Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Question of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. Farnworth: I also reserve my right to make a point of personal privilege.

The Speaker: So noted.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
POVERTY REDUCTION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

The Chair: We will call the committee to order. We are dealing with Bill 7, Social Development and Poverty Reduction Statutes Amendment Act, 2024.

On clause 1 (continued).

A. Walker: I appreciated watching last week the discussion on this bill and the impacts it’ll have for many British Columbians. The first question that came to mind, listening to the back-and-forth, is: what is the process right now for someone applying for income assistance in this province?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Welcome to the member.

I went through the list online, which the member can look at in more detail if he’s interested. People can phone, apply online or go into an SDPR office. They’ll be asked to complete an income and asset test. They’ll be asked to show ID, provide their social insurance number, asked how much they pay for rent and utilities, asked what their bank balance is, asked if they owe anything on a vehicle. They will be asked if they are on EI, if they have any outstanding warrants and if family sponsored them into Canada. That is the income assistance application process.

A. Walker: Before I get into how this will change that application process, is the minister able to expand on the asset test that is currently in place right now?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We canvassed this a little bit with one of the Green Party members on Thursday and agreed that we would talk about it in estimates. It’s not a subject of this legislation.

A. Walker: From that, I can understand that this legislation will not change that process.

Can the minister explain, if Bill 7 passes and comes into force, how it will change the process for somebody who applies for income assistance?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: No change to the application process.

A. Walker: Listening to the discussion last week, my understanding was that there will be a process in which somebody is able to receive income assistance prior to being approved for it. This is a little different from what I heard last week to what I hear now. If the minister could explain, in that context…. If there’s some clarity that could be sought.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think if the member looks at the Hansard, he will see that the application process is not different. The timing at which the person receives their first income assistance cheque will be changed if Bill 7 passes.

A. Walker: I’m not trying to get into the minutiae. The idea is that if somebody has something horrible in their life happen and they need to go through this process…. I think it’s important that British Columbians know that Bill 7 will allow for British Columbians to collect income assistance prior to being approved by the process. That’s my understanding from the discussions last week.

I see that the minister is nodding her head negatively. So perhaps the minister could clarify for me.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the opportunity to clarify.

The implication is that an individual who is eligible for income assistance would receive their first cheque more quickly than they do right now, which is a good thing, to alleviate in a time of emergency. What is changed, if Bill 7 passes, are the requirements to have an employment plan in place before or after the first cheque is received. That’s the difference in process.

The eligibility is unchanged. The timing of the requirement to have an employment plan in place is what has changed here.

A. Walker: I appreciate that.

Currently, under the system as it is right now, how long, on average, do these employment plans…? I know the name of them has changed. But how long does it currently take for one of these to be approved by the ministry?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: It’s important to say that, either right now or in this future regulatory scenario…. If someone is found to be in crisis, then they can get hardship assistance immediately. We don’t make people wait if they are truly in a dire circumstance.

I don’t have the information now. If it’s important to the member, I can provide it. But I’m not sure that it is.

The difference in time between how long it takes to get an employability plan and what time different clients might have experienced as a delay between getting their first cheque, between the point of application and then the work that they have to do to put an employment plan in place….

[2:45 p.m.]

The point is both that we are putting in place a system that is in between the employment plan and that we are adding the client needs assessment to identify what kinds of supports they would need in order to get an employability plan, for people that have faced barriers in getting work.

That’s the point of this: both that people get income assistance more quickly than they do right now and then, also, that we’re giving them the extra supports to make their employment more solid, more secure, more retainable, let alone achievable.

A. Walker: If the minister is able to provide that information in writing, outside of this process, that would be very much appreciated. If she could commit one way or the other to that.

The timing of this is important. I mean, when folks need help, they need help now. We want to make sure government is not getting in the way of people who are eligible for help. Through SDPR offices, we’ve seen some incredible work. Folks going out into community, finding those that are very vulnerable, unhoused, and that aren’t aware of supports. So there’s some tremendous work that’s happening.

Hearing from the minister about the importance of these legislative changes in the timing of people getting the support that they are entitled to…. I think it’s important to know what we’re fixing.

I’m intrigued with the timelines it takes right now for the employability plan, if that is holding up people’s payments, but also the application process outside of the employability plan. What are the current timelines, right now, for someone who’s applying — everything outside of the employability plan — and is that a barrier for people receiving assistance?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Yes, to the member. We’re happy to undertake our estimate of the timing changes that will happen if Bill 7 is passed. That will be by removing the upfront obligation to have an employment plan in place, how much more quickly people will get that first income assistance cheque. We’ll undertake to provide that.

I’ll say again, to be clear, that right now an employment plan is a condition of eligibility, and that is what we are proposing to remove as eligibility. The person will still have to have an employability plan or an employment plan, but they don’t have to have it in place in order to receive their first cheque.

A. Walker: I appreciate the minister being able to pro­vide that information to myself in writing.

Still back to that first question, though, I fully recognize the importance of having this employability plan after somebody is approved for income assistance.

[2:50 p.m.]

The question, though, is: how long does it take right now, ignoring the employability plan and the client needs assessment, for someone, when they come into the office or online or any of the other agencies that can accept this application, to go through that process to con­firm eligibility? Are they on EI, warrants, asset tests, etc.? How long is that process right now when somebody applies for assistance?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That’s unchanged by this legislation, and we can talk about that in estimates if the member wishes.

A. Walker: I guess what I’m getting to is last week hearing from the minister talking about how this process will dramatically speed up the process of somebody receiving that first cheque and having the employability plan after they are approved for income assistance. We don’t know from our dialogue here today if that actually will speed things along. That’s why I am seeking clarity as to right now what the average wait time is for an application.

I’ll, hopefully, provide the opportunity for the minister again to clarify so that I can have a better understanding of how long it takes currently and what difference this bill will make for those that are applying for income assistance.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That is what I have undertaken to provide, either in writing or else on the record, depending how quickly I can get that estimate from my team.

A. Walker: How many people right now who apply for income assistance, are approved under the criteria and then go through the workability plan are then denied because the workability plan does not show that they meet the criteria for a need for income assistance?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Right now, in our status quo, an applicant for income assistance who passes the income and assistance test is then approved for income assistance. Then they are required to fill out a template, which is the employment plan. They have to do that in order to receive their first cheque. But there isn’t a failing of the employability plan. They’ve already been approved for assistance.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think the member might be taking us into some of the language that’s in clause 5. I think at that point, we can talk in more detail about how the employability plan shifts the timing and some of the less-templated approach to this, something that allows us as government, in administering income assistance and connecting people with work, to be able to work with the individual to do something that’s a little bit more tailored to their needs.

A. Walker: I appreciate the idea that the employment assistance test is what determines eligibility, but the question was if somebody is to take into the time…? I mean, right now we’re talking about completing the employment plan, switching to an employability plan. The question is: how many people, whether it’s a pass-or-fail test or whether they don’t continue enough to actually get that done…? Under the current arrangement, how many people — what ratio or how many, numbers-wise — are not completing that?

The reason I ask that is because last week the minister made very clear the hardship that people are under in British Columbia when they begin to collect something that they’re not actually eligible for. My concern, if we see this change, is that the employability plan takes place after they’re approved. And if there’s a length of time between the time they pass the income assistance test and the time that their employability plan comes in and is approved, I would hate to see the number of British Columbians on that list, who are collecting assistance that they’re not eligible for, grow.

It creates significant hardship for British Columbians. That’s why I’m looking for how many people, whether it’s nominal or as a ratio, currently, under the current structure, are passing the income assistance test but are, for whatever reason, unable to get their employment plan approved.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: If I heard the member correctly, he’s concerned that people might collect something that they aren’t eligible for. That is not a pattern that we have observed. That’s not one of the problems we’re trying to solve with this legislation.

I think there are some subtleties right now around someone who qualifies for income assistance, is on income assistance but then is fired from their job and deemed ineligible, and then they’re pushed into crisis. I did talk about that on Thursday. That is a problem that we’re trying to solve, but that is talked about in the legislation a little bit later. I think it’ll be easier for us to take the member through those pieces if we get to clause 5.

A. Walker: Am I to understand from the minister, then, that there are not people who are approved on the income test that do not, for whatever reason, have their employment plan approved?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Again, there is no “approved” or “not approved” on the employment plan. It’s a template that the individual fills out.

A. Walker: To clarify, the minister is saying that if somebody’s income assistance test is passed, there is nobody who then gets hung up by not having an employment plan at present?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: There are over 200,000 people in our income assistance system. I can’t say that it never happens that somebody doesn’t get to the point of filling out the template and that therefore they don’t get their assistance cheque, but if it happens, it’s exceedingly rare. We can talk in more detail about how these pieces work together, under clause 5.

A. Walker: I guess this is the last question I have. If it’s “exceedingly rare,” and the minister doesn’t have any timelines of how long the employability plan is going to take, what is the actual, meaningful difference that someone who applies for income assistance will actually see through this bill, if it passes?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I now stand to deliver on the undertaking I provided to the member about an estimate of the difference in time in the existing system and in our future system. That is the gap before somebody receives their cheque.

They fill out the template for the employment plan, and how long it takes them to fill out that employment plan and have it received in the system is a matter of days. That does mean…. For someone who is really in a crunch with their income, it matters to us that they got their cheque two days earlier, in our future system if Bill 7 passes, than the status quo.

[3:05 p.m.]

The much more measurable and meaningful differences that I enumerated in my first and second reading speeches, and that we canvassed on Thursday, are around the benefits to people of having a client needs assessment that’s tailored to them, an employability plan and then training, counselling and supports that will help them both get that job and keep that job. That is what the real focus of the reform of the income assistance and disability assistance legislation is here.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister. It’s good to be back in the House, not up in the northern reaches of our province, like last week. I’ve a number of questions around clause 2, and I guess I’ll start with a straightforward one.

Could the minister elaborate on the phrase “family unit” in this section?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The definition of “family unit” is unchanged by this legislation, but I’ll read it for the member’s reference. It is “an applicant or a recipient and the ap­plicant’s or the recipient’s dependants.”

D. Davies: In discussions over the last years around this, within Social Development and such, we talk about needs around the individual and stuff. I understand that the previous legislation did have family unit in it, but I wonder if there were discussions, or whatnot, around changing the language to “individual needs.” We’ve seen a lot of focus around needs of the individual as opposed to the family unit.

I’m wondering if those discussions were had. If they were, why wasn’t there a move toward using individual needs, as opposed to the “family unit” words that we see?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In our assessment, family unit doesn’t leave anybody out. It does also speak to…. An individual can be their own family unit. For the purpose of this legislation, it was not found to be necessary to change anything about the definition of family unit.

D. Davies: Within that, then, I just wonder what mechanisms are in place when you look at the family unit as all one, the dependents and others.

How does one divide the actions or behaviours and responsibilities when you have a complex…? We’re going to talk about youth here in a moment, a youth’s individual needs, employment requirements and how that fits with a parent. How does the ministry, then, manage those silos that are within the family unit and keep them separate? Or am I missing something that’s in here later on, maybe, that I didn’t see?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This is a really important change that was identified in consultation and is carried out here, so I appreciate the member highlighting it.

In the existing system, the family unit includes a de­pendent youth who is not in school. The existing legislation requires that dependent youth to fill out an employability plan and be subject to the employment obligations. If that youth does not do that, then there is consequence for the entire family unit. There is a penalty applied.

With the change that is described here in clause 2, then the youth may request that that dependent youth have access to the client needs assessment and the employability plan. So it becomes, then, voluntary participation, and a tool for the youth, but it’s not something that, if the youth does not carry it out, then there is a penalty to the family. That’s one of the things we’re trying to change.

D. Davies: To confirm, then, that the language changed from the “must” to the “may.” The present legislation has that the dependent youth “must” meet those requirements, and then the new legislation is a youth “may” request. Just to confirm that is one of the reasons, so it doesn’t penalize the entire family unit if something isn’t working out?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member is correct. The old language was “the youth must enter,” and the language we propose is “the youth may request.”

D. Davies: Can the minister confirm whether a dependent youth, under the new legislation, would require any kind of permission from a parent or guardian?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Could the member add a few more words to his question?

[3:15 p.m.]

D. Davies: Basically, further to what you just said, I’m just looking for confirmation on whether a dependent youth would need approval or permission from a guardian or a parent to request a client needs assessment.

Sorry, I didn’t…. It was the last part.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: No, that is not contemplated in the legislation.

D. Davies: Could the minister provide some examples, then, of what the specified conditions with regards to the employability plan are?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say first, to the member’s question…. I don’t think specified conditions is exactly the right way to phrase this anymore, if Bill 7 passes.

The intention is that the client’s needs assessment identifies and establishes a plan that is suited to what the client’s needs are. The exact wording and the way that this is set up will be phased in this summer. Again, it won’t be specified in the legislation.

I’ll give a couple of examples of how, right now, it is thought that this will work. Begin with an assessment to determine if the person is employment-ready. Identify whether they have barriers to employment. Then an em­ployability plan will be created that responds to that person’s unique circumstance. The client will be connected to community outreach services to support them along the pathway to employment.

The employability plan could include education and skills training or life skills training. It might even specify volunteer work, if the person has been found not yet ready to take on work. It could also include obligations to look for and accept suitable employment. It’ll depend on the needs and circumstance of the person.

The employment planning will be removed from the application process. So clients will receive assistance sooner and can focus on employment planning after as­sistance is secured.

D. Davies: Interesting. You said it a couple of times in your last answer.

I’m curious as to the wording change: employment plan versus employability plan. I’m just wondering what the minister’s reasoning for changing that word throughout this piece of legislation is.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member’s question really goes to the heart of this fundamental change to the income assistance legislation we’re changing and as I spoke to on Thursday and in my first and second reading comments.

The existing system assumes that an income assistance client, if a job is offered to them, will be able to take that job, and they’ll be able to do that job. In fact, evidence tells us that often that’s not the case and that the reason that the person is unemployed is that they have real barriers to employment.

The intention of the legislative change is that, with the employability plan, people can become employable if they are not already.

D. Davies: All right, thanks.

Further to — well, it kind of ties into that — the previous question around the client needs assessment, the language basically says about satisfying the minister. I’m wondering what parameters and process will satisfy the minister in regard to the completion of the client needs assessment.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The intention of the change is that we are moving, as a ministry, away from the templated yes-no approach right now, where a person is ready for a job or not and, instead, moves into a much more iterative and conversational system. The individual’s own needs, their own abilities are fleshed out by the client needs assessment and then agreed on between the client and the ministry staff person. Their needs, in order to be employment-ready and become employment-ready, are articulated in the employability plan.

D. Davies: Can the minister elaborate more on some of those needs and what the ministry will be looking for?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Examples of items that might be canvassed between the ministry employee and the client would be questions like: are they housed? Do they have substance use or health challenges that have prevented them from getting work or being work ready? Do they need training, and do they have language barriers?

Those are the kinds of questions that would be canvassed in order to identify barriers and then together start to work on a plan to overcome them.

D. Davies: In clause 9(6)(a), (b), (c), and (d), it states these are “not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal to the tribunal.” It seems fairly heavy-handed. I’m just wondering if the minister could explain this decision.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m going to lay out the whole story for the member, because this is an important piece.

Under the current scheme, the one that we’re changing, entering into and complying with the employment plan are conditions of eligibility for assistance. That’s no longer the case with the change that we propose. Under this new legislation, we would provide that person with financial support and then assess their needs before working with them to develop an employability plan to assist them on the road to employment.

The decisions that result in a reduction or elimination of assistance are eligible for reconsideration and appeal to the independent Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal as well as to the courts through judicial review, and that is covered in section 17 of the legislation. The decisions under this section 6, requiring a client to parti­cipate in a needs assessment and to enter into an employability plan and to specify conditions in a plan, are not decisions that affect the amount of assistance or the eligibility of assistance. Rather, they are discretionary decisions that are made to support clients in order to get employment.

Needs assessments and employability plans are tools that help ministry staff work with clients to identify what supports and services are needed to improve their lives. If there was a disagreement on what kind of supports and services were identified, then there’s still an avenue for clients to have another ministry worker review their case under the reconsideration process. Because these deci­sions don’t affect eligibility or the amount of assistance, they’re not subject to appeal or judicial review.

Still, though, a client can appeal any consequence that flows out of these requirements. For example, if a client has their assistance reduced because they’re not complying with the requirement to complete a client needs assessment or an employability plan or they’re not complying with the conditions in an employability plan, those deci­sions are eligible for reconsideration and appeal to tribunal.

I’ll give a final example. A client might be required to participate in a client needs assessment. That decision is not subject to appeal because the process is intended to allow the ministry to assess a client’s needs before working together to develop an employability plan.

[3:30 p.m.]

If a client continually refuses to participate in a client needs assessment…. Why would they? It would be better connecting them with supports. But if they did, without any reason for the refusal, then the minister may impose a financial consequence, such as a reduction of $50 per month in their assistance. That decision to reduce assistance is subject to reconsideration and appeal to tribunal.

D. Davies: I recognize the examples provided, but I guess I still question the decision of the minister in regards to (a) through (d): “(a) a requirement that a person participate in a client needs assessment; (b) a requirement that a person enter into an employability plan; (c) the specification, in an employability plan, of conditions with which a recipient must comply; (d) the amendment, suspension or cancellation of an employability plan.”

These specific pieces, though, are not open to a review once the ministry has decided — or an appeal. I guess my question is more higher level on those points. The minister talked about some of the workings within, but I’m going back to those four points, where there is no appeal process. Again, it seems, and a few other things seem, quite paternalistic on some of this legislation here.

Why did the ministry feel that they would need to not allow this review or people to appeal this on those four points? I guess, maybe, I’ll make it a two-part question to speed things along. Why those four points on that, and could you provide a situation — maybe it will help me see the picture — of when you might use this?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think that I answered the member’s question in some detail in my previous answer, going right to the point. But I’ll try to summarize it again.

Anything that changes assistance, either the amount or the eligibility, is appealable. So if it has to do with the client accessing money, it absolutely goes to appeal. That hasn’t changed.

[3:35 p.m.]

What we have changed is the employment plan is now discretionary. For example, the person on income assistance is in the hospital. They’re not going to be…. A reasonable person would not ask them to do an employment plan. That’s a change. It used to not be discretionary; it is now.

If anybody is unhappy, though, then there are internal processes; that’s the right of reconsideration. But the appeal on the more formal decisions, approving or denying the actual assistance amounts — those remain subject to appeal. Individuals still have all the same tools they had before.

D. Davies: I guess I’m still confused, then. The minister is talking about “discretionary” and makes it sound like they don’t have to enter into an employment plan, but in (6)(b) it says “a requirement that a person enter into an employability plan” is mandatory and not subject to review. I’m not sure if I’m missing something here between those two.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The decision to require an individual to enter into an employability plan is not open to review by court. It’s not appealable. That is what I said before; that’s what this says. But anything that actually has to do with the income assistance is appealable. That’s really what matters, ultimately, to the person.

They are seeking income assistance. If they are denied income assistance, or if they’re found to be ineligible, or on anything about the amount of the assistance, they appeal that. All of the rest of this is the background that we are able to work out for the person. It’s creating a lot more permission and a lot more flexibility compared to the old regime.

D. Davies: That still, I guess, doesn’t answer my question. I get the other side of it — the assistance itself, the money and the funds out — but there are still, now, these sections. I’ll just use the requirement that a person enter into an employability plan or participate in the needs assessment. Those are mandatory, and there’s no review by court, on any ground, or to appeal that decision. I get that the minister is going to…. You know, if it’s a money issue, yes, they can appeal, but it’s those five points.

I’m wondering why the minister has made them an absolute. It seems like…. Is it because they’re poor that we’re doing this, the heavy-handedness? “You will participate in this, and it’s not up for review — period.” That is my question.

I want to ascertain, on (a) through (d), those specific pieces, why they are solidly directed, without a review by a court or any grounds for appeal, for an individual.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll just reassure the member that this was in the previous act, the 2002 act. So this might not be as fundamental a change as you’re thinking, but I appreciate the opportunity to try to clarify.

The needs assessment and the employability plans are tools to help my ministry staff work with clients to identify what supports and services are needed to improve their lives. If there’s a disagreement on what is identified, there’s still an avenue for clients to have another ministry worker review their case under the reconsideration process. If these decisions don’t affect eligibility or the amount of the assistance, then they’re not subject to appeal or judicial review. That’s why they’re set up this way.

Courts don’t adjudicate our rules. They adjudicate whether they were fairly or unfairly applied. So what a client could do, if they find that my ministry applied a fine or some kind of consequence because the individual refused to participate in the client needs assessment or the employability plan, then the client could appeal that. That again is about the financial consequence. It’s about the dollar amount and the application of the rules, not the process itself.

I will remind the member also that this only is held up for income assistance clients, not for disability assistance clients. It is for the class of assistance recipients who are deemed to have capacity or capability of work. A client on disability assistance could avail themselves of a client’s needs assessment and the training and supports, but it’s not applied to them as a requirement. That’s only for in­come assistance clients.

D. Davies: I’m going to go to (d) now, and I’m going to insert it into a complete sentence. It again goes back to the minister: “This isn’t a big deal. There are ways that people can work.” Here, when you write it: “A decision of the minister in respect” to the amendment, suspension or cancellation of an employment plan “is final and conclusive and not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal to the tribunal under section 17 (3).”

When you actually read it together, the minister can amend, suspend or cancel an employability plan and the individual has no recourse. Can the minister explain that to me?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say again that there’s no finan­cial consequence to an income assistance recipient of the cancellation or suspension of an employment plan — no financial consequence. I will give a bit more detail about what might be the circumstance or the considerations for a ministry staffer for intervening in this way.

Employability plans are there to assist clients with steps like participating in a WorkBC program. Section 9(5) pro­vides the authority to amend, suspend or cancel an em­ployability plan to ensure the plans continually reflect the client’s ability to follow any conditions in a plan, based on their current circumstance. This is meant to be evolving.

As we know, circumstance can change, both for individ­ual clients and also more broadly. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our ministry cancelled employment plans, as it was acknowledged that clients could not meet employment-related conditions, such as participating in employment training programs.

On the more individual level, a client could, for ex­ample, have an employability plan suspended temporarily because they are suffering from a temporary mental health condition that interferes with their ability to meet employment-related conditions, such as participating in a WorkBC program.

This provision is intended to ensure that the ministry can provide an exemption to the employability plan. This flexibility is needed so that we can adjust to a client’s changing circumstance and for those circumstances to be reflected in their employability plans.

This is not a new provision. It exists today in the current program and in the 2002 legislation.

D. Davies: Is there an independent organization or body that will provide oversight on the minister’s decision-making on this issue?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I think we have already discussed that a bit. It’s the tribunal, the EAAT, Employment and Assistance Tribunal, that would oversee decisions made by the ministry that a client did not agree with.

D. Davies: How much notice will recipients of employability plans receive should their plan be suspended or cancelled?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: There’s no notice period contemplated here, and that’s because cancellation of an income assistance client’s employability plan would always be to the benefit of the client. In some of the examples that I just raised, someone that has a mental health break, is hospitalized, or because of the pandemic…. We don’t want people to go out and engage in teaching because it would be unsafe for their health. It’s to the client’s benefit and responding to needs that they themselves have expressed.

D. Davies: Then I’m hearing that if…. Again, we see it in 6(d), the suspension or cancellation of an employability plan. I know you say it’s to the benefit, but there is no….

Should some circumstances that require the ministry, for whatever reason…. It requires someone’s plan to be cancelled or suspended. There is no notice?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: There is no notice required under the legislation, and again, this is intended so that the ministry staff have the ability to excuse an income assistant client from their employment obligations.

D. Davies: I get the intended, but often intent isn’t what we see on the other end, so it does concern me.

Were there actually any discussions at one time — or is there, down the road, even — to put in some sort of a plan where clients are notified that their employment plan is going to be suspended or cancelled, and what would be the downside of not having that, good or bad? It would seem to make sense to have some sort of notification go out.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say again there is no negative consequence to a client for their employment plan to be cancelled. There’s no financial consequence, no downside.

[3:55 p.m.]

The employability plan would not have been cancelled had there not been a conversation between the ministry worker and the individual, with the individual saying, “I’m in hospital now” or “I have had some kind of a terrible emergency that means that I cannot go out and look for work or carry on work.”

At the time of the pandemic, for example, although there was no legislative requirement to notify, our ministry staff let all the income assistance clients know that we were no longer requiring them to go out and look for jobs or get training. They were notified, but there was no legislative requirement for people to be notified. It was just the right thing to do.

I’ll maybe finally say that we really recognize that most of our income assistance clients take their obligations very seriously. They take their employment obliga­tions very seriously. It also is to their benefit. They are more closely connected with their community. They take pride in being providers for their families. It brings their income up.

Remembering that people can be on income assistance and be working at the same time, we have quite high earnings exemptions that allow people to do both. Certainly, for the individual, what we’ve found is that people want to work. If there is a circumstance where the ministry excuses them of their employment obligations, it really does mean that the client is in a bad way for one reason or another, and that they have asked us to have that be alleviated really means a lot to them.

I’m grateful to our ministry staff who are sympathetic and responsive in those circumstances.

D. Davies: Maybe I’ll summarize the last 20 minutes.

We’ve tried to ascertain this piece of legislation being put forward here we’ve asked questions about: employ­ability plans. The minister has the final say. It’s not up for review of a court or appeal. I asked the amendment or suspension cancellation question. How much notice would they receive? “Well, it’s not a big deal. It won’t make any difference.”

I’m asking these questions here, and it’s almost like this doesn’t matter. This whole section here is not going to make any difference to the person on the receiving end. Yet you have it in here, and I still fail to understand….

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

D. Davies: Chair, I still fail to understand, then, why this is even in here. The last dozen questions I’ve asked…. I’ve gone back to the language on appealing, that they can’t appeal. I’ve asked the questions around organizations overseeing this. “Well, it’s not really needed, because it’s not going to have an impact at the end.” Questions around providing examples of consequences…. “Well it’s not going to affect the person at the end.”

I’m very confused at this whole section. Why even have it here, if there’s nothing consequential to the end of it for the individual client? Unless I’m hearing wrong.

The Chair: Is there a question in that?

D. Davies: That was it.

The Chair: Sorry.

D. Davies: Can the minister confirm that that’s what I’m hearing?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I believe the record will show that I have answered each of the member’s questions. None of these have been dismissed.

The legislation is here. It’s all important. For this to be the first legislative overhaul in 22 years…. We have certainly learned and heard from clients about what works and doesn’t work for them.

Many of the pieces that the member raised, concerns about the implementation and how it will actually work on the ground, are not changes from the 2002 rules. But the intent and the…. Well, what is changed in this section is absolutely significant to a person on income assistance.

To introduce the client needs assessment…. We are, for the first time, tailoring, with them and for them, what they need to overcome, the barriers to having a job and being able to keep a job that they’ve experienced in the past, and moving away from the old templated form, which just presumed everybody was ready and able to accept a job if one was offered to them. We know things are more complex now.

To be able to take each of those barriers — whether it’s language, homelessness, addiction, literacy, a lack of training or an anger management problem — whatever is identified for that particular individual person, one at a time, working with them to identify what their needs are and then to build the plan to meet those needs.

The change of removing the requirement for dependent youth, as we canvassed half an hour or so ago, is a significant change for those young people, although I see that I haven’t convinced the member of this.

To have, for an individual on income assistance who is in hospital or maybe is accepted for PWD and moves to a different class of assistance…. The ministry needs to have the ability to cancel that employment plan. That individual’s needs have entirely changed by virtue of them being in hospital and not being able to carry out the employment plan, or it just doesn’t apply to them anymore because they are now on PWD, in which there are not employability requirements. There is employability opportunity, by the way, but it’s not a requirement.

I have taken the member’s questions seriously. I think I have outlined what is actually changing on the ground and the fact that the relaxation in some of the rules is to the benefit of the client.

B. Banman: As we’ve heard, clause 2 of this proposed legislation states: “The minister may at any time amend, suspend or cancel an employability plan.” This decision would be “final and conclusive and not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal to the tribunal under section 17.” The minister has basically reaffirmed that.

The minister has also said, as we have heard, that there would be no financial consequences. However, given — and the ministry was kind enough to clarify with us — that out-of-pocket expenses or costs incurred by an individual in the pursuit of actioning an employability plan that is subsequently cancelled by the minister, at her sole discretion or his sole discretion, would not be reimbursed, why would that same individual not be permitted to a review or an appeal process?

[4:05 p.m.]

Furthermore, when it comes down to the minister’s sole discretion…. Is the minister held to any accountability? What if that particular individual was quite vocal on social media platforms and actually embarrassed said minister or angered said minister?

It seems to me that this is awfully one-sided, that there is a financial consequence and that there is not a proper appeal process put in place for an individual that may be at the end of their wits and frustrated with the entire process and speaks out. The minister could, at their sole discretion, be rather punitive, which could involve financial problems to the particular applicant, as well, if they have out-of-pocket expenses.

The Chair: Member, please continue.

B. Banman: The question is: does the minister think this is fair? Was staff correct that out-of-pocket expenses are not reimbursable?

The minister, at their sole discretion, could instantly change it. A person who is…. We’re dealing with people who are the most vulnerable, with regards to disposable income or income — period. Why are they not entitled to an appeal process?

Yes, if the minister is to reduce their compensation that they’re getting from the ministry. But why are they not entitled to compensation for out-of-pocket expenses, one? And does the minister think, two, that this kind of absolute power, to be able to, at a whim, change…? Does she think that’s fair without an appeal process? On both of those points, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I can’t imagine an income assistance recipient, for whom my ministry cancelled their employment obligations — that they would be angry about that and that they would call us out on social media. Again, cancelling somebody’s employment plan means that they no longer have work obligations.

That said, I’ll clarify the question about paying for skills training or any education out of pocket as part of an em­ployment plan. Training and education costs, things like tuition, books, supplies, equipment, daycare, transportation costs, any of those things that would support an individual to become employment-ready, are not typically paid out of pocket.

That’s something that we pay for, as a provincial government, through WorkBC or other providers. That is to societal benefit. We want to get people to be employment-ready, and we want for workers that want to hire people.

[4:10 p.m.]

It’s a smart investment for us to pay directly for these services as part of somebody’s employability plan.

In the very unusual event that a client chooses to pay their own costs going through WorkBC…. I can’t imagine who would do that or what circumstance. Indeed, those costs would not be reimbursed. Much better for somebody who is in the situation and is low on income to accept the child care, the transportation subsidies, the WorkBC training that is paid for by the provincial government. Nobody has to be out of pocket.

A. Olsen: I’ve been listening to this discussion around clause 2 here.

I’m wondering. What is the point of sub (6)? If it doesn’t change the outcome for the person financially, the client financially, what’s the point of even stating that there can be no appeal and that it’s the sole discretion of the minister?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: To the member’s question, the employment plan is being removed from legislation. The phrases and the tools…. The client needs assessment and the employability plan are being introduced into legislation. That’s what is achieved by the sections covered by clause 2.

A. Olsen: That’s right; (1) through (5) outline the client needs assessment in the employability plan.

Then we get to what is, I think, section 9 of the…. It will be section 9 of the act. Sub (6) says: “A decision of the minister in respect of any of the following matters is final and conclusive and not open to review by the court….” I guess what I’m trying to understand is: if it doesn’t have an impact, why do we need to state so explicitly here?

I think, perhaps, the minister and anybody who might be watching this…. There’s some discomfort around the powers that were granted to the minister back in the early 2000s. Actually, as the minister has said in this debate, it’s just being carried forward by this.

Maybe I would say, as a sidebar, that just because it was in the…. I mean, we’re amending the act because we’ve learned that it’s not good enough. So just because it was already in the act doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be worthy of challenging here as to why we’re carrying it forward into this amendment.

The minister just stated it’s because we’ve now changed the language of the employability plan. I’m wondering about the utility of having this section that says the decision of the minister is final and conclusive and not open to review by a court or any ground or appeal.

I recognize this is about, perhaps, the minister cancelling an employability plan. I understand that this is fairly limited in scope. However, it does, I think, demonstrate, as my colleagues have mentioned with concern, the ability of a minister to come in and just scrap something that, perhaps, somebody has spent a lot of time working on and working towards and then not having any recourse. I think that’s the challenge.

I’m just wondering what the utility of sub (6) is within this clause.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I feel like I have explained this in a number of different ways. There is recourse. It’s just not through an appeal process or something that would be reviewed by a court. For income of a client, all rights of appeal remain available. I think it’s a fairness principle and a transparency principle to outline what is appealable and what is not.

Again, the circumstance where an employability plan would be cancelled would be, again, all to the client’s benefit. This is, I think, something that I’ve described a number of times over the last half hour or so.

A. Olsen: I think that what’s trying to be understood is that…. What is this sub (6) here…? What is it protecting? It’s got to be necessary for some reason.

The minister says that there is an opportunity for the client to challenge a decision. It’s just through a different mechanism. If that’s the case, why then does the minister feel this extra level of protection, basically removing the court from an appeal process through legislation, is a necessary addition to this legislation?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’ll say two things. This is necessary because if an income assistance client’s circumstance dictates it, we can do it immediately so that there’s no interruption to their income assistance.

The other thing I’d say is that this is a continuance of what was the old section 9 (7) legislation, the wording in the old legislation, and of the input that we’ve had over the last year from a great number of people. A change to this section of the legislation was not identified by advocates or clients of income assistance.

[4:20 p.m.]

Not going to court to appeal the cancellation of employment obligations was not one of the barriers that people described encountering as income assistance recipients and wasn’t one of the pieces of legislation that they were asking us to change.

A. Olsen: Presumably, then, the minister would be challenged to oppose an amendment that strikes, in clause 2, what is the new 9(6), because there’s already protection. The only thing that it really removes is the language that says that the minister’s decision on this “is final and conclusive and not open to review by a court or…ground or to appeal to the tribunal under section 17(3)….”

The minister has yet to demonstrate…. I mean, in the response that I just got from the minister, it suggested that this clause is necessary in order to ensure transferability, basically, from the old system to the new system. I don’t see there being any need for that part of the clause, sub (6), to achieve that ease of transfer from one to the next, because all that would be removed, then, is the finality and conclusiveness of the minister’s decision. All the rest of it could be transferred quite easily.

While the minister stands and says that responses have been coming, responses have actually been evading the point that’s trying to be raised here, which is trying to understand what the utility of…. Just because it was in the legislation for the past decade doesn’t mean that it’s right.

Because it hasn’t been raised…. Members of this House are raising it. Just because it wasn’t raised isn’t a reason to not have this discussion or to not address this directly. But there hasn’t been a direct addressing of whether or not sub (6) is necessary in order to achieve what the minister just defended this decision to do.

If we were to just move an amendment to this, allow for (1) through (5) to remain but remove (6), what effect would that have on this section?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I object to the member’s characterization of my answers as being evasive. It’s not fair. But if you would entertain a five- or eight-minute break, then I’m happy to confer with my colleagues, anticipating the member’s amendment.

I’m really not trying to be obstructive here, and if that’s the motion that you’re intending to put on the floor, then I’m happy to look at that with my colleagues if the Chair would entertain a brief recess.

A. Olsen: No, I have not tabled an amendment. I don’t have an amendment to table.

What I was creating was a scenario in which…. What I’m trying to get to, and the minister failed….

Okay. My apologies to the minister for the use of the word “evasion.” I can understand how that might have been taken.

However, I will say there has been no direct response to what the material impact of removing sub (6) out of this would be to the response that the minister gave previously, which was that this clause is needed in order to ensure the ease of transferability.

My understanding is if we removed sub (6), the ease of transferability would still happen. The only thing that would be removed is the minister’s finality and conclusivity in the decision, and it would open up a broader set of tools for the client, should they choose to use it, in this very narrow — I realize it — prescription of the minister cancelling their employability plan.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The first time the member asked me what the implication would be of removing this section, I suggested that we have a recess so that I can canvass that question.

Again, I object to the member’s characterization of me not giving a direct answer. I offered to give him a direct answer to his question of what would be the impact of removing it, if he will just give us a couple of minutes to confer.

The Chair: In order to aid the dialogue in this chamber, I will take the minister’s request, and we will take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In our income assistance regime, income assistance clients have a right to income, and they have a responsibility to employment, and those responsibilities to employment are not a matter for the courts.

If we did not have section 9(6), we are of the view that income assistance clients might appeal. We can’t imagine any circumstance in which they would appeal this, but if they did, it would be an administrative burden to tribunal and to the courts on process decisions that are difficult to adjudicate and have no financial impact for income assistance clients.

S. Furstenau: To the minister’s response on this, I think what is of interest to us is, again…. I understand in her response that she said that it would present the opportunity, if I’m phrasing this properly, for people to appeal a decision around their employability plan.

Is it not unusual for a piece of legislation to pre-determine whether something can be appealed to a court?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I am informed it is not unusual.

S. Furstenau: I’m thinking about the power imbalance in the relationship here that exists between a person seeking income assistance and the minister, as it’s laid out in this legislation.

A clause like this, in my mind, really contributes to a deepening of that power imbalance. There’s already the imbalance in that the person seeking assistance, really, if you read the legislation, is in so many ways at the mercy of the minister: required to do so by the minister, participate to the minister’s satisfaction, enter into an employability plan with the minister.

I understand these are delegated authorities, that the person seeking employment income assistance is not having a meeting directly with the minister but with the peo­ple who have the delegated authority.

The minister earlier indicated that this was the first overhaul of this legislation in 22 years. How does this constitute an overhaul?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: By repealing section 9 and substituting the proposed text in clause 2, the fundamental difference for an applicant and a recipient of income assistance, and again not disability assistance, is that instead of being required, as a condition of receiving income assistance, to fill out a templated employment plan, which may result in the individual going through a cycle of writing resumes and applying online for jobs for which they are not qualified…. If that individual has been experiencing serious barriers to employability, none of that process of continuing to cycle through and prove that they are making efforts and to file monthly reports on their efforts to seek a job….

What is achieved instead by this change, of both introducing the client needs assessment and then the employability plan, is that the individual is, in a personalized way, with their worker in my SDPR office, able to identify what kind of training supports — they might be health care supports, they might be housing supports, or they might be employability training supports — they need in order to set them up to be in a position to accept part-time work, to be able to move along that continuum of work, to accept full-time work and then to be supported in succeeding in that role and retaining that job.

That is what is achieved in this change that is proposed here in clause 2.

The Chair: House Leader of the Third Party. I had a blank there for a minute. Sorry.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s fine.

I appreciate that answer. It provides, I think, further evidence as to exactly what it would be that an individual, a client who’s engaged with the ministry on this, would not want cancelled from the employability plan: the whole host of supports that were outlined there.

Would it be true, then, that the minister and the delegated authority to the SDPR worker set all this series of supports up and then the minister, based on the minister’s own decision…?

[4:45 p.m.]

It doesn’t appear that there needs to be any specific reason articulated why. The minister may at any time, sub (5), cancel all of that, suspend or cancel the employability plan or amend it.

This is further to my colleague’s question about the power imbalance. We have a situation where there is somebody who is looking to become more employable than they are. They set up all of these supports, the training, everything that gets them to the point where they are in the position to get the job that they desire to have.

Then the ministry invokes section 9(5): cancelled. Then the person says: “Well, hold on a second here. We were on a track to getting to greater employability. I’d like to…. No, I can’t. I can’t dispute that.” We have sub (6), which is that nobody can question the minister’s wisdom in the decision.

With that, I think there’s evidence here that we should perhaps balance this a little bit. We shouldn’t have people working towards creating plans to become more employable and then hand the minister the ultimate power.

I’m fine with handing the minister the power to cancel and amend, but I’m not prepared to give both (5) and (6) together. By connecting (5) and (6) together, we have created a power imbalance in this piece that is not desirable.

If we’re updating this act, then I think that at this point I’m going to move an amendment to strike sub (6) from clause 2.

[SECTION 2, by striking the underline text as shown:

(6) A decision of the minister in respect of any of the following matters is final and conclusive and not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal to the tribunal under section 17 (3)[reconsideration and appeal rights]:

(a) a requirement that a person participate in a client needs assessment;

(b) a requirement that a person enter into an employability plan;

(c) the specification, in an employability plan, of conditions with which a recipient must comply;

(d) the amendment, suspension or cancellation of an employability plan.]

The Chair: We will take a brief recess to look at the amendment and distribute it.

The committee recessed from 4:47 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: I’ll call the committee back to order. The proposed amendment has been reviewed and the amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I thank the member for the amendment and the spirit in which it is intended. I move to stand the clause down so that we can review with legislative counsel. I’ll be able to say, in addition, that it has consequences to the disability assistance legislation as well. So we would like to take a little bit more time.

Clause 2 stood down.

On clause 3.

D. Davies: Given the enhanced powers of the minister to request information and verification under subsections (1.1) and (1.2) for determining eligibility and assessing compliance, how will the ministry ensure these requirements do not place undue burden on the applicants and recipients, especially those who are already in vulnerable positions?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: There are no enhanced powers in this section.

D. Davies: Okay. I guess my question, then, even re­moving that piece, is: how will the ministry ensure that the requirements don’t place an undue burden on applicants and recipients, especially those who are in vulnerable situations, whether they’re homeless or….? Homeless comes to mind as probably one of the most challenging.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Not included in this legislation, but perhaps something that we could canvass more in estimates, is a new way that our ministry is making income and disability assistance more accessible to people, particularly those who are at risk of or are unhoused right now, is using our community integration specialists.

They are going out to where people are — Aboriginal friendship centres, homeless encampments, drop-in centres, all kinds of service providers that will invite them in. They can help people in this spot complete income and disability assistance intakes, help them replace identification or direct them to tax filing, in all kinds of ways that can make people more eligible for assistance. That is an expansion, in addition to phone, Internet and walking into an office, to make accessibility to income assistance more available and more amenable.

In this particular section, clause 3, the only material change that speaks directly to the member’s question is the piece about dependent youth, relaxing the requirement that they be required to go through the employability plan, as we discussed a couple of clauses earlier.

D. Davies: What measures are in place to protect the privacy and security of the information that is being collected during this process?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thanks to the member for the question. The same FOIPPA provisions and protections that apply to any government service are in place for administration of income assistance. For example, a client applying for income assistance might go through the My Self Serve portal on the B.C. government website. Data collected there is stored in a secure system. Workers are trained and comply with information and privacy requirements of FOIPPA. Nothing has changed in this legislation. The umbrella of requirements under FOIPPA apply to this stream of work, as they do for all others in our B.C. government.

S. Furstenau: Just comparing, subsection (1) is repealed on section 10 of the existing legislation. Then, this (1.1) and (1.2) are added. In 1.1, it says:

“The minister may, for the purpose of determining or auditing eligibility for income assistance, hardship assistance or supplement, do one or more of the following: direct an applicant or recipient to supply the minister with information within the time and in the manner specified by the minister; seek verification of any information supplied to the minister by an applicant or recipient; direct an applicant or recipient to supply verification of any information the applicant or recipient supplied to the minister.”

I’m wondering. In all the consultations that happened around proposed amendments to this legislation, how much input was around the onerous nature of so much of the system on people who are struggling? We certainly hear it in our constituency office a great deal from people who feel so overwhelmed by the endless series of tasks, timelines and deadlines that they often give up.

I’m curious, with this subsection, one how much in the consultation was there about how people feel overwhelmed by the onerous kind of demands, and two, does the minister think this response to those issues that are raised in all of our constituency offices by people who are struggling to get assistance from this system…?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Yes. Heard from a lot of people in the consultation about the complexity of the system, the challenge of navigating it. There are parts of this bill, deeper into Bill 7, that do speak directly to making the system more fair, taking out some of the complexity, taking out some of the mean-spirited rules and really quite punishing penalties. Later, beyond clause 3, we can speak in more detail to that.

I would say, though, overall, this being an income assistance framework for the program…. There are responsibilities, and there is a reciprocity of responsibility. In order to provide assistance, we do have to ask questions about assets, about income. There is a balance there that we are cognizant of.

To be able to make the determination about eligibility, personal questions do need to be asked. We are trying to do that in the most respectful and, also, fair and transparent way.

S. Furstenau: I’m curious. For understanding the kind of landscape that we’re talking about, does the minister have data available about how many people who apply for income assistance are deemed not to be eligible and just a breakdown of what it is that makes them ineligible?

Then as a follow-up to that, for people who don’t have an income and are deemed ineligible, what are the options available to them?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I don’t have data on the numbers of people that have been found ineligible. That’s not affected by this legislation.

[5:10 p.m.]

I can say that if somebody was found to be ineligible — maybe, for example, they didn’t have ID; some kind of barrier like that — they would qualify for hardship assistance. That happens quite often within our ministry. They would not qualify for income assistance, but they would qualify for hardship assistance, which gives them income.

S. Furstenau: I noted in the budget that the budgeting for hardship assistance is actually intended to decline over years. Can the minister just explain what the difference is between income assistance and hardship assistance?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Hardship assistance is temporary, and it’s not affected by this legislation.

A. Olsen: I’m wondering if…. I’m looking at clause 3 here, (1.2)(a), talking about “the time and in the manner specified by the minister.” Can the minister please provide some clarity on what a general time frame might look like in this clause and maybe describe “in the manner specified by the minister,” how information can be collected or how it can be brought to the SDPR staff to comply with this section?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We don’t usually stipulate timelines. The clients are usually very motivated to move things along themselves in a way that works for them. But that said, the client needs assessment program, if this legislation passes, will start up this summer. We’ll start it in a phased way and learn from experience around what clients need to be successful and what kinds of timelines are the most appropriate for them.

[5:15 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Is there a specific regulation-making power that’s within this to set this to be more than kind of a wide-open learning environment, in which there….

I guess what I’m looking for is some structure. Normally, in legislation, we create the structure. Regulation then provides some more of the detail so that, then, a client can expect to be treated similarly to the clients before them and the clients coming after. There’s not a new precedent being set with each client.

What I’m trying to get an understanding of is what the consistent treatment is that a client could expect in engaging the ministry around this clause.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The member is asking about consistent treatment for clients of income assistance and the employability planning process.

[5:20 p.m.]

Right now we have, within my ministry, a large employment training program, the WorkBC centres, and a lot of programs that are funded partly with federal dollars — thank you — and go to support people that have experienced barriers in the workplace and are often delivered by community-based employment service and employment training providers.

We have got a large existing ecosystem of options for people, and those are covered with a lot of rules and standards that have been effective in working for some time.

What is intentioned with this legislation is to much better link income assistance clients and their employability requirements or obligations with that existing system of employment supports and plans. So moving away from the templated process, which is not personal, not suited to the individual person’s own needs at all, moving instead to something that is…. Every plan will look different for each income assistance client.

There is a public-facing policy and procedure manual that will be updated once this legislation has passed and also with any associated regulatory changes that are re­quired to implement.

A. Olsen: I was much more specifically wondering how it is that 1.2(a) is to be applied. In the first question that was asked to the minister about this, the suggestion was made that we would see how things were going in the summer, I think was the spirit of the answer, and then go with it from there.

This section here, this piece here, is about a recipient or a dependent youth to supply the minister with information within a time and in the manner specified. I was asking the minister about what those timelines are. They’re undefined right now.

I think what this highlights for me, and what the minister’s response highlights for me, is a level of vagueness and, frankly, opacity in this process that maintains a pretty strict power imbalance that my colleague was talking about. With this kind of level of opacity, the ministry is able to maintain full control over the process. We saw in an earlier section that has now been stood down, the ability to cancel something without there being any way for there to be an appeal.

In this case, we have a situation where the minister will require a youth to supply information to the minister within a time and manner that is acceptable and specified by the minister with no…. There’s no structure to that. There’s no consistency.

The response from the minister was simply — I might be wrong, and I’ll accept the minister in correcting the record if I misheard the response: “We’ll see how the summer rolls out.”

Normally, what ends up happening is there is some consistency and some structure that’s outlined in legislation, or at least some powers that are created through the legislation that’s then laid out in the regulation-making process.

Can we expect to see some regulations around what those timelines are and what the expectations of the youth that are engaging with the minister…? You have to understand the power dynamic that exists here. You’ve got someone who’s empowered by the minister to set timelines, to set expectations for information to be gathered.

There is nothing guaranteeing that youth A, youth B and youth C are going to be treated with any level of consistency. If you just think of those as three different individ­uals, you think of those engaging with three different individuals across three different communities geographically, you can start to understand the reason why it’s important that we’re clear, rather than just seeing how it rolls out through the summer and then going with it from there.

I’m just wondering if the minister can provide, specifically, what expectations can we have to see this structure that we’re seeking in regulation or somewhere in fairly short order.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As I said, the program of client needs assessment and the client employment plan will start to roll out this summer and will expand. There will be policy or regulation to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. These aren’t, every single case, a one-off, but certainly we need enough flexibility in order to meet individual circumstance.

The member is right. I overlooked his question about the focus on dependent youth. A reminder again that the needs assessment and employability plan are voluntary for dependent youth. There’s no consequence if they choose not to participate.

The consistency overall is people are treated fairly: consistency in fairness, consistency in treatment. But we are certainly moving to a system that is less rigid, moving away from the templated format and building the policy and regulation once the legislation is adopted by this House.

A. Olsen: There’s no requirement to participate here. That’s fine.

[5:30 p.m.]

However, a youth that is participating should expect to have a relationship with their person that’s not imbalanced, that is fair and that can’t easily be manipulated by the person that’s holding the power. From the language I see here, that doesn’t exist. There is no…. There is simply a statement here that says…. There’s also no reference in the legislation that this will be laid out in further detail through regulation.

Also, everybody, from the moment this legislation comes into force, the first…. I guess it’s like a pilot project for the first people. We’re kind of going to see how it works out for them, yet there doesn’t appear to be any recourse.

There’s nothing stopping the minister, and I use that term recognizing a lot of these powers and the decisions and the work is delegated to somebody else. But the minister is represented in the language of this bill as holding the ultimate power and authority here. There’s nothing stopping them from being unreasonable in their requests in this. There’s no protection afforded the youth that choose to participate.

I’m wondering what safety and security can be afforded the person against somebody who’s leveraging the minister’s power, who’s been delegated the minister’s power, and is leveraging it in an unfair or manipulative way.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: It’s reasonable, as a condition of receiving income assistance, that an income assistance recipient be asked to show measures or steps that they’ve been taking to get the training to get the elements that were agreed on between the client and the worker in the employability plan. So that’s a reasonable step to ask for that information. That’s my position.

At the same time, government has a responsibility to outline, to set out the policies and the rules that govern that information gathering, same as we do right now with the existing income assistance legislation. If a worker is thought by the client to be unfairly applying the rules, then there is a right to contest that, just the same as now. But we really hope that doesn’t happen because we think we’ve got good people on the front line and we are training them in administrative fairness, cultural sensitivity.

[5:35 p.m.]

We want people to succeed in moving along the continuum of employment. That’s the spirit in which this legislation is brought forward, and that’s our expectation of our SDPR workers on the front line: that they are moving people and helping people along a path in a way that works for them. That’s my expectation and my hope.

A. Olsen: I’ll end with this. There’s a lot of language used in this debate around intentionality. The government intends for this bill to be this. There’s some language that’s been used to suggest that the people on the front line are good people. I’m not disputing that. I’m not suggesting anything otherwise.

I have been in a lot of bill debates over the years where issues like this that are being raised now would be fleshed out or it would be described how it is that that client-caseworker relationship should be, specifically in scenarios where there is a pretty distinct power imbalance. It’s im­por­tant to be more prescriptive than less to ensure we’re not just banking on everybody operating in the way that we expect them to. That is going to be the case for the vast majority of the time.

A lot of the clauses that are built in and the sections that are built in to this legislation, and the power that’s given in order to create regulation on the other side, are, again, to create consistency and structure so that no matter whether you’re a client here, a client in Prince George, a client in Fort St. John, a client in Dawson Creek or in Vancouver, you get similar treatment from the system. If you have one caseworker or another caseworker, they’re held to the similar standard.

I understand in this clause here specifically that within a time and manner specified by the minister creates an opaque scenario where we don’t really have clarity on what it is. I understand that there’s got to be some flexibility.

You say it’s going to be 30 days, and it’s going to take 45 days in order to get that piece of identification that’s needed. I can understand why there’s flexibility that’s needed. The point that needs to be made in all of this is that power imbalance.

I think the concern that was raised after asking the question…. This specific piece became much more concerning to me when I heard the response from the minister that we’re going to see how it works out this summer and just go from there.

I just think it needs to be consistently raised throughout this that we’re dealing with very vulnerable people in many cases. We’re dealing with people who are engaging with folks that are making decisions about their life chances, who are making decisions about their future economic scenarios. That’s a very stressful, very tense scenario. The more structure, the more information that can be afforded the person who’s engaging that government body and that government decision-maker, the better.

That was the reason why I stood to raise my point. I’ll take my seat.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

D. Davies: Could the minister elaborate on what these regulations would entail in regards to the reporting and provide some examples?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Section 7 right now includes specific requirements about how a person or a family must report to the ministry to be eligible for assistance. It includes…. They must use the form. That’s the language in the legislation. They must use the form specified by the minister, and every recipient must provide a signed statement.

That’s the existing system. That doesn’t allow for flexibility. It creates barriers for clients. What we heard during the public consultation over the last year, both from clients and from ministry staff, really emphasized the need to simplify the reporting requirements.

We, in this legislation, are changing the wording of the provision to refer to a report. That allows us to use different forms of reporting for different clients so that clients are not having to navigate reporting requirements that are not relevant to their circumstance. For example, a single person doesn’t have to see the same questions on their monthly reporting form as a family with dependent children.

In addition, moving the requirement to the regulations, which is also done in this section, further enables future flexibility to support our ongoing work and efforts to improve services for our clients.

D. Davies: With these reports that need to be given to the minister, in accordance with the regulations…. The minister maybe alluded a little bit to it in her last ques­tion slightly. How does the ministry plan to support folks that have literacy challenges or mental health issues, capacity issues?

This is more, probably, a general question. I’m guessing that some of these are already in place right now, but if the minister could elaborate on those, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: My friend across the way is asking about income assistance clients who have literacy or mental health challenges and barriers to fulfilling the reporting requirements. That’s a challenge that people face right now in the existing legislation, let alone what we’re changing here.

Our ministry is certainly aware of that, and we work to accommodate barriers like that. An example might be…. People can do their reporting in person. They can do it over the phone. They can do it through our community integration specialists, who are embedded in community and go to meet people where they are. If someone, for example, appears at our ministry office and is hearing impaired, we would arrange for a translator to come and support them.

[5:45 p.m.]

This is the work of our ministry and front-line staff across the whole system, the whole province.

What’s being achieved in this clause is relaxing, from “the” reporting form to “a” reporting form to allow us to, in regulation, have different forms to respond to people and families’ unique circumstance.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

D. Davies: Could the minister explain why the clause imposes consequences on the family unit as a whole in the case of a recipient failing to meet the specified obligations?

We kind of talked about, I think it was in clause 2, the definition of a family unit, and the minister stated that it was to keep them separate. It seems like this is now kind of going against that, where if there is an issue, the family unit can receive the consequences. I’m just wondering if you can explain that, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This is written the way that it is because a family unit that together qualifies for income assistance…. If one person is removed from eligibility because of a failure of some sort, we can’t then separate out the income assistance payment to different members of the family. It is a single cheque sent to the family unit. That’s why this is written the way it is.

D. Davies: Maybe just to clarify or go a little deeper, though…. If you have a child living in their house who is receiving a benefit under a family unit and someone else there is as well…. It’s just to help me clarify, just in case. Is there any way where if one person is committing such an issue where there is a consequence, it will impact another person in that household? Is there a possibility for that to happen? Or is this to, hopefully, prevent that?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: It’s an important question. I’m going to go into a bit more detail here just to make sure that it’s clear what we’re trying to achieve here and also what we’re moving away from and why.

The current section 13 of the existing legislation penalizes anybody who fails to search for employment while on assistance or anyone who fails to accept suitable em­ployment or quits their job or is dismissed for just cause while they are on assistance or 60 days before applying for assistance. Again, currently, if the family has children, there’s a $100 penalty, a reduction in assistance for two months. If it is an individual or an adult couple, then the penalty is ineligibility.

That’s what we’re trying to repair here. We don’t think that’s fair. We don’t think it’s reasonable. It doesn’t make it easy for someone who’s in real trouble to then get the help that they need. We also know that not everyone is capable of finding and holding onto a job without support, and denying people support because they are fired from a job pushes them into deeper poverty and, potentially, homelessness.

We have changed the consequences in section 13. They will now be tied to the client needs assessment and the employability plans. We’ll no longer deny support to people who are applying for assistance because they were fired from a job or because they failed to search for a job. Both of those things would push people deeper into poverty. Instead, with the changes here, in clause 5, we’ll provide support right away to help them on the path to employment.

We will apply consequences if someone repeatedly refuses to participate in a client needs assessment, if they refuse to enter into an employability plan after we’ve worked with them to assess their needs. Consequences will be applied if someone does not comply with the conditions in their employability plan, conditions that will only be applied after we’ve worked with them to assess their needs. The consequences will be detailed in regulation.

D. Davies: Thank you for clarifying that.

The colleague previous…. I think I mentioned it a couple of times. There are a lot of pieces that are quite opaque in this and open to interpretation and such. Here’s another example of that. If “a recipient does not, to the satisfaction of the minister….” And it goes on.

Could the minister elaborate on “satisfaction of the minister,” what that entails in this clause? How does that look? Could some details and examples be provided?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This, again, goes to the fundamental change that’s happening in this section. Right now the default is the person is cut off assistance. What we are moving towards, instead, is assessing the person’s needs and moving away from the assumption that, if somebody doesn’t comply, it’s their fault, and they are cut off assistance immediately.

Instead, the process would be to assess the individual person’s needs and do what we can to ameliorate their inability to move towards employability and to implement their employability plan. Work on that as much as we can before a consequence or penalty is applied. That’s the spirit of this work here.

D. Davies: Again, I get the spirit of it. When we’re looking back into, I guess, the question of the satisfaction of the minister…. We’re looking at legislation. I go back to…. It’s very vague. It’s completely open to interpretation.

I think it’s important that people have an idea, if a recipient doesn’t participate in the completion and follow along with what’s being said…. There’s an idea of how to satisfy the ministry on attaining these.

The end part of my question was: are there some ex­amples that the minister can provide in regards to what this looks like as a consequence? If there’s any idea…. We can have an example to tie things together.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I know the member can appreciate that with more than 200,000 clients and moving to a more flexible plan, moving to an employability plan that is more tailored to them, there’s going to be great range in here.

On the very far end, of a client who has received assistance already but refuses to engage, refuses to do the assessment, refuses to take part in the training, comes to the office to do the assessment and then refuses to participate — those would all be examples of someone who is not engaging and not fulfilling their responsibility in this. That would be an example of someone to whom a consequence would be applied, defined in regulation.

As we right now already have regulations that define the consequences for someone that does not fulfil an employment plan, this section is reflecting the change from the employment plan, the client needs assessment and em­ployability plan. Then regulation and policy will flow from that, but it won’t look so different from the existing regulation that’s in place to support the existing employment plan requirement.

D. Davies: In sub (b) here, it talks about timelines: “…when required to do so by the minister.” Could the minister explain what safeguards are in place to protect many of our vulnerable population who would be applying for this? What supports would be there to help an individual if they could not meet the said timelines in (b)?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Could I just ask the member to clarify? There aren’t timelines in this section.

D. Davies: Yes, and I could have explained it better. If the recipient doesn’t enter, for consequences, that is, into an eligibility plan when required to do so by the minister…. I guess my question is: if there’s a person that cannot attain, by the requirements, that timeline given by the ministry, what is there to support that person to make sure that they don’t lose their benefits or lose whatever else?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: It’s probably a good place to back up a little bit for the benefit of all the members of the public that are watching this — or at least my parents.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I dream.

Right now, with our existing system, an income assistance client is required to follow an employment plan. It’s templated, it’s very rigid, and it presumes that they don’t have the kinds of barriers that the member mentions, that if a job is offered to them, they should be in shape and willing and able to take that job.

What we are moving to, instead, is replacing that templated employment plan, which an income assistance client is obligated to honour but realistically can’t.

[6:05 p.m.]

The client needs assessment is the really key piece in your question. That a client who has been experiencing multiple barriers…. Those barriers would be identified in the process of the client needs assessment. Together with the SDPR worker, the income assistance client would be looking at what their needs are and articulating what their needs were in order to be successful in the workplace environment. Then flowing from the client needs assessment is the employability plan, which is a condition of them receiving income assistance that is absolutely amendable and moveable if their circumstances change.

That’s partly why it was important to have the discussion we had in the earlier clause about being able to cancel that employability plan if an individual’s, say, mental health challenges escalated, or their physical health, or they had a personal family emergency that made it impossible for them to follow that employability plan. That could be cancelled so that they could simply have the confidence of being on assistance but without the work and employment obligations placed on them at the same time.

What you’re saying is just exactly what it is that we’re trying to achieve with this piece.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you, Chair.

D. Davies: Thanks to the minister for that.

Section (2) here: “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may specify by regulation categories of recipients or family units in respect of which one or more of the consequences prescribed under subsection (1) do not apply.” I guess my question is: is there going to be generalized regulation on this, or will it be done case by case?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: This is generalized, in response to the member’s question. It’s not one by one, case by case. But the regulation is built based on a class or groupings of parents. For example, a single parent with children under the age of three is exempted from employment obligations.

A. Olsen: Okay, apologies if I’m doubling up here, but I just had a question on 5 — well, what is 13(2) here. “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may specify by regulation categories of recipients or family units in respect….” Can the minister provide some examples of what might show up in regulation for specific categories of recipients?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: A good example would be the example that I just gave. A single parent with children under the age of three would not be required to follow an employability plan.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

The Chair: On clause 7, I note clause 2 has been stood down. Subclause 7(b) makes reference to subsection 9(6) of the Employment and Assistance Act, which is proposed to be struck by the motion to amend clause 2, moved by the House Leader of the Third Party. Therefore, it would make sense to also stand down clause 7 pending completion of consideration of clause 2, if that seems acceptable to the room.

Yes? Okay. So we will stand down clause 7, until we have the discussion of clause 2.

Clause 7 stood down.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

[6:10 p.m.]

D. Davies: Could the minister confirm whether this means that there are absolutely no time restrictions to apply with regards to the commencement of an appeal or tribunal? If the answer is no, then what time limits could apply?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The outcome here that we seek is that the appeal timeline will now be set out in regulation to provide more flexibility in making changes as the need arises.

We heard the current timeline of seven business days does not provide clients with adequate time to review and understand the reconsideration decision or to obtain the help of an advocate. So the outcome of section 21’s change is that the timeline will be extended from seven days to 20 business days. That is the same as the reconsideration timeline.

Plus, in addition to this, the chair of the tribunal can extend the timeline beyond 20 days in exceptional circumstances, and this is a measure which is consistent with other tribunals of our government.

Clauses 9 and 10 approved.

On clause 11.

D. Davies: Can the minister outline how agreements under these clauses will be developed in a true partnership with Indigenous communities to ensure that they effectively address self-determination and incorporate traditional knowledge in poverty reduction efforts?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In response to the member’s question, this will be very much driven by the interests of the Indigenous governing body. We don’t have any requests on the table at this point, so it’s hard to forecast or predict what their — a nation or an IGB that we are having this conversation with — principles would be and what would be the ground rules.

[6:15 p.m.]

I will say that our principles would be openness, willingness to talk, guidance of the DRIPA legislation and experience from some of our partner ministries that have gone before us in this area. But it’s certainly new terrain. Nobody has done this in Canada yet, so we’d be taking the lead of nation partners about what it is that they wanted to have on the table and that would start the conversation.

D. Davies: I notice in a lot of it it’s kind of as per DRIPA that’s been introduced into this piece of legislation. Can the minister tell me what the engagement process, consultation process looked like prior to implementing this? Or was it done just by the ministry alone?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We had extensive engagement from Indigenous partners on developing the language in this legislation, as we canvassed at some length on Thurs­day. But I think what the member is asking is: what would be the process if this section of the legislation did not pass? If I understand the member correctly.

The really short answer is there couldn’t be any conversation. Without this amendment, without this enabling part of the legislation, we don’t have the ability to engage First Nations partners on these elements of DRIPA.

Right now if a First Nation came to us saying they want to deliver services in a different way, we don’t have the legal authority to have those negotiations and those conversations with them. This is enabling, but as I said earlier, in the absence of a real-life example, this isn’t something that’s been proposed by any nation yet.

It’s an open conversation ahead of us.

D. Davies: I get pieces of that, and I kind of want to look at a couple pieces there. The extensive engagement on the language, I’d be curious to…. Is that with the DRIPA language that has been previously adopted by this House? Or is it new language that’s in here that was engaged on?

I’m just wondering, as we move…. The minister talked about it’s a work-in-progress. I get pieces of that, obviously. We’ll do that. But has there been engagement on poverty reduction strategies and how Indigenous communities play a role within this legislation or the social assistance, the employability pieces that we’ve already talked about?

I wondered how that has played out and how that will play out as far as engaging Indigenous communities, moving forward. Then looking again at: was the extensive consultation the UNDRIP piece, the DRIPA piece, or was it on what’s been inserted into here already?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m sensing this is my last answer, so I’m going to give a brief answer, and I trust that the member will ask follow-ups if I don’t go into enough detail here.

Yes to both questions. Engagement on the poverty re­duction strategy, yes. There was a separate Indigenous engagement. There’s a what-we-heard report on our website, and we talked in some detail about this on Thursday.

Certainly, on the poverty reduction strategy piece, one of the…. I really want to flag some of the complexities about service delivery. On reserve is federal income assistance; off reserve, provincial. So how we might coordinate those pieces would also be brand-new thinking.

Engagement also led not just to the poverty reduction strategy but also very much to the language that is in this legislation. We had a commitment to co-develop, and that was done. Certainly, our government’s commitments under DRIPA informed the way that we had those conversations and then how we landed together on the language that is here.

With that, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Malcolmson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.