thousands of people with disabilities who work in this province, and they have double the unemployment rate that people without disabilities have. This act and the strategy for employment for people with disabilities are about assisting people to work if they can and providing assistance to a level that the province can give that is adequate. What we want to do is give people an opportunity to achieve their greatest potential. I believe that's what this act does. I believe that's what the strategy for employment for people with disabilities does.

J. Kwan: I'm tempted not to stand up, because we haven't got that much time. I just want to put this on the record, from an individual who's written to the minister:

The letter goes on. Not only that, on the educational side we see the Minister of Advanced Education cutting programs for people with disabilities so they could find work. That's what's happening, and that's the real-

ity of it. The minister can say he doesn't know and can't see that's what's happening in the real world and what's going on with his government, but the reality is that those programs are being cut. People with disabilities who need educational supports so they can advance are not getting the support because of this government's cuts in advanced education under the new-era Liberal agenda.

Hon. M. Coell: The member is quite wrong. Persons with disabilities will still be supported while attending post-secondary education. Your comments are absolutely wrong.

J. Kwan: Section 10 deals with the information and verification. Section 10 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act will provide the requirements for a three-week waiting period prior to receiving assistance.

The Minister of Human Resources has said that the three-week job search is meant to provide time for people to find employment. Why is this three-week search necessary for people who may be exempted from the work requirement due to a disability? Will any categories of applicants be exempt from the three-week job search?

Hon. M. Coell: There will be an emergency needs assessment, which will allow a person to immediately apply for income assistance and receive benefits if they're eligible.

J. MacPhail: One of the questions that gets asked of my colleague and me over and over again is related to the blending of the application of Bill 26 and Bill 27.

The minister has said that the test for disability is a functional test — whether one can feed and clothe oneself, regardless of the amount of time it takes. Under Bill 26 single moms are being cut off social assistance once their child is three. Given the combination of the application of Bill 26 and Bill 27, will people with disabilities who are single moms and dads also have to go out to look for work after their child is three, and will the functional test still apply?

Hon. M. Coell: I want to explain to the member, because a number of times she has had her facts incorrect. In the case of Bill 26 and a single parent, they are not being cut off. They have three years in which they're not required to seek work. At the end of the three years they're required to seek work for two years. They're still on income assistance. At the end of that five-year period they'll have a reduction in their rate, but they will not be cut off.

With regard to this bill, if they are deemed to be able to seek work, they'll be supported to find work, but they will not be cut off.

J. MacPhail: The new era — I bet you every person on social assistance feels comforted by that explanation for people without disabilities.

So here we have a situation where you might have a single parent with a disability. And the functional test for having to go out and look for work — whether one can feed oneself, clothe oneself, shop for oneself, do the laundry, clean — will now have the added burden of how one can also look after a toddler. Boy, that's a real step forward. I'm sure that functional test will more than meet the needs of employers who require women and men to show up at 8:30 a.m., when the child has to get to school or to day care. I'm sure everybody will feel comforted by that change.

J. Kwan: The minister's answer to the question about the three-week wait. Again, his stock answer is, "If there's an emergency, we'll take it into consideration," and so on and so forth. When we ask the minister — and we did this under Bill 26 — "What emergency? How will one be considered? Under what conditions will a person be exempted from the three-week wait," the minister is not able to provide any of the specifics on that. So we have no ability to establish intent in terms of what's going to happen for people with disabilities in Bill 27.

The fact of the matter is the three-week wait period penalizes people. People who go to the welfare office seeking assistance are already desperate. There's no doubt about that. Then, when they arrive, to be told: "I'm sorry; you've got to wait three more weeks…." People will have no ability to survive. That's why they're there to begin with. Even for people with disabilities, they will still have this three-week wait period apply, and it may ultimately be determined by the ministry that they're not able to work anyway.

You've got to go figure and ask the question, "Where's the logic in that?" — other than that the government is trying to cut people off or delay their ability to get financial support, just so the government can say they saved that penny, so they can turn around and give it to the richest, wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations.

Hon. M. Coell: I think we covered this once or twice before. In an emergency situation, one factor would be no food, no money, no shelter. An eviction would be deemed to be an emergency.

J. Kwan: We've covered this before as well. I've had people come into the office with exactly those conditions, and you know what happened. In anticipation of what the government is bringing forward in Bills 26 and 27, the office just laughed at these people. They said: "Hey, you know what? You're not qualified. You've got to wait three weeks." The minister is saying it's not true. Well, then I invite him to come and talk to

J. Kwan: Section 11 deals with reporting obligations. As a condition of eligibility, a family must submit a report to the minister. What must this report contain?

Hon. M. Coell: I move the amendment to section 12(1) standing in my name on the orders of the day.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what the substantive change is with the amendment?

J. Kwan: Section 12 deals with the consequences of not meeting employment-related obligations: family units who fail to accept employment, leave employment without just cause voluntarily, are dismissed from the employment for just cause or fail to demonstrate reasonable efforts to search for employment. Those families who receive disability or hardship assistance have it reduced if they have dependent children or eliminated if they do not.

Section 12(3) states that certain categories of family units may not face the above-noted consequences for failing to meet employment requirements. Which categories of family units will be exempted?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe we have gone over this before, but I'll repeat it again. A person with a disability will be excused from the requirement to seek work; a single parent with a child under three; a person with a medical condition that interferes with their ability to search for employment, continue in employment or participate in employability programs; a person in a care facility; or a person who has left an abusive relationship in the previous six months.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister keeps saying we have dealt with this before. No, we haven't. We dealt with it under Bill 26, but not in Bill 27, and maybe it changes. Maybe it differs as a separate and different bill. Maybe the minister could recognize that, just for a change. The minister says: "Don't worry. Here are all the categories where the people would be exempted."

The minister still fails to understand that there may be some people who may lose their employment that may not be known as just cause. It could be an unsafe work environment so that the person would not be able to work. It could be that the person is being harassed and so is unable to work in that environment and therefore has to quit. It could be that because the person has disabilities, they're unable to sustain the job. They may not be recognized as having just cause.

The minister just finished saying that there are three groups of people who will contribute in making the determination whether or not the person will see their benefits reduced or eliminated: (a) the doctor's opinion, (b) the individual's opinion and (c) the FAW's. There are three separate factors impacting that. It's not just the individual's words that would actually count, along with a doctor's note. That used to be the case.

That used to be sufficient in identifying a person's disability, but now that has changed. For the minister to say to people, "Don't worry; we're going to cut you off unless you have just cause," is somehow okay for this minister. Well, it isn't okay with the opposition, and we do not support section 12.

J. Kwan: Section 13 deals with the consequences of not accepting or disposing of property. Within it, actually, there's a variety of different issues that come up under this heading. Of course, one is that the government is now going to make income assistance recipients who happen to own a house put a lien on the house.

Good God, if you should just be in that comfortable position where you actually have your own property and safe, secure housing, the government is now going to make you put a lien on your house.

The section, as I understand, also deals with family maintenance issues. The family maintenance is deducted from all recipients of income assistance, including people on disability 2. The legislative authority in this section corresponds with section 14 of Bill 26.

Earnings exemptions have also been eliminated for all categories except for DB-2. DB-2 categories are eli-

gible for a flat-rate earnings exemption of $300 a month. The percentage exemption is no longer available for any of the categories. What we now know is that family maintenance, CPP orphan's benefits and Workers Compensation Board benefits are to be considered unearned income and are no longer subject to any exemptions. Lottery or games-of-chance winnings will no longer be exempted up to the asset level.

With this change, once again, what the minister is doing is taking money away from people with disabilities, family units who have people with disabilities and children in those family units. How does that jibe with the government's notion that they are protecting the most vulnerable?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there were three questions there. To answer them briefly, there are no liens against people's houses in this act. This section does not deal with family maintenance, and we've actually increased the earning exemption from $200 to $300 for a greater benefit.

J. Kwan: The earnings exemption that the minister talks about…. On the one hand the minister says that they've increased the earning exemption, but on the other hand they have actually decreased it.

The threshold for earnings exemption, yes, has gone from $200 to $300, but the percentage for any additional dollars that the person can keep after that is no longer in place. It's no longer in place. For some people there is actually a net reduction in benefits for the individual. The minister should do the math. He ought to understand that. The opposition has received correspondence from individuals who actually fall into those categories, who will see their earnings reduced as a result of this change.

The minister is saying: "Hey, don't worry. We're actually increasing the earnings exemption." Once again, by providing incomplete information, the minister is providing misinformation to this House.

Hon. M. Coell: There are a vast number of people who will benefit from the increased income for those earning less than $600 a month, and very few, as the member states, declare income over $600 a month.

J. Kwan: For those people, the minister might think this is somehow irrelevant to them. It is relevant to them. Many of them have written to us, and they will suffer as a result of that.

The minister actually has a choice. He could increase their earnings exemption without taking away the additional percentage deduction.

J. Kwan: Section 14 deals with the consequences of conviction, acknowledgment or judgment in relation to the act.

Under this change, if a person in a family unit is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code in relation to obtaining money under this act or the Employment and Assistance Act, then the whole family unit sees their disability assistance, hardship or supplemental supports reduced for the lifetime that the person is a member of that family unit, or they will see their disability benefits eliminated for the period of that person's lifetime.

There is variation in terms of the penalty associated with it after the first conviction and after the second conviction. Of course, after the third conviction there is a lifetime ban. The opposition does not support this proposal. To cut someone off for a lifetime, a lifetime ban for people to get income assistance, is absolutely unconscionable, especially when we're talking about people with disabilities.

We do not believe that a person should be cut off income assistance after the third conviction. They should not be faced with a lifetime ban.

J. Kwan: Section 15 deals with applying periods of ineligibility and reduction, and there is a litany of discussion around a family unit being ineligible for disability assistance or hardship for a month or more for a variety of different reasons.

Once again, the opposition does not support this section of the bill. What it does, once again, is simply

make life harder for people who are faced with disabilities in their family unit. We will not be supporting section 15.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move the amendment to subsection 16(1)(e) standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

J. Kwan: Sections 16 and 17 deal with the appeal process. We entered into a little bit of debate around that, where the minister says: "Hey, you know what? The process is the same." We know that it is different, and much of it has been spelled out under Bill 26 whereby the independence of the tribunals is now eliminated. The people who are on the tribunal are appointed by the government only. The appellant will no longer have the opportunity to appoint their own individual to sit on the tribunal. The ministry will no longer have the opportunity to appoint their individual to sit on the tribunal. Those two parties will no longer be able to choose a third party as the chair for this.

You know what? It's not just the opposition who have these issues; it really isn't. Much of what I'm saying I am bringing forward because we've received correspondence, e-mails and telephone calls from individuals who are concerned about this. I know that the member for Vancouver-Langara shared those concerns, as well, in second reading debate and many of the concerns that we've actually talked about in this House.

I just want to quote Jeanette Wood, who's served as a tribunal member for a number of years. Here's what she has to say:

If nothing else, I ask this government to consult first before eliminating a valuable community need.

The opposition will not be supporting sections 16 and 17 on the changes to the appeal procedures.

Hon. M. Coell: The employment and assistance appeal tribunal will be an independent appeal system mandated to hear appeals from persons who disagree with the decisions of the ministry resulting in the refusal, reduction or discontinuance of income assistance, hardship assistance or supplements.

The tribunal consists of a chair and one or more vice-chairs appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, who is responsible for the general administration and management of the tribunal. There will be approximately 250 regional tribunal members appointed by the minister who will sit on the regional appeal panels to hear the appeals under the Employment and Assistance Act, the Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Act and the BC Benefits (Child Care Subsidy) Act.

J. Kwan: I thought I had seen it all until I looked at section 19. Section 19 deals with liability for and recovery of debt under the act.

Section 19(4) says that a person who was a recipient in a family unit is responsible for the repayment of any money that the act or regulation states is owed, even if they are no longer a part of that family unit.

Section 19 of this proposed act corresponds to section 7 of the Disability Benefits Program Act, which makes no mention of the responsibilities of family units.

Now the government is going to go after people for repayment, even though the people are no longer on income assistance.

I thought I'd seen it all, but I haven't. It is stunning in terms of what this government has put forward, and what this minister is supporting and sponsoring in this bill.

Section 19, liability for and recovery of debts under this act…. The opposition will not be supporting section 19.

J. MacPhail: I agree with my colleague that we have never seen anything like this before. May I also point out, though, that it says that a person is jointly

and separately liable for a debt in an incredibly draconian way, as my colleague has commented upon.

Let me also point out that in other areas of government, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General…. They're all speculating, forecasting and foreshadowing that corporations will no longer be jointly and separately liable. They're letting the richest and the corporations off the hook for any liability, and here they are, the most vulnerable and the lowest-income in our province…. They're applying this standard that they say corporations do not have to live by.

I would ask only one question from this: why treat the poor differently from the corporations? Secondly, what problem exactly is the government trying to resolve?

Hon. M. Coell: It is consistent practice with B.C. Benefits to continue to pursue debts. This section is intended to do that.

J. Kwan: Section 26 basically gives the government, the minister, all the authority to bring forward regulations that will make income assistance for people with disabilities harder to qualify for. It allows for the government, at a later date, to determine who will be cut off. It allows for the government to determine at a later date what supplements, as an example, people would not now be able to get. It gives the government all the powers in the world to do all of those things that would detrimentally impact the lives of people on income assistance with disabilities forever.

There are many, many subsections to section 26. It is basically the power to make regulations. It gives the government, as I said, all of the authority to cut income assistance services and support for the people who need it the most. The opposition does not support giving this government this authority to do that. The agenda that they have, we know, harms British Columbians more than anything that this government can possibly imagine. They simply don't care. They're going to proceed with it. The opposition will not be joining the government in their effort to go after and attack the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, people with disabilities.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is wrong. What this act does and what the regulations will do is assist people with disabilities to achieve their greatest potential. We're going to spend $54 million on programs that help people achieve employment, whether that be part-time or full-time, with allowances for people to rapidly reinstate on income assistance if they need it and provide levels of income assistance that are there now today. I think the member is quite wrong when she says that the regulations are not going to support people. They will indeed support people, with the idea of creating potential for people with disabilities to achieve their greatest potential in life.

J. Kwan: Well, you know what? I hope that I'm wrong. I ask the minister to prove it. Prove me wrong.

J. Kwan: I think that section 27 is the section that deals with the maintenance rights. I was wrong earlier in referencing section 13 with respect to maintenance rights issues and the clawing back of maintenance dollars for people with disabilities. It's section 27 that takes away the family maintenance issue in relation to Bill 26. It's actually spelled out in Bill 26 as well. I think you have to read the two acts together to see that connectedness.

Section 27, again, is the place where the government is setting out the opportunity to take away financial support for family units with disabilities by clawing back their maintenance support. The opposition does not support section 27 on that basis.

Hon. M. Coell: I move the amendment to section 32(1)(b) standing in my name on the orders of the day:

The Chair: I'll go back to 31, which was passed. Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Section 31, which deals with "Recipients under former act deemed recipients under this act." Section 31: even though recipients may have been awarded benefits through a decision from the tribunal or the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board, that decision can be adjusted or altered by the minister so it reflects the amounts and/or categories of the Employment and Assistance Act. The ramifications of this subsection directly and harmfully impact people with disabilities. Health benefits granted under schedule C, section 2, of the Disability Benefits Program regulations may be revoked if the benefits have been provided as a result of an appeal.

In a letter written by a community advocate, he raised concerns in this section. So to that end, Mr. Chair, we have amendments to table on section 31.

The amendment essentially strikes out the proposal under section 31(4), which is the paragraph that talks about: "An adjustment or alteration referred to in subsection (3)(a) or (b) may be, as applicable, (a) an increase, a decrease or a discontinuance of an amount, or (b) a change in, or a discontinuance or an addition of, a category of disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplements." This is replaced with: "The minister may adjust a benefit by an increase, a decrease or an discontinuance of an amount or a change in, or discontinuance or an addition of, a category of disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplements."

Hon. M. Coell: Just a clarification. I'm not sure I was handed what the member read.

Hon. M. Coell: I would seek clarification. Are you doing these amendments separately or together?

J. MacPhail: I mean, if there's any hope that one section could pass and not the other, we'd be happy to declare them separately. I'm serious. I wondered what the intent of the question was.

Hon. M. Coell: I move the amendment to section 32(1)(b) standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. M. Coell: I move the amendment to section 45 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. M. Coell: I move the amendment to section 47 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

The Chair: Members, we'll call deferred divisions on sections 2 as amended; 9, 10; 12 as amended; 13, 15; 16 as amended; 17, 19, 26, 27 and 31 and 14.

The Chair: We'll go to the deferred division on the amendment to section 14.

Sections 2 as amended; 9, 10; 12 as amended; 13, 14, 15; 16 as amended; 17, 19, 26, 27 and 31 approved on the following division:

Hon. M. Coell: I move the committee rise and report Bill 27 complete with amendments.

Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I think we have to complete third reading first, and then we'll hear the amendment. The question now is third reading of Bill

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, there are many people who wish to engage in a democratic process, to participate in this debate, to let the government members know and to let the minister know how the changes under Bill 27 will impact them. Moreover, they want to seek clarity from the government in terms of the impacts of Bill 27.

The changes are fundamental, they're long-lasting, and they will impact people's lives in ways that we will not know, that none of us in this chamber will know. The only people who could tell us are the people who are directly impacted. In a society where we value democracy, there is an opportunity for that to take place — in committee, which is now the motion before you.

This bill could be referred to a committee. Witnesses could be called so that each and every single British Columbian who wished to participate in this democratic process would have the opportunity to do so. The government members in this House can make a difference today in the history of British Columbia, recognizing the principle of democracy — not only that, but practising it as well.

Lip service on democracy is not good enough. You have to talk the talk and walk the walk. The government members of this chamber can vote in support of this motion to allow for democracy to truly take place by inviting British Columbians to come forward and be witnesses on Bill 27.

In fact, tonight there are a number of people who are sitting in the gallery watching the debate as the debate had been taking place. In the gallery: Carol Romanow, the Action Committee on People with Disabilities; Dr. C.D. Mazoff, Hep C B.C.; Dave, Robert, Cathy and George, VANDU, Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users; Sandy Daughen, Vancouver Island regional representatives to the boards of directors of the B.C. Society of Occupational Therapists; Sal Ruffolo, president of CAW, local 333, representing city HandyDart bus drivers, mechanics and patient transfer members; Michelle Burton, Paul Godden and Vicki Nicholson, part of the Downtown South Gathering Place Community Centre Association; Victoria AIDS Respite Care Society; representatives from this association, the Developmental Disabilities Association, concerned regarding impact of this bill on their members; Deborah Hauttmann, Lynette Baker of the B.C. Association for Community Living; Steve Cassel, advocate, Vancouver Island Human Rights Coalition Society; Scott Connors, Together Against Poverty Society; Barb Field, B.C. Association of Social Workers; Dr. J.M. McHardy, TAPS; Elvina Sainte-Marie, an individual.

All these people are in the gallery today, and they want to make presentations to this government. They want to make presentations as witnesses on Bill 27, as they are the people who are directly impacted by this bill. They are the people who advocate for people who are directly impacted by this bill. They are the people who know family and friends who are impacted directly by this bill. Their voices deserve to be heard in a democratic society.

Those are the people that are here tonight who are able to take time from their busy schedules because they care about our society and what this government's doing. But they're not the only ones, Mr. Speaker. There are many others who oppose the use of closure on debating Bills 26 and 27. They're the people who oppose time limits that are being foisted on the opposition members in debating Bill 27 — others who are not able to be with us tonight who join the voices of those who are in saying they want to be heard, they must not be silenced, and they must be recognized by this Legislature in a democratic process.

Who are they? BCPWA; Naomi Brennermyer, the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities; Jane Dyson and Margaret Birrell, the DB2, Nelson area; Bonnie Nilsen, Donna Thomas from the Sunshine Coast Unemployment Action Centre; Cheryl Hewitt, executive director of the B.C. Society of Occupational Therapists; Marilyn Marshall, individual; John, Rosemary, Jennifer and Diane Baxter from Saltspring, B.C.; Joyce Alcorn; Darlene Jordison, single mother and disabled; Leo Hutchinson; Margaret Martin from Nanaimo, B.C., Legal Aid paralegal; Penny Bradford, Victoria Persons with AIDS Society; Donna Thomas, Sherri Todd, the Environmental Illness Society of B.C. and the B.C. division of the National ME/FM Action Network; Valerie Paetz, Mark Scott from Vancouver; James Janzen, president of the Abbotsford self-advocacy group representing people with intellectual and physical disabilities; Caesi Bevis, the Tiger's Eye Society disability advocate; Cherie Wozney, Jacquie Ackerley, Together Against Poverty Society; Diane Dobson, disability advocate, disabled senior; Ramona Sosath, Maple Ridge, B.C.; individuals from Quesnel — there's a long list of them — Janine Steines; Rhonda Berg; Stacy Morris; Soren Olsen; Holly Betts; Eric Betts; Chantell Hawkridge; Tracy LaBerge; Kathy Oppen; Sam Oppen; Anne Hegland; Lew Hegland; Marg Lepree; Raj Gill; Hardip Gill; Heather McDonald; Bob McDonald; Darrel Vogt; Jean Brooks; Vern Brooks; John Gauthier, Shawn Brooks; Coal Quan-

strum; Jim Morris; Sharon Gardner; Walter Roadschat; Dwaine Bax; Rita Casavant; Hugh Olson; Ivy Olson; Paulina Wilkinson; Angela Thomson; Chris Thomson; Jason Dagneau; Jody Dagneau; Mark Dagneau; Ida Wilkinson, Marlene Richardson; Jackie Tosoff; Albert Tosoff; Jane Arnoldus; Minnie Sutherland; Edna Langley; Lyla Baity; Ruth Patchett; Memi Ponuick; Margaret Johnson; Don Johnson; Beryl Maxwell; Tom Maxwell; Dayle Campbell; Les Campbell; Dewey Lund; Lina Davis; Brenda McCauley; Shaun O'Donnel; Fred Kemps; Sylvia Chapplow; Carmen Peterson; Craig Andow; Gerry Trudeau, Cami Newman; Mark Newman, Marry Patton; Tammy Reeve; Esca Forget; Barbara Jones; Scott Jones; Yvonne Reimer; Robert-Lee McGreggor; Aaron Lundgren; Colin Brownmiller; Adrian Carey; Donald Berg; Corey Brownmiller; Keith Thompson; Brian Hopkins; Sonny Basi; Brad Byrd; Bonnie Walls; Trevor Flahr; Bucky Buxton; Ian McGowan; Cathy Watson; Maurice Lafebvre; Dan Cameron; Greg Brink; Mike Wilbur; Aaron Dunlop; Dwayne Becker; Edward Auger; Wendy Forget; Leanne Auger; Ethel Paynton; Ray Hunter; Pat Hunter; Lloyd Clark; Mike Clark; Dan Tucker; Lucille Angles; Jeanine Madill; Ron Teichrob, Victoria, B.C.; Daphne Wecker; Debbie Krull, Moms on the Drive; Jim Franklin, Action Committee on People with Disabilities; Teri Wynn, community advocate; Heather Wilkinson, Marilyn Welch, B.C. Seniors Network, disabled; Cathy Ann Grant, Lee Rempel and Sally Marven, on disability; Lisa Stewart from Chilliwack; Brian Mairs, director of Okanagan Aboriginal AIDS Society; Liza from DERA, Cathy Woods, Sharon Hill, New Focus Society from Quesnel.

Others from Quesnel are Lynn Worden, Leola Gardner, Geraldine Rusk, Renee Gagnon, Arlene Cave, Connie Nicolaisen, Gailene Chantyman, Lennore Anderson, Nancy Jimmy, Tammy Rusk, Sheila Olson, Chris Bailey, Shelley Malaka, Melissa Rathgeber, David Bailey, Ricky Smith, Jackie Baxter, Mandy Godwin, Stan Penner, Shawna Graham, David Steiness, Shelley Penner, Flora Favre, Linda Duguay, Carlos McCormick, Wendy Byrd, George Auger, Ann Miller, Mike Doyle, Richard Champion, Al Henderson, Ricard Cawoodm and Sandy Kummetz.

Norma Strachan, executive director of ASBC; Joan Schwartzenberter, Catherine van Mossel, Cara-Lee Malange from Vancouver; Leslie Cairns, Skylark Disraeli from Kelowna; Robert Arnold, first vice-president of Federated Anti-Poverty Groups; Coralie McCormick, Pat O'Neill from Saltspring, the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Saltspring Island; Carole Karkhairan, Rob Secyk from Nelson; George and Marie Secyk from Nelson; Larry Dow from Crescent Valley; Shelagh Day, Jennifer Collinson, Kamloops Women's Resources Centre; Dodie Goldney, Kamloops Women's Resources Centre; Lynne Taylor from Vancouver; Mary McIntyre from Salmon Arm; Rick Lebitschnig from Kamloops; Jennifer Hole; Lois Shelton from Vancouver; Diane Liscumb; Maria Maslovat, Phyllis Kahn, Sharon Moulton, Robert Busch from Burnaby; Sandra Beggs from Queen Charlotte Islands Women's Society; Patti MacAhonic from Chilliwack, the director of the B.C. Injured Workers and Survivors Educational Association; Kathleen Kendall from Kamloops; Susanne Dannenberg, Steve Hilberg and Carol Hilberg from Quesnel; Debra Critchley from Vernon Women's Centre, the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres; Ramona Sosath of Maple Ridge; Margaret Martin from Nanaimo; Adrienne Scott; Diane Meyer; Judy Cowan; Cathy Sawchuck; Tammie Shuh; Jack Jules; Al Thomsen; Paul Collett; Rae Kornberger; Karen Kraneveldt; Doris Legault; Michelle McCartney; Val Gaiga; Tom Davies; Sheldon Colton; Mia Frederiksson; Robert Gilson from Vancouver Tradeworks; Helen Rezanowich from Victoria; Gill Hilson, chair of the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society.

That's just a small list of the people who wish to speak. Because of the time constraints, we actually don't have time to read all of the people who sent in correspondence, sent in their names, requesting that they have the opportunity to participate in this democratic process. The B.C. Persons with AIDS Society has actually written on this issue, asking for them to have their voice heard.

J. Kwan: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour — I just heard him heckle me, saying that this is a waste of time. Only this government would say of the people, the members of the public who are seeking to exercise their democratic right to speak to this chamber, that this is a waste of time. Shame on the member for making such a suggestion.

These are the people whose lives are going to be impacted by Bill 27, and they have every right to be heard. Only this Liberal government would want to silence the voice of the public and members of the community. Shame on the member for saying that we are wasting time by allowing these people to speak.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the word "shame" is unparliamentary, and I do not want to hear it anymore. Thank you.

J. Kwan: It is unconscionable, the suggestion that people who want to speak in this House, who want to have their democratic rights exercised…. For members to suggest that it is a waste of time…. I don't know how else to describe that other than to say that it is unconscionable. There will be other words that I am not able to use in this House because Mr. Speaker will say that I am being unparliamentary.

You know, I can't believe what is before us today, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely stunning. It is historic in British Columbia for these members and for this government to reject people who want to exercise their democratic rights, people who voted these individuals into this office. They have every right to be heard. For anybody to suggest otherwise is absolutely unbelievable and undemocratic in this society today.

Others who have sent in letters…. VANDU, as I mentioned, has sent in a letter. The Victoria AIDS Respite Care Society has actually sent in an entire brief, asking to be heard. The B.C. Coalition of People with

Disabilities has 451 names in total of individuals and organizations who want to participate in this process.

We have an individual named Erin Graham who has sent in an e-mail addressing this issue and wanting to speak to the matter. We have Helen Rezanowich who has actually written on this issue, asking the government not to ram through the legislation today and to allow for the voices of the public to be heard. It is her view that Bills 26 and 27 are inhumane and result in cruel hardship and deaths of British Columbians.

We have others who are saying that these issues…. Another list, from Port Alberni Horizon Management, is actually in an e-mail that has been sent to us. It has a long list of names attached to it: Adrienne Scott, Diane Meyer, Judy Cowan, Cathy Sawchuck, Tammie Shuh, Jack Jules, Al Thomsen, Paul Collett, Rae Kornberger, Karen Kraneveldt, Doris Legault, Michelle McCartney, Val Gaiga, Tom Davies, Sheldon Colton, Mia Frederiksson. These individuals want to speak.

It is not a waste of time to suggest that individuals want to exercise their democratic rights. It is not a waste of time. For people to suggest otherwise is absolutely unconscionable.

I want to read, just for a moment now, sections from a letter from a concerned citizen in Nanaimo.

Another individual who sent in a letter: Eileen Whitwall from Saltspring Island. I'll just read parts of her letter into the record.

It was written to the opposition, asking that the government delay their action.

There are only about ten minutes left in this debate. I've been speaking very rapidly, and I still have many, many letters that I want to put on the record. These individuals took the time to say that they wanted their voices to be heard, and I expect they're not the only ones. There would be many others who wish the same. I hope this government will find it in their conscience to allow the democratic process to take place in this chamber, to allow the voices of British Columbia, the people who voted for the individuals sitting in this House, to speak and be heard and not be silenced, which I know is what the Liberal government wants to do.

Any opposition, they say, is not to be heard. Any opposition, they say, is from special interest groups. But you know what? These are not special interest groups. They are individuals. They are people with lives, families, hopes, dreams and a heart, the same as the people in this House, and they should be treated no differently from the corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. Their voices deserve to be heard in this Legislature.

I challenge any member who says that this is a waste of time to stand before the people now and tell them that their voices do not deserve to be heard in the democratic process in this parliament.

J. MacPhail: There's been a lot of passion tonight, and some of it is spilling over in this chamber. My colleague has spoken with passion and compassion.

Yesterday, when we completed debate and passed Bill 26, affecting people without disabilities but on income assistance, my colleague and I ended up in tears going down to our offices for this reason: we felt complicit in the passing of the legislation. We disagree vehemently with Bill 26, taking away benefits from people on income assistance, and we feel just as vehemently passionate in opposition to this legislation as well. But somehow we're here giving it legitimacy by standing up, allowing the government to somehow get a shred of credibility for suggesting that this legislation has been debated.

I heard the Minister of Human Resources saying earlier that he'd actually counted the hours it had been debated, not by him, not by one of the government members — well, maybe one of them but by no one else. The reason why he was able to suggest that number was because of my colleague and me, mostly my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Somehow that makes us complicit in the passing of this legislation.

Day after day we walk down streets — my colleague from Mount Pleasant shops in Chinatown in Vancouver; I go to Safeway with my son and run into seniors; my colleague goes with her husband and her stepson — and people come up to us every day and say: "What is the government doing? How is this going to impact me?" They actually remove that line between opposition and government and expect us to have the answers to how it's going to affect their lives. We don't have the answers.

The only thing we can do…. We can do two things. We can try our hardest to allow the voices of those who are directly impacted by this legislation to have a place with a say, a place to ask their questions, or we can raise those questions ourselves. Here's what's happened. My colleague from Mount Pleasant and I have been shut down in asking those questions because of the unprecedented and draconian closure used by this government to deny full debate. We're shut down with dozens of questions — no, hundreds of questions — still to be asked. So there's another avenue.

Yes, every day this government tramples on the rights of the opposition — every day. Every day they mock the opposition. They deny the opposition the resources to do its job. They blame. They refuse to take the responsibility.

I guess that's the price you pay for being two. We accept that. We actually accept the outcome of the last election. Sometimes I think the media blame us for what this government is doing because there's only two of us, in a very weird way. They almost say, as a corollary, it's what British Columbia deserves, and you and your colleague are representative of that, because you're only two. That's the symbol of it.

You know what? British Columbians, separate and apart from my colleague and me, don't deserve what this government is doing. They were never told that because they had a disability, they would be kicked off their disability pension. People were never told. Even if they read the New Era document every night, there was never a hint that the most vulnerable, the poorest in this province, would have their benefits cut.

J. MacPhail: They were told, in fact, exactly the opposite, as my colleague from Mount Pleasant points out. This legislation has come as a complete shock to them — a complete shock. They're looking to have a say. Is that so wrong? I would ask any member of this Legislature to stand up and tell us why that is wrong.

You know, all of the letters that we've received, I think, have also been sent to the Minister of Human Resources. We also know that he hasn't answered them. Fair enough. He's bringing in some of the most draconian, radical changes ever, and he hasn't had time to answer about the legislation. He hasn't had time to draft the regulations that affect people's lives.

I'm not quite sure why it is that this government, with its overwhelming majority, its overwhelming resources, can't take a few days to let the people of this province have a say. What's so wrong about that? What is it about this government that they think their majority permits this? I ask one of them to stand up and say: "What, yes, in an overwhelming majority, gives this government the right to govern arrogantly?" What gives this government the right to say: "We didn't tell you we were going to do this to you, but don't worry; we're not going to listen to you after we do it to you"?

Would the government do that to the business community? No. In fact, the government bends over backwards to listen to the business community. The government bends over backwards to meet with the chambers of commerce to hear their concerns and see what more they can do. The government bends over backwards to meet with the mining industry and see what more they can do.

You know, this government has met with the mining industry dozens of times just in the last few months and brought in four or five pieces of legislation to meet their needs. Do you think that those pieces of legislation were brought in as a surprise to the mining industry? Of course not. They were fully consulted, and they were on board.

That's all my colleague and I are asking here: consult the very people that are affected by this, Mr. Speaker.

I don't understand for a moment any Liberal MLA who can stand up here and deny this motion.

Hon. M. Coell: I have listened intently to the members of the opposition, and I thank them for their comments. I also thank the other members of the government caucus who have taken the time to speak to these bills, especially Bill 27.

Bill 27, I think, will give hope to many people with disabilities that government will help them to find employment and provide the assistance they need if they're not able to work.

I have in my life had the privilege to work with people with disabilities and have friends with disabilities, and I know how hard their lives can be. I think this bill and the strategy for employment that goes with this bill will help those who are able to work, at the same time giving an income and a life that will help those people with disabilities.

This government, in our mandate of four years, will spend $6.6 billion on income assistance. There are two important things we will do. We will spend $300 million on job placement and training for people on income assistance and $54 million, an increase of 40 percent, on strategy for people with disabilities. We want to see people succeed in life. We're going to work with people to make sure they have the opportunities to create the greatest potential for them whether they're on income assistance or whether they're persons with disabilities.

Bill 27, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, read a third time and passed.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


	YEAS — 60

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Cheema	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 57

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Cheema	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Masi
Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Sultan	Hamilton	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

	NAYS — 56

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Cheema	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Nettleton	Roddick	Masi
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas	Hunter


	YEAS — 55

Coell	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Bond	de Jong
Stephens	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Manhas
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 58

Falcon	Coell	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Lekstrom	Sultan	Hawes
	Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan


	YEAS — 3

Anderson	MacPhail	Kwan

	NAYS — 45

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
van Dongen	Barisoff	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Bond	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Sultan	Hawes	Hunter


	YEAS — 45

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
van Dongen	Barisoff	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Bond	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Bell	Mayencourt
Trumper	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Sultan	Hawes	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Anderson	MacPhail	Kwan


	YEAS — 48

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
van Dongen	Barisoff	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Murray	Plant	Collins
Bond	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Bell	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Lekstrom
Sultan	Hawes	Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Anderson	MacPhail	Kwan