2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 10)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Recreational hunting

B. Bennett

Forest industry jobs in Port Alberni

G. Trumper

Dining out for life

L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions

Funding for Delta Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

ICBC Building in Surrey

B. Locke

Hon. G. Collins

Government support for tourism industry

W. Cobb

Hon. R. Thorpe

Armoured car services at Camosun College

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Santori

Tabling Documents

Children's Commission annual report, 2000

Hon. G. Plant

Environmental Appeal Board annual report, 2000-01

Hon. J. Murray

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)

Hon. G. Abbott

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Stephens

S. Orr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

R. Hawes

[ Page 1815 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T.

Nebbeling: Today we have the great pleasure and honour to have a number of

guests in the gallery that I would like to introduce. The first guest is the

Dutch consul general, Aart Jan Verdegaal. He had a meeting with me this morning,

and I really welcome him here to the House.

Further, we

have three other guests, with whom some of my colleagues had the pleasure of

having lunch. It was the consul general of Belgium, residing in Toronto. That's

Mr. Frank Carruet. He was accompanied by his wife, Christine Carruet-Manigart.

The consul general for Belgium in Vancouver was also in our little group, and

that is Mme. Monique Poncelet-Gheleyns. I would like the House to make all four

of them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I would like to introduce some special guests from my great riding

of Surrey–Panorama Ridge. We have with us today 45 grade 5 students visiting

from Surrey's Khalsa School. They're accompanied by their teachers, Marilou

McCallum and Rupinder Hayer, and their supervisor, Jaswant Kaur Jawanda. Would

the House please make them welcome.

[1405]

Nuraney: Today we have with us a very successful realtor from this beautiful

city of Victoria and a very good friend, Rashida Malik. I would like the House

to make her welcome.

Hon. J.

Murray: Visiting today I have family members Pauline Kendall and Simon

Kendall from Vancouver, June Brinkman from New Westminster and Honas Brinkman

from Ontario. Will the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND TREATY No. 8

ADHESION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement

Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 10 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: Bill 10 supports the province's fulfilment of land transfer

obligations in the McLeod Lake Indian band Treaty No. 8 adhesion and settlement

agreement. This agreement was brought into effect on March 27, 2000. The

agreement settles litigation commenced by the McLeod Lake Indian band against

British Columbia and Canada to join Treaty 8.

British

Columbia implemented aspects of the agreement through a bill called the McLeod

Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. The bill

that is before the House today will remove the requirement that

section 70 of

the Land Act applies to Crown land that under the McLeod Lake adherence

agreement has been, must be or may be the subject of a transfer of Crown land to

Canada.

Section 70

of the Land Act imposes limits on the size of district lots. Several of the

Crown land district lot parcels that will be transferred to Canada to discharge

the province's obligations under this agreement exceed those limits. This

amendment will provide an explicit legislative basis for the confirmation of

surveys by the surveyor general of British Columbia.

This bill

affirms the government's commitment to negotiate and implement workable,

affordable settlements that provide certainty, finality and equality for all

British Columbians, including first nations.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Bill 10

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) RECREATIONAL HUNTING

Bennett: I am making a statement today in the House on recreational hunting,

a part of our heritage. Human hunting traditions are at least 2.5 million years

old. Recreational hunting today is a legitimate and effective tool for

responsible management and conservation of wildlife. Recreational hunting is

also an integral part of rural British Columbia culture and an important part of

our provincial heritage.

Opposition

to hunting is based on two beliefs: (1) that hunting threatens the survival of

wildlife species and (2) that hunting is morally wrong.

Hunting has

not threatened a species of wildlife since President Teddy Roosevelt and Prime

Minister Wilfrid Laurier got together before World War I and created rational

regulations. The assertion that hunting threatens a species of wildlife cannot

be supported today by factual evidence. In fact, hunters from the Kootenays

helped start the B.C. habitat conservation trust fund, which today funds habitat

restoration projects around the province and is funded directly from the

purchase of each hunting licence in B.C. Groups

[ Page 1816 ]

such as Ducks Unlimited, the American Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the

Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund Society and local hunting and fishing clubs also

volunteer their time to help wildlife during severe winters and disease cycles.

[1410]

The second

belief — that hunting is morally wrong — is a matter for each person to

decide. With all due respect to those who do not share my belief in hunting, I

suggest that at least some anti-hunting sentiment is based on the environmental

doctrine that modern industrial mankind, as distinct from indigenous cultures,

is not part of nature and does not have the right to exploit or manipulate wild

plants and animals. Most rural people do not share that philosophical view. Most

of us believe that far more plants and animals are reproduced each year than can

survive and that these excess plants and animals are resources to be harvested

within a careful context of responsible regulations and practices.

I ask for

the tolerance of those who do not share our beliefs. I ask that this government,

as has already been done in Ontario and Nova Scotia, recognize in law that

recreational hunting and fishing are valued parts of our provincial heritage and

play an important role in the conservation of fish and wildlife in British

Columbia.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

IN PORT ALBERNI

Trumper: As we all know, the last few years have been very difficult for

those in the B.C. forest industry, due to past government policies, changing

markets and now the softwood lumber dispute. In my region we have lost an

incredible 75 percent of forest-related jobs — jobs which feed families, keep

businesses going and support public facilities and community life.

It is,

therefore, encouraging to see an initiative in Port Alberni by Weyerhaeuser,

Coulson Forest Products and the local IWA to lease the idle Somass mill, which

has been closed for three months. For six months Coulson will lease and operate

the mill, providing employment for 40 local workers, who will take a cut in the

wage that they had under the previous operation, in hopes of spurring further

economic activity.

It is the

spirit of our earliest settlers, who combined personal drive with

community-minded sharing. It raised barns, built homes and schools by continuing

together in a selfless, cooperative fashion. It rallied people in difficult

times and ensured opportunities in good times.

These types

of ventures are taking place not only in the Alberni Valley but throughout

British Columbia — a willingness by all parties to try and work out viable

solutions that will enable companies to keep their doors open and people to be

employed and to support their families, stay in the community and enable other

businesses and services to continue. In Port Alberni, I do commend the efforts

of the two companies and the local IWA in applying goodwill, hard work and

initiative to ensure a better future for all.

DINING OUT FOR LIFE

Mayencourt: I'd like to speak for just a moment about a very important

fundraising event that's going to take place on Thursday throughout the lower

mainland of British Columbia. The event is called Dining Out for Life. It is to

support two very important charities in our communities. One in particular that

is very special to me, of course, is Friends for Life. The second is A Loving

Spoonful.

A Loving

Spoonful provides home-cooked meals to individuals that are housebound because

of long-term disabilities because of having AIDS and being shut in. It's a very

important service that is offered to people in my riding but also throughout the

lower mainland. Friends for Life provides support services like counselling,

one-on-one support, group support, meal programs, massage and bodywork.

What Dining

Out for Life does is allow people to simply go out for dinner on Thursday, March

14, and 177 restaurants in the lower mainland will be donating 25 percent of

their revenue to the agencies. Over 200 volunteers will make sure that everybody

has a really great time. Please get out for dinner on Thursday night at a Dining

Out for Life participating restaurant and help in the fight against AIDS.

[1415]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR DELTA HOSPITAL

J. Kwan:

Yesterday in estimates the Minister of Health Planning said she had no

knowledge of a plan being cooked up in Delta to raise property taxes to save the

Delta Hospital from government cuts. She made it plain that municipal tax

increases are not part of the government's plan. But today we find out that

indeed Delta council is contemplating big tax increases to pay for this

government's health care off-loading.

Does the

Minister of Health Planning now want to change her story from yesterday, and can

she tell British Columbians if she endorses the scheme being put forward in

Delta?

Hon. C.

Hansen: As I did yesterday, I'll remind the members that the operations of

the health authorities are in fact the responsibility of the Ministry of Health

Services.

I am aware

that a proposal was put forward by the mayor of Delta. We've certainly

encouraged them to work closely with the health authority during this whole

planning process. No decisions have been made with regard to the changes of uses

of facilities, and we're encouraging local mayors and other community leaders to

work with the health authorities as we all move forward to try to make sure that

patient interests get met.

[ Page 1817 ]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

It was the Minister of Health Planning who said what she said in the estimates

yesterday.

understand that the mayor of Delta met with the Premier last week, where this

tax increase scheme was developed, and the plan is before Delta council as we

speak.

Yesterday

the Minister of Health Planning said she had no clue about any of this; yet she

is the Minister of Health Planning, we understand. Today she finds out that

while she is taking up space at the cabinet table, plans are being developed

behind her back to download health care costs onto local taxpayers.

Will the

minister endorse or condemn sticking it to the local taxpayers to pay for this

government's health care cuts?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'd be very pleased to sit down with the members to explain the

relationship between the Ministry of Health Planning and the Ministry of Health

Services.

We at no

time have made suggestions to any municipalities that they should pick up the

cost of health services in their communities. We are working with communities to

try to make sure that patient needs get met throughout this province. It is part

of a long overdue examination as to how we actually best make use of our

facilities in the province. Clearly, the status quo that we inherited from the

previous government was not working. It was not sustainable. Change is

necessary, and we are prepared to provide the leadership for that change.

MacPhail: The opposition knows what's going on with this health care agenda

of the government, but the poor public is the one that's having to suffer the

consequences of it.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, hon. members.

MacPhail: Yesterday the government said no to consultation on cuts to the

Delta Hospital, despite the fact that the Fraser health authority reneged on its

promises to give the citizens of Delta a voice. The same residents are being

faced today with the prospect of a big tax increase, all to pay for this

government's broken health care promise.

Hospitals

all over the province are due to close. Can the Minister of Health Planning

stand up and promise other local taxpayers that they won't be blackmailed into

saving their hospitals with big property tax increases?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I would urge the member, rather than simply carrying on with the

next question that she planned to ask, that she'd actually listen to the answer

I gave last time.

What I

said, and I will repeat, is that we are not looking to municipalities to pick up

the cost of health care deliveries. We have not made any such suggestion, and we

will not. We're looking forward to getting on with redesigning the system.

There has

been ongoing consultation. Every one of the health regions in British Columbia

has been consulting with community leaders and with front-line providers of

health care services, whether it's doctors or nurses. That has been on ongoing

process for many months now, and that consultation will continue right up until

decisions are finally made.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, I don't blame the Minister of Health Services for not

knowing what's going on; he's often left out of the loop. The Premier had a

meeting with the mayor of Delta last week where this scheme was cooked up.

[1420]

Middle-income

taxpayers have already been hit hard by this government with over $800 million

in tax increases. Now they face the prospect of even more tax increases. The

promise by the Premier in his New Era document of not increasing taxes

for middle-income voters has been broken. Now he's betraying another new-era

promise that says he would outlaw off-loading of provincial government costs

onto the backs of local property taxpayers. How many more side deals has he

cooked up to stick the municipal taxpayers with the bill for his broken health

care promise?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I met with the mayor of Delta because the mayor of Delta asked to

meet with me. I meet with constituencies and with people across this province

when they ask to meet. Some people call that consulting. Some people call that

listening. Some people call that working with local communities. That's what

this government is going to do, whether the member opposite wants us to do that

or not.

Let's look

at what this government has done. We've increased the health care budget so that

we have the doctors, the nurses and the health care workers we need to protect

health care for patients.

The

Minister of Health Services has just explained that we have no intention of

going to property tax payers to support health care. The $10.4 billion supports

patients and health care services in this province — if we work with

communities, if we deliver services and if we make sure, unlike the last

government, that patients always come first.

ICBC BUILDING IN SURREY

Locke: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Right in the middle of my

riding of Green Timbers, ICBC has built a great big building.

[ Page 1818 ]

constituents have expressed outrage over the cost of the ICBC building at Surrey

Place Mall. The people of British Columbia are paying over $250 million for a

building that may be worth $150 million. Can the minister please explain how

that boondoggle ever happened?

Hon. G.

Collins: The project was off track right from the beginning. The project is

$250 million. We now know that it's probably worth around $150 million.

The rent

that was to be charged to ICBC by ICBC Properties — from one pocket to another

— was well above market rates. Customers would end up subsidizing this project

when they bought their insurance. Even at that rate, the rate of return for the

capital project itself was well below market rates as well. There was no fiscal

basis for this whatsoever.

The

previous government — the NDP — and the former minister responsible did not

have a business plan for it. In addition, there was $88 million worth of costs

in the form of new furniture and computers and moving the new people into the

office space, which wasn't accounted for at all.

I would

love to know what the rationale was for that project, other than an ego trip for

somebody involved.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers with a supplementary

question.

Locke: An empty building is no asset to ICBC or to the taxpayers. Can the

Minister of Finance please tell us the status of the building and what is going

to be done with it?

Hon. G.

Collins: In the previous plan, Tech B.C. was intended to be part of the

occupants of the building — again, at a very high rate. Tech B.C. is not doing

that. SFU has taken over that project, and they'll remain where they are. That

leaves a building which potentially has some vacancy.

The

government is trying very hard to encourage ICBC Properties to find other

tenants. I've heard from some members of the Legislature who have suggestions of

possible tenants. The government is doing everything possible to make sure we

are able to lease that building or provide some other way to try to recover what

has been a hugely expensive project with no plan, which has cost British

Columbians $100 million for no advantage and which certainly could have been

used for other things such as health care.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

TOURISM INDUSTRY

W. Cobb:

My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. As I made

reference to in my budget speech, your service plan for the ministry commits to

doubling B.C.'s $9 billion tourism industry. Could the Minister of Competition,

Science and Enterprise tell us what steps are being taken to meet those goals?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, tourism is a $9.5 billion business in British Columbia

and growing.

The first

thing we did was reduce income taxes by 25 percent. I want to say that those

families making $60,000 or less now have the lowest tax rates of any

jurisdiction in Canada, and they can enjoy a holiday in British Columbia.

In the

February 19 budget we increased the tax exemption threshold for small business

to $300,000. We provided an exemption for non-resident boats and travel trailers

so that they can come to British Columbia and aren't punished, as they were by

the previous government. The tax will be eliminated on September 1. Most

importantly, we are working with regional tourism operators throughout British

Columbia on a multi-year plan to double the business of tourism in British

Columbia. Tourism truly is Super, Natural in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplementary question.

W. Cobb:

To be more specific, minister, ecotourism plays a specific role in the riding of

Cariboo South and in particular the Chilcotin. It could be of great benefit for

expanded tourism opportunities. Can the minister tell constituents how he plans

to include regional tourism interests in that goal?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Very recently the COTA tourism conference for British Columbia was

held. It was the largest in the past nine years, giving a strong indication of

how tourism operators feel about tourism here in British Columbia. In attendance

were the Premier, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, myself and

caucus members. We met with regional tourism operators and tourism organizations

throughout British Columbia. Our government is committed to working with

regional tourism boards and organizations to increase tourism so that all

British Columbians and all regions of British Columbia have an opportunity to

share in the doubling of tourism in the next five years.

ARMOURED CAR SERVICES

AT CAMOSUN COLLEGE

MacPhail: A little while ago I was speaking of outlawing things. There have

been some great heist movies over the years. Ocean's 11 , The Great

Train Robbery and The Italian Job are just a couple that come to my

mind. If the Minister of Management Services is like most people, he likes a

story.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

MacPhail: He likes a movie based on a real story, a true story. Just last

Thursday his ministry put out to tender its need for armoured car services at

Camosun

[ Page 1819 ]

College. It posted it on the B.C. Bid website for the whole world to see.

Here, being

helpful, is what it said. The invitation states the exact time, the exact day,

the exact place for armoured car services to pick up shipments from the

accounting office, cashier's office, bookstore and — wait for it — to

deliver all shipments to the Bank of Nova Scotia.

To the

minister responsible for the gang that couldn't shoot straight: can we

anticipate the premiere of the colossal Camosun caper? Should George Clooney be

worried?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S.

Santori: Speaking of movies, we've been following the sequel for the last

ten years, called "The Young and The Jobless," that that government

over there created.

With

respect to the matter that the member opposite brought forward, I will take the

question on notice. I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

[End of question period.]

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Plant: I table the report of the Children's Commission, the annual report

for 2000, entitled Blueprint for a Better Future for British Columbia's

Children and Youth .

Hon. J.

Murray: I ask leave to present the 2000-01 annual report of the

Environmental Appeal Board.

Leave

granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A. For the information of

members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this

House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be

debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:33 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY,

ABORIGINAL AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

(continued)

On vote

19: ministry operations, $535,278,000 (continued) .

Hon. G.

Abbott: Mr. Chair, if I may, the member for Vancouver-Hastings asked this

morning for some detail with respect to the percentage that minorities, etc.,

constituted in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I

have some detail of that for her now, so I'll offer that. If she has additional

questions, we can deal with them now, if that's possible, or subsequently.

[1435]

From the

latest figures we have, 2 percent of the employees of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services are aboriginal; visible minorities, 7 percent; persons with

disabilities, 6.5 percent; and women, 63.2 percent. That compares to all

government — again, starting with aboriginal, 2 percent; visible minorities,

6.8 percent; people with disabilities, 5.5 percent; and women, 56 percent. Those

are the figures for the ministry and some for comparative purposes.

MacPhail: Thank you very much to the minister for that information. In terms

of the cutbacks to the staff in the ministry, how does that affect those

statistics?

Hon. G.

Abbott: The changes with respect to personnel have been announced, but

certainly there are vacancies, and there are bumping provisions with the

collective agreement. Certainly, all of those things are playing out. It is not

possible at this point in time to give the member any particular detail with

respect to whether those numbers might have changed. We expect that they would

be relatively the same, given the scope or magnitude of the changes in CAWS.

MacPhail: I would appreciate those numbers as they unfold, in terms of the

impact on the layoffs.

Before

lunch we were talking with the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I'll

continue along the line of discussion we were having before lunch. That was the

minister's responsibility to advise the government of how government policies

affect women. That's taken from the subvote listed in the estimates, Mr. Chair.

Just for reference, it's on page 88 of Estimates for '02-03.

We were

talking about the family maintenance enforcement program. Now I'd like to carry

on with the discussion around changes to employment programs, particularly the

elimination of government-provided employment programs, and whether the minister

has any analysis on whether and how they affect women.

Hon. L.

Stephens: We have, in this ministry, secured the priority essential services

for women. We'll make sure that the safety and security of women are maintained

and provided. We recognize the extremely valuable work that is done across the

ministry. That's why we're ensuring that government programs address issues

related to women's economic and social equality. What we are doing is working

cross-ministry. I've spoken to this issue before.

I would

like to tell the member opposite just what it is we are doing. I hope the member

has had an oppor-

[ Page 1820 ]

tunity to look at our service plans on the website. In fact, if she would do

that…. I'll draw her attention to page 14 and goal 7, which speaks

particularly to the provincial inventory of transition houses, safe homes and

second-stage housing. I think the member will be aware that this is an important

part of protecting women in this province.

In terms of

the issues she raises that are not a direct responsibility of this ministry and

particularly the Minister of State for Women's Equality, I would ask the member

to address the issues in the estimates of the minister who is responsible.

[1440]

Orr: This question is to the Minister for Women's Equality. What I'm trying

to get confirmed is language. I've had several calls from constituents, so I

would just like some clarification. I'm in the service plan right now. I'm on

the minister's accountability statement portion, right at the very beginning of

the service plan. That is page VI. There are two sections here that I just want

to confirm.

One of them

is the last bullet: "Develop and implement long-term strategy for

encouraging the expansion of safe, affordable child care services. Strategy will

be submitted…." That's the first little piece, if you could just hold

that for a second.

Then, if

you could go in the service plan to page 10, under objectives and program

initiatives, 7.2, the initiative portion: "Develop and implement new

integrated operational grant to support licensed child care spaces. Consult with

parents and stakeholders." I recognize that you've done that.

Where I'm

getting a lot of calls from my constituents is the language — where they don't

hear the word "quality." I'm getting the question, "Does that

mean this will be a lesser service?" — because the word

"quality" is not in there. What I would really like from the minister

is some clarification on that word. We're using "safe, affordable";

they're talking about quality. Could you maybe explain that to me a little?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I want to thank the member for the question. This is an area that

a great deal of people are concerned about, certainly working families and

mothers.

The words

we have used are "expansion of safe, affordable, quality and

accessible…." It's unfortunate that all four of those words do not

reflect in the service plan here, but I can assure the member that, in fact,

those are the four watchwords of what we're going to be doing in the development

of a new child care program. That's quality child care — accessible,

affordable and safe. Those are the areas we are going to be concentrating on. I

want everyone to be sure that when we do move forward, those are the priorities

and the principles we will be using in the development of the new child care

plan.

S. Orr:

I really thank you for that clarification, because I think we needed that.

Just a

couple of other quick things. I did note, during the debate this morning, that

we talked a lot about pay equity legislation. I'm very glad to see we all knew

that the prior legislation was quite unworkable and actually not a very good

piece of work.

I'm glad to

see that this government ordered this task force on pay equity by Nitya Iyer,

which is very good. I do note that the member for Vancouver-Hastings agreed that

this was a very good report. I started reading it, and it is indeed good. I'm

glad that this was approved and ordered by this government.

What I'd

like to know is: where do we go from here? You've got this report; you're

reading it. Could you let me know what the next step is?

Hon. L.

Stephens: This is a very important report; there can be no question about

that. The discussion we had this morning confirms it. There have been a number

of reports on pay equity. This particular one — this last one — I think, is

something we are certainly going to be paying a great deal of attention to.

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. L.

Stephens: I think those are the bells for….

The

Chair: Disregard them. It's a quorum in the small House.

Hon. L.

Stephens: Disregard them — all right.

I want to

say, in terms of pay equity and particularly this report, that this government

is committed to the principles of elimination of gender-based wage disparities.

I want to make sure that's absolutely clear.

[1445]

I agree

with the member; it is a good report. It makes an important contribution to the

understanding of the issues — the wage disparities that we find in the various

workplaces today. We know that it is a very complex issue, and we know there are

no quick fixes. I will say, as I said this morning, that government will be

reviewing the report. That is the next step. We've had it for a week. We'll be

reviewing it. We'll be looking at the options and recommendations. We'll be

coming forward with the next steps at that time. At that time they will be

available to the public and certainly to anyone else that is interested.

MacPhail: I was discussing employment programs, specifically, as they affect

women. During the course of the answer, the Minister of State for Women's

Equality basically directed me to stop bringing up issues that weren't the

minister's direct responsibility. I'm a little bit taken aback by that.

The service

plans of government are filled with referring people to other links. The

government service plans themselves refer to the links. One of the promises the

Premier made in being the most open and accountable is that there would be no

shutting down of information.

[ Page 1821 ]

questions are about areas of which this Minister of State for Women's Equality

is supposed to be informed and is supposed to be a participant in the

decision-making — not by my design but by her government's own design — and

for which we pay this minister. The minister can stand up and try to get me to

stop asking these questions. I simply won't.

The reason

I asked the minister the question on employment specifically…. There is one

that relates directly to her ministry. It relates to the issue of women and

abuse. It's the Bridges Employment Training Project, which this government has

cancelled. I'm sorry; maybe I'm wrong. It's the service plan of the ministry for

'02-03 that says the Bridges employability project is cancelled. Am I correct in

that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The ministry will no longer be funding the Bridges program at the

end of March '03. We've said quite clearly that programs such as this are

valuable to women coming out of abusive situations. Most of those women — as a

matter of fact, all of the women — who have access to that program are social

services recipients.

I've said

earlier that the Minister of Human Resources has $300 million to reorganize his

training programs. He will be doing so. I have been in conversations and

discussions with him to determine whether or not the women who are currently in

Bridges and those who perhaps would have been recipients of the Bridges program

in the future would be able to take advantage of the new programs that the

Minister of Human Resources will be developing.

MacPhail: Why did the minister cancel the program?

Hon. L.

Stephens: When we were doing our core services review, we were looking at

the priority essential services for all of the ministries across government. In

the area of women's services it was determined that our essential priority

services were for women in crisis situations. This is why we have maintained our

funding for the transition houses, safe homes, counselling services and so on.

We are going to be concentrating on providing the funding to those direct

essential priority services.

As I just

said, the bridging program is one that can be maintained in another ministry. We

didn't feel we needed to have a separate training program for women who were

coming from abusive situations. They could be folded into the new training

programs through the Minister of Human Resources.

MacPhail: That makes me very concerned. First of all, has the minister

received a guarantee from the Minister of Human Resources, in her off-loading of

her responsibilities onto the Minister of Human Resources, that this program

will continue under his auspices?

[1450]

Hon. L.

Stephens: We are funding that program through March 31, '03. There is a

whole year that we will be funding that program. As I've said, I'm in

discussions with the Minister of Human Resources as he develops his new training

programs. We will discuss whether or not the bridging program will be able to be

incorporated into his plans in some form.

What we do

want to make sure, Mr. Chair, is that the women who are leaving abusive

situations and trying to get back into the workforce have the opportunity to do

that.

MacPhail: Well, I think this harks back to the minister's quote last month

that says, "Women are abused, not oppressed," as if there was no link

between the two. The minister's cancelling of the Bridges employability project

is a demonstration of that. It's her putting into action her belief that there

is no link between abuse and oppression.

What the

Bridges employability project did was specifically assist women in abusive

relationships into employment. There are very specific needs that women leaving

abusive relationships have in order to gain economic independence. That's what

the Bridges employability project was all about, and it was successful.

The

minister said last month: "Women are abused, not oppressed." Is that

why she cancelled the Bridges employability project?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I've said quite clearly that the focus of government is to protect

those priority essential services. Where services can be provided in other

agencies or other ministries, we were looking at how those kinds of programs

could be delivered in a different way. That's clearly what we've done here.

We are

funding the Bridges programs for a further year until March 31, '03. That is

going to give us the opportunity to make sure that women coming from abusive

situations will receive those services and can depend on them. I can't be any

more clear with the member. We believe those women in those circumstances

require help to go into further education or training or counselling. We

understand there is a need there, and we are committed to making sure that we

meet those needs.

MacPhail: Then maybe the minister can reflect on the value of her job

throughout the fiscal year '02-03 and see that it's her responsibility to ensure

the continuation of the Bridges employability project. She has said that the

three areas that she's concentrating on are women's health, poverty and violence

— safety and security for women.

The Bridges

employability project encompasses all those three in a very positive, very

supportive and very successful way in moving women out of abusive relationships

into employment opportunities. It's a very special program. It isn't your

run-of-the-mill human resources program that anyone can take and move into

employment. It's very targeted towards the minister's three priorities, and yet

she's cancelling it at the end of this coming fiscal year.

[ Page 1822 ]

I would say

to the minister that this is her opportunity for her, on behalf of her

government, to restore some confidence in her government by women.

I'm

actually having difficulty with the conversation that's going on across the way,

but I'll try to overlook it. I don't mind waiting for the answers if the two

ministers need to consult. I don't mind waiting while they consult.

[1455]

There's

absolutely no reason for this government to now stand up and say that's why

they're waiting till '03 before they cancel it, because clearly it's cancelled.

It doesn't say it's under review. The minister admitted that it's gone. It's

being put over to the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of Human

Resources does not have as his mandate — because I've checked the service

plan….

An Hon.

Member: Good for you.

MacPhail: I'm being a good kid. I know the Minister of State for Women's

Equality won't take questions if it's in somebody else's service plan.

It's not in

his service plan to move people from abuse, out of oppression and into

independence. It's this minister's responsibility.

Hon. L.

Stephens: The mandate of this ministry is to address the issues that affect

women in the province of British Columbia today. That includes some systemic

issues. That includes issues around poverty, violence and abuse. That does not

mean that what has been done in the past needs to be done in the future. We

recognize that times change, people change, needs change, ways of delivering

services change. This government's whole restructuring is about change. Simply

because the previous administration provided services in a certain way does not

mean that this government will provide services in a certain way.

What I'm

saying to the member opposite is that while we will no longer be funding the

Bridges program as she has come to know it past March 31, 2003, we are going to

be working and are working with the Minister of Human Resources in his new

training programs to address the needs of women leaving abusive relationships.

We will continue to do that.

MacPhail: I know this government considers absolute anathema anything that

happened during the 1990s. Come heck or high water, they'll cut those services

and those programs just because they were brought in by the previous government.

It is ideological. It's absolutely ideological — the cuts this government has

made to the programs. That minister just articulated that. That minister said,

"We're not going to do things the way the previous government did,"

even if it's successful.

The Bridges

employability program is successful for women who are moving from an abusive

relationship to economic independence. That's how it was successful. It was a

model. It is a model for the rest of the country. But because the previous

government brought it in and it was successful, this government says: "Hey,

hey, it's gotta go." That's what this government says.

No need to

worry about the women who find themselves in situations of abuse. No need to

worry about whether they're oppressed or not, and maybe that's contributing to

them staying in an abusive situation. It's off-loaded onto the ministry that's

suffering the biggest cut ever in its history and the biggest cut of all in this

overall budget. Now we'll have the Ministry of Human Resources take

responsibility for that — the Ministry of Human Resources, which is having to

bear the burden of one-third of the program cuts across government in this

budget. Well, good luck, women. Good luck, women who are in abusive relations.

Good luck for having to move in any way with the help of this government into

economic independence.

Let's talk

about other services that this government is responsible for. Let's move into

the area of child care. The minister said that she did a survey. The New Era document

states that there will be targeted child care funding to help parents who need

it most. What part of the minister's survey determined the ranking of parents in

need?

[1500]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The survey the ministry sent out was one that asked whether or not

the present child care system was working for providers and parents. We did not

ask the questions that the member is speaking of.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

What we

tried to do was address some of the concerns of parents in terms of access, the

number of spaces and costs. We also asked the question of the providers — what

some of the impediments or their concerns were as well. Those are the responses

we got back.

It was very

well received. We certainly had a lot of input from people around the province,

and those are the issues we're going to be addressing in our new child care

plan. We hope to have the results of those surveys on the website shortly.

MacPhail: I thought the whole purpose of the new-era child care program is

funding for parents who need it the most. How is it that a survey can be done

where that isn't determined? Is the minister herself going to determine parents

who need it the most?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The objective of the consultations was nothing as narrow as what

this member is asking. We certainly weren't excluding anything. The consultation

process was one that was comprehensive and all-encompassing. The idea of

targeting child care to families who need it the most will come when we get the

information, we compile the statistics, and we know how many spaces we have and

how much

[ Page 1823 ]

money we're going to have for the spaces. We can in fact then make sure that

families who have….

For

instance, infants and toddlers. We know from discussions with communities around

the province and from the child care survey that parents were concerned about,

first, the availability of infant and toddler spaces and, second, the cost of

infant and toddler spaces. It's been determined that this is one of the priority

areas we're looking at in terms of targeting our programs to families who need

it the most.

MacPhail: I wouldn't actually say it was a narrow question on the issue of

child care, to determine what the government means by parents who need it the

most. That's the sum commitment this government has made in the area of child

care. To say that this is a narrow focus is absolutely ridiculous.

It's been

known forever that as more and more women enter the workforce — as we

discussed earlier — and have children, infant and toddler spaces are at a

premium. We've known that for a decade. Why is it that came as a surprise to the

minister?

Hon. L.

Stephens: It did not come as a surprise to myself and certainly to the

government. What did come as a surprise is that their government did nothing

about it.

I think

what we need to do is make sure the child care program we have in this province

is sustainable. It certainly wasn't sustainable under the previous

administration. What we are trying to do is make sure that parents who need

child care…. We're also making sure that we have put in place a plan that will

encourage the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and accessible child care.

That is

what the survey was designed to provide information on. That was certainly what

the face-to-face consultations around the province were meant to do. We now have

that information. We are in the process of developing that plan with those two

principles firmly in our minds: targeting child care to those families who need

it the most and encouraging the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and

accessible child care.

[1505]

MacPhail: I really would suggest to the minister, because her words go

around the province to women, that she somehow puts herself and her government

forward as defenders of women's equality programs in comparison to the previous

government. It was this minister who stood in this House and cancelled the Child

Care B.C. legislation that funded universal child care. It was her government

members who stood up and said, "We're not going to fund child care for

tennis moms," and this member did nothing about it. It is absolutely

ridiculous.

It's

surprising the number of people who actually listen to the words that are spoken

in this chamber. The minister has felt the wrath of that already. She's felt the

wrath publicly, in e-mails and in letters, of misspeaking herself on matters

that affect women deeply. Child care is one of those.

This

minister knows that second only to Quebec, B.C. had the best record — until

the election of this government — in the provision of child care. All of those

gains were made in the 1990s, up to 2001. All of that has come to a crashing

halt.

This

minister now understands — she didn't last month — that a woman's

responsibility for child rearing affects her income. I'm curious to know: if

it's a woman who's suffering from a wage gap that's greater than the 4 percent

that the minister likes to tout as a symbol of equality, will she be the parent

who needs it most? Let's say a woman is making 70 cents of every dollar that a

man's making. Would she be a parent who needs it the most?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I said earlier in the day that child care is an economic issue. It

certainly is. Women working outside the home today — 70 percent of them have

children under the age of six. That has to tell you that child care is a big

issue for working women in the province of British Columbia.

There's

absolutely no question about that. I agree with the member opposite. What we

need to do is make sure that we can, as much as possible, provide supports to

encourage the expansion of child care spaces.

The

previous administration decided to bring in universal child care before and

after. It was a program that was clearly not sustainable. I would suggest that

the member opposite knows that. There wasn't the funding there to maintain that

universal child care.

Our view is

also that we will and should target funding to families who need it the most. We

believe that families who can afford to pay for child care should pay for their

child care. That's not new.

I think

what we're looking at here is a disagreement between the member opposite and

this government on what universal child care should be. We have said quite

clearly that we do not support universal child care. We believe that families

who can afford to pay for their child care should. Those who cannot are the ones

we will target to help with their resources and expansion of safe, affordable

and quality child care.

MacPhail: Let's determine, then, from the minister's survey how she is going

to determine who can afford to pay for child care. What part of her survey will

help her determine who can afford to pay for child care?

[1510]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The Ministry of Human Resources and my ministry are working

closely together looking at the people who are on social assistance and looking

at the kind of programs we could put in place and where we may be able to work

together to make sure that families at certain income levels — those families

who need it the most — in fact are the ones that we target.

[ Page 1824 ]

We're also

looking at the kinds of child care spaces that are available. I mentioned

earlier that infant and toddler spaces are in extremely short supply. Those are

the ones that are expensive. Those are the ones that most young families have a

lot of difficulty accessing. There are a number of factors that we are taking

into consideration. We are well on the way to getting a new child care plan

developed. When that is available, again, that will be public, and the member

will know that along with the rest of the province.

MacPhail: The survey went out in September. Why is it taking it so long? The

completion date of the survey has been well over four months.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's a very good question. I want to thank the member for asking

it, because it's something that has been quite frustrating. The simple fact of

the matter is that we just don't have a computer program that will handle it.

What we're finding, right across government, is that a number of the computer

programs are quite deficient. This is one of them.

We're

struggling very hard. The ministry is working very hard to find a system that in

fact will deliver the program, will not be redundant in a couple of years and

will work well for us and for the child care providers. That is the challenge

that the systems staff are working under. It is a frustration to me; I know it

is a frustration to them. I'm sure it's a frustration for the child care

providers we've been talking with. They are anxious to see what a new plan might

look like, as are parents and as are we. That is the holdup at this point. What

do we do, and how do we get a computer system that is workable?

MacPhail: The minister sent out a questionnaire that she was incapable of

analyzing because she didn't have the computer technology available. How did

that occur?

Let me just

put to you what my experience was. The previous government did a survey, and

they got 10,000 replies. They were analyzed, and the report was published. Did

the minister get many more than 10,000 replies? How was it that the minister

herself designed a questionnaire that she can't analyze? It's a technical

problem.

Hon. L.

Stephens: The member did misunderstand. It's not the analysis of the data

that we received. It's the new child care plan that the present system is not

capable of handling. The present system is one that is quite convoluted, and it

is absolutely impossible to provide the new child care program. That is what the

problem is. It's not the analysis of the data. It's the setup of a new child

care program that is going to be far simpler to administer for government and

for child care providers.

That is

what the issue is. It's not the analysis. It's the development of the plan and

how a computer system will support that.

MacPhail: I take it the survey is done and analyzed. Why is the minister

withholding that information from the public?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I said earlier that it will be on the website shortly. I expected

it to be there this week. I will undertake to get it to the member as soon as

possible.

MacPhail: The public — women, men — can expect the analysis of the

survey, the minister is hoping, later this week. Then what happens? Is there a

period of discussion, or does the government…? Is it kind of like your

offshore oil and gas exploration? We keep the study, and we announce the study

and how we're moving forward. Is that how we're treating child care too? Here's

the analysis, and here's our program. Is there any period in between for

consultation?

[1515]

Hon. L.

Stephens: There is a period for consultation. We asked for input from

organizations and parents. We have that. We've done the analysis. The ministry

staff are in the process of developing a new child care plan. I said that we

have difficulty with the computer system that will facilitate that plan. Once we

have the options and the suggestions in a form where we can go out and talk to

child care providers and parents, that is exactly what we will be doing. We

anticipate that will be shortly.

I've been

in discussion with the B.C. Child Care Council since October on this issue, and

we'll continue to consult with the council. Once we have a fuller proposal, we

will be talking with a broader range of child care providers and parents.

MacPhail: What did the survey tell the minister? It's there. Let's not worry

about the website. What kind of trends did the minister discern from the survey

— trends around advice? Was there anything beyond just that infant and toddler

spaces are at a premium? We've known that for ten years. That was the plan this

minister cancelled: the expansion to infant and toddler child care programs.

Other than that, what did the survey tell the minister?

Hon. L.

Stephens: For the record, the program that was cancelled was the before- and

after-school child care. That is the contract that is expiring at the end of

June of this year.

The

consultations and the survey highlighted a number of issues of concern to

parents and child care providers. One of them is early childhood educators, the

amount of salary they receive or don't receive. Another issue of concern to many

child care providers, particularly in the rural parts of British Columbia, is

licensing. They have some concerns around the flexibility required in licensing.

groups of children. Many people feel the regulations are inflexible and don't

really address the needs of families today.

There was a

very wide range of concerns that people expressed — to do with licensing, with

multi-aging and the grouping of children, with training and profes-

[ Page 1825 ]

sional credentialling of early childhood educators and with the costs, of

course, of child care spaces. There was a whole range of issues and concerns

that people addressed and identified. We're going to be taking all of those into

account as we put together the new child care plan.

MacPhail: Was one of the themes the minister received that people who can

afford it should pay for their own child care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I think the member would be surprised at some of the conversations

around the cost of child care. People who require and need child care were very

cognizant, of course, of the costs both to themselves and to the grants the

government is putting into child care. The consensus with everyone — child

care providers and parents — is that we have to have quality child care that

is safe, accessible and affordable. What I found was that all of the

participants were aware these were issues that had to be addressed and did so in

a very helpful and very positive way.

The issue

of affordability was, of course, one of the ones at the top of many people's

lists, as it is at the top of our list. We're very hopeful that with the changes

we're making, we are going to be able to expand child care spaces. Perhaps, in

some instances, we're going to be able to make a difference in the costs of some

of these spaces as well. As we move further down the planning process, those are

issues we will be discussing with the various child care groups and with the

Child Care Council.

MacPhail: The minister mentioned information around the salary levels for

early childhood educators. Did the minister bring this to the attention of the

government when they brought in Bill 29, which gutted the wage and benefits of

early childhood educators by the reneging, the cancelling, of the Munroe award?

[1520]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The wage increases that were in the Munroe award will be met, will

be followed through, and I think the member knows that.

MacPhail: There were many aspects of the Munroe award that were cancelled

— outlawed — and many affect early childhood educators. My question was: did

the minister, as her responsibility at the cabinet table, bring that to the

attention of her colleagues?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There were various discussions, of course, around the cabinet

table and certainly in caucus as we worked through the changes that were made.

The parity provisions were the only provisions that affected the Munroe accord,

which were cancelled. All of the wage increases that had been planned for in the

agreement will be met, will be followed through. It was only the parity

provision in the accord that was cancelled.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister misses the point once again — that the parity

provisions of the Munroe award were targeted at women, eliminating the wage gap

that exists simply because women are doing women's work. That's what the parity

provisions were there for. I assume, with the survey saying there were concerns

around the pay scales for early childhood educators, that was the concern being

articulated — that early childhood educators, the vast majority of whom are

women, are inadequately paid, and it's hard to recruit them into the profession.

When the

minister stands up and says, "Oh, it was only the parity provisions that

were cancelled in the Munroe accord — outlawed," that's exactly who that

cancellation is affecting: early childhood educators who are women and who are

now hard to recruit.

Hon. L.

Stephens: What the member fails to understand is that we simply have to have

a sustainable system. That was not the case with the agreements that the

previous administration entered into, most of them in the dying days of their

government. In terms of Munroe, the parity provisions were tied to the health

labour accord, and what we had, in effect, was a ratcheting up. Now, the

salaries for ECD staff plus the other individuals who work in the community

sector…. Their wage enhancements will go forward, as I have said. If the

member would like to, she can probably look at what those are and find that in

fact they are among the highest in Canada. They are certainly in the top three.

MacPhail: Yes, that's because of the Munroe accord. My gosh, this discussion

is like a dog chasing its tail. It's like a dog chasing its tail, trying to get

an answer out of this minister. It's because of the commitment throughout the

1990s to pay early childhood educators their worth, that we have that situation.

Bill 29 eroded that, and now the minister has to accept the consequences of that

as it relates to early childhood education.

[1525]

Let me ask

this question of the minister in terms of her survey. One question was: "In

your opinion, where is the need greatest? Rank the priorities 1, 2 and 3."

I assume the minister was expecting lots of information from people who aren't

just describing their personal family situation, because if I was asked that

question, I'd say: "My kid's the greatest need." What response did the

minister get in terms of rankings of the priorities as 1, 2, 3?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I just want to go back for a moment to the Munroe agreement that

the member raised. I want to tell her that the women's services and child care

division is going to be spending in excess of $10 million this year to cover the

above-noted commitments. Those commitments are that the scheduled wage and

benefit increases over the life of the Munroe collective agreements will be met.

The costs that we had attributed last year, $8.6 million, will increase to $10

million in this budget to cover those commitments.

[ Page 1826 ]

I just want to make sure that the member is under no illusions. We are

continuing with those wage and benefit commitments in that agreement.

In terms of

the before- and after-school care and the out-of-school care, the cancellation

is because of the costs of the child care — I've said before that the

universality was not sustainable — and because there was an identified need

for infant and toddler spaces, as I've said before. We are redoing our child

care plan to take into consideration that we are targeting families who need it

the most. We will be encouraging the expansion of quality, safe and affordable

child care, and we will be looking at those parts of the child care system that

are the most needed. What I have been told repeatedly is that infant and toddler

spaces are those spaces.

MacPhail: In answer to question No. 3 — "In your opinion, where is

the need the greatest?" — ranking No. 1 is infant and toddler spaces.

That's what the survey will show.

Hon. L.

Stephens: Just to correct the member, the No. 1 ranking on the survey is the

cost of child care.

MacPhail: That's cost of child care to the parents, not to the government, I

would assume.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That is correct.

MacPhail: I do recall the minister saying she was going to build upon the

previous survey that was done, which had 10,000 responses. To the survey that

the minister put on the website this week, this was one answer: "The cost

to the parent is the highest concern." Will it review the findings of the

10,000-person survey and then add on that kind of information?

Hon. L.

Stephens: What will be on the website will be the results of this specific

survey. We will be using the information from previous surveys, along with our

present survey, to factor in the issues that we will need to do to build that

new child care plan.

MacPhail: I assume the survey wasn't just among social assistance recipients

and low-income families. I assume the survey was from all ranges of

socioeconomic categories.

Hon. L.

Stephens: That's correct.

MacPhail: We have a survey that covers all socioeconomic categories and

probably all tax categories. Even given that, the prize priority is the cost of

child care to the family.

Let me ask

this question: is it still the government's intent to cancel the before- and

after-school child care program run by the government as of June of this year?

[1530]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The legislation that we passed in the spring effectively does

that, as the member knows. The universal child care part of the plan is what

will be cancelled. The contract is up at the end of June of this year. The

universal before- and after-school plan will not move forward.

We will be

developing the new plan that will take its place. It will have a component for

before- and after-school child care.

MacPhail: So the before- and after-school care program for parents

throughout this province is cancelled a little over two and a half months from

now, and parents have a little over five months before they actually need child

care.

You can

tell my child is 13 and not 12. Many parents would be making use of those same

child care facilities for the summer months as well. My apologies, parents, for

leaving you behind as my child gets older.

We have a

situation where two and a half months from now, the before- and after-school

child care program is going to be cancelled. That was a saving, undisputed by

the now government, of about $1,100 per year per child who is in before- and

after-school care. That's the program that this government cancelled.

Here we

have a little stack of money that this government gave to middle- and low-income

families — maybe about $300 per year if you're $30,000 or below and up to

about $700 per year total tax cut if you're $60,000 or below. That's the tax

cut. Let's not even worry about MSP premium increases, and let's not even worry

about PST increases — two very regressive taxes. We now have a family, and if

they've got Raj and Sally in before- and after-school day care, they've got a

bill of $2,200 more that they're going to have to pay. Am I missing something

here?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Regardless of what the member prefers to say, the fact of the

matter is that the universal child care plan was not sustainable. Those are the

simple facts; we simply could not have the kind of program that her

administration put in place. We said quite clearly that we believe that families

who can afford to pay for child care should pay for child care.

In terms of

the before- and after-school care that parents are going to be faced with at the

end of June, those spaces are still there. They're not going to disappear. The

providers that provide those spaces are still there. The difference will be that

parents will have to pay the full costs of those child care spaces.

MacPhail: Yes, that's my point. They'll now be paying $1,100 more per child

per year for child care than they were last year. Let's just put it in the

language of the government, then, about flexibility and choices. That's the

language that the government likes to talk about.

[1535]

The

government says that the universal child care program isn't sustainable even

though it was fully committed, fully budgeted for. This government made a choice

on June 5 to give to individuals tax breaks worth about $1.5 billion. Then on

July 30 they made

[ Page 1827 ]

another choice to give corporations a tax break worth about $800 million.

That's $2.3 billion in tax cuts. I assume that one of the things the government

took into account was whether individuals would be worse off or better off with

the tax cuts. In fact, the Minister of Finance swears up and down every single

day that every single British Columbian is better off as a result of the tax

cuts.

Of course,

what the Minister of Finance fails to take into account — and the Minister of

State for Women's Equality doesn't correct him — is that if you're a family

with children in child care, you're way worse off. Let's say you're a family

that makes $60,000 per year, because that's the average family. We won't even

talk about low income. The average family got a tax cut of — I don't know —

even $800 a year. How are they better off? How is that family better off if they

have just one child in before- and after-school care? Did the minister bring

that to the attention of the Minister of Finance when he was misspeaking

himself?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I suspect that the member opposite and I are just not going to

agree on this issue. She believes that universal child care is the way to go,

and we've said quite clearly that universal child care is not the way to go. Her

government chose to go down that road. They also chose to make decisions that

doubled our debt and left a legacy for our children to have to pay.

What we

need to do is concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order, making sure

that, in fact, the kinds of opportunities are there for people to build a better

British Columbia. That includes parents who are working. Our position is —

again, I will say this clearly — that we do not support universal child care.

Her government did. Her government put in place a universal child care program

that was not sustainable, and it wasn't costed.

We're

saying that what we want to do is make sure we can do as much as possible in

these very difficult financial times that we face — again I will say, Mr.

Chair — as the result of the decisions that her government made. We are trying

to do the very best we can. There are just some very difficult circumstances.

I've said

repeatedly that we had to make some very difficult decisions. This was one.

We're having to make some very difficult decisions around a whole bunch of other

areas that impact on people and people's lives. Believe me, it was not easy. In

terms of child care, what we're trying to do is the very best we can, given the

limited resources that we have, to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of

providing those child care spaces.

MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question? The Minister of Finance

said nobody is worse off as a result of the tax increases; everybody's better

off as a result of the tax cut.

I'm not

making this family up. These families exist in this province by the tens of

thousands — with a family income of $60,000 per year and just one child in

before- and after-school care. Does that family have more disposable income? Is

that family better off as a result of this government's initiatives?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The existing grants we have are going to be consolidated into the

operating grant, 2002-03. I'd be happy to answer questions dealing with the

child care grant, but I suggest that if the member would like to talk about tax

policy, again I'll direct her to the Minister of Finance's estimates.

[1540]

MacPhail: No wonder women are so poorly served by this minister. She refuses

to answer a question that she well knows the answer to. That's the kind of

advocacy we have at the cabinet table on behalf of women.

The

minister says: "It has nothing to do with me. Go to the Minister of

Finance." Well, the Minister of Finance misspoke himself. He misled the

public. It was up to the Minister for Women's Equality, at the cabinet table, to

stand up and say: "Oh, wait a minute, Minister of Finance. You forgot that

we were cutting the grants to parents for before- and after-school care. As of

June 30 they'll be paying $1,100 per year more than they were before you were

elected, Minister of Finance." Did the Minister for Women's Equality say

that? No.

She stands

up and misleads again to say that the universal child care program was

unsustainable. The Progress Board report didn't say that. The fiscal review

panel report didn't say that. The Minister of Finance didn't say that. Just the

Minister of State for Women's Equality is saying that.

I put it to

the Minister for Women's Equality. I know she won't answer the question. You

have to go all the way up to earning $100,000 per year to just make up for the

cut this minister brought in, in child care, for one child in before- and

after-school child care. That's separate and apart from the tax increases and

the MSP premium increases.

Do you know

— through you, Mr. Chair — how many people earn $100,000 a year in this

province? Less than 4 percent earn that. Does the minister have any idea how

many families of school-age children or toddlers or infant children earn that

amount of money? Less than 1 percent. Families with kids in child care, almost

to a family, are worse off because of this government's policies.

The

minister says her survey will show affordability. The cost of child care is the

biggest concern of parents. I expect that the families who are benefiting from

the universal child care program that will be cancelled in a few months will be

saying loudly and clearly: "We had no idea we would be so much worse off

under this government."

The next

question that the minister's survey asked…. I'm sorry. The minister refused to

answer the previous question, so I assume she won't answer that question.

Interjections.

[ Page 1828 ]

MacPhail: I just asked her. I asked a series of questions. Is the minister

aware of the statistics around child-rearing families and their income?

Hon. L.

Stephens: You know, we're talking about a survey here. We're talking about a

new child care plan. We're talking about the direct responsibilities of this

minister. If the member opposite wants to talk about tax policy, she can talk to

the Minister of Finance.

What we're

trying to do is provide a child care plan that provides flexibility and

stability and predictability for child care providers and for parents to access

child care spaces. The member may think she knows what we're going to be doing,

but in fact the decisions around a new child care plan have not been finalized

yet.

The member

can make all kinds of accusations and fearmongering that she may wish to do, but

her comments are completely unfounded. Again I will say to the member that when

we have the plan together and ready for consultation, we will be out there

talking to parents and child care providers to make sure that the plan that we

do put in place does in fact target families who need it the most and does

facilitate the expansion of quality, safe, affordable and accessible child care.

[1545]

MacPhail: It's clear the minister didn't answer the four questions that I

asked. There's a lot of help from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He seems to

think he knows the answer that families would be better off under this

government if they have a child. I'll be happy to have him join in the debate,

if the Minister of State for Women's Equality can't answer the questions.

The fact of

the matter is that families raising children in this province who need

assistance raising those children outside the home are worse off under this

government than they ever could have contemplated. That's just taking into

account one cut that this government has made. Oh no, I'm sorry. If you earn

$100,000 or more, you'll about break even. I guess it does prove the point that

the minister made last month: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and

that's the way it goes. The minister feels no compunction to change that point

of view at all through her own advocacy.

The next

question that I was curious about is question 4(c): "What solutions would

you suggest to address these challenges?" Can the minister outline what the

survey results were on that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I want to go back to something the member said earlier and to

correct her. Under the new child care system, twice as many child care providers

will benefit. The funding will be distributed much more equitably and across

more of the child care providers. In fact, I believe our new child care plan

will be of more benefit to the people and families of British Columbia than the

previous administration's. I think we can prove that quite clearly. Again, I'll

just say to the member that she can stay tuned and see what the new child care

plan does in fact look like.

The

question the member asked was that in addressing the unique challenges in

providing child care to children under three, the highest number of responses

called for increased funding for infant and toddler care. We've talked about

that, and I've said clearly that's what they had asked for: direct and increased

funding to providers by way of operating and capital grants — that's the other

priority; simplified application and administration of the current funding

programs; more child care facilities in the workplace, possibly with tax

incentives for businesses creating child care facilities at the worksite; more

licence-regulated child care for infants and toddlers; a review of the current

licensing regulations in light of urban and rural issues; and accessible

training for child care providers. These are all issues that were raised and

that will be in the

summary of the child care consultation.

MacPhail: The minister has mentioned the issue of licensing several times.

What aspects of licensing are needing to be changed?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The discussions around licensing have to do with some cultural and

traditional issues faced by aboriginal populations. The current regulations are

inflexible in terms of allowing elders or traditional food, for instance, to

come into child care centres. This was an issue that I heard quite clearly in

the northwest and the northeast.

The other

issue around licensing came from licensing officers themselves. In the more

rural parts of British Columbia many licensing officers felt that where a child

care centre had some difficulties adhering to the letter of the regulations,

there needed to be some flexibility around how they could manage in order for

that particular child care centre to remain open. Those are some of the issues

that we're looking at.

[1550]

In terms of

licensing, I just wanted to say this: we are looking at the legislation, but I

do want to make sure everyone understands that there will be no compromise for

safety and health concerns of children in child care spaces in this province.

MacPhail: We have a minister for deregulation…. I'm sorry, I can't

remember whether it's a minister of state or a minister of deregulation.

Minister of state.

Who will be

leading the changes to regulation of child care — the Minister for Women's

Equality or the Minister of State for Deregulation?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The Minister of State for Long Term Care. The regulations, as the

member probably knows, are under the Continuing Care Act. It's the Minister of

State for Long Term Care who will be leading the changes to the legislation.

MacPhail: The Minister for Long Term Care will do the changes to the

regulation? My apologies. I wasn't paying full attention.

[ Page 1829 ]

Hon. L.

Stephens: The Minister of State for Long Term Care has the lead role and

responsibility for the Continuing Care Act. The child care regulations fall

under the Continuing Care Act, and so she will have the lead role there.

We have

been working across the ministry to address those concerns. I just want to say

this too. The role of the minister of state and the ministry itself is very much

working across ministry with other ministries. We're doing that in a very

cooperative way. We're certainly, I think, moving forward very expeditiously on

a lot of these issues. That's one.

We're

looking very closely at how we can make the changes to the Continuing Care Act

with broad consultation with providers, parents, ECE workers and licensing —

all of those — to make sure what we put in place is a regulation that is not

prescriptive but allows flexibility and ease of enforcement. It absolutely must

maintain protection of safety and health issues for children in child care

centres.

MacPhail: I will be raising these questions about changes to the regulation

with the Minister of State for Long Term Care.

The

Ministry for Women's Equality service plan states that working parents need

child care in B.C. For 76 percent of couples with children, both parents are in

the workforce, and 66 percent of single parents are employed. There are more

single-parent families than ever before. I'm quoting from the minister's service

plan.

Can you

share with us what the plans are to ensure that this is a question that your

plan will actually deal with — the needs of those families?

Hon. L.

Stephens: It's clear there are more women working today. We all know that.

The stats are very clear. There are more women working today. There are more

single women working today. There are more women working outside the home today.

Our child

care plan is going to reflect the added needs of working women. I said earlier

that 73 percent of women working outside of the home have children under the age

of six. That means they need to have some intensive child care — infant and

toddler, preschool, kindergarten.

Those are

the issues we're going to be addressing in our new child care plan. We want to

make sure the families of British Columbia have the kinds of child care that are

appropriate for their needs.

[1555]

MacPhail: The service plan then goes on to say that there are 73,000

licensed child care spaces in B.C., or about 26 spaces for every 100 children

under the age of 12. With an estimated 45 percent of families requiring child

care, there is a shortfall of about 200,000 licensed spaces. In a 1997 survey of

parents, 31 percent reported that child care–related issues interfered with

their ability to seek employment, remain in the paid labour market or pursue

education or training.

I want to

ask the minister a two-part question. Is this the goal? By this being part of

the ministry plan, is the goal then to eliminate that gap of 200,000 licensed

spaces? What are the future demographic changes that would affect that number?

Thirdly, given the fact that the minister herself highlights that child care

interferes with employment, what effect is the cut to the child care subsidy for

low-income families going to have on women being able to stay in the workforce?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Through some of the analysis we've done, we've seen that, yes,

more women are working, but they're having fewer children. The demographics are

changing. What we are attempting to do is increase the number of child care

spaces per 100,000. This is the target we've set for ourselves.

In terms of

the child care and employment initiatives of the Minister of Human Resources,

again I would refer you to the Minister of Human Resources. As I said earlier,

he is putting together the changes in his ministry and would be able to share

with the member all of those changes.

The

Chair: Members, the committee has been sitting now for approximately two

hours. It's been suggested that we take a five-minute recess. Is that agreeable

to the committee? We'll recess until five after four.

The

committee recessed from 3:58 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[T. Christensen in the chair.]

MacPhail: On the issue of the last question I was asking, in terms of the

MHR cuts to subsidies for child care, I do want to explore this with the

minister, and here's why. The minister has said that her own service plan

articulates the connection between proper child care and the ability to be

employed and remain in the paid labour market. That's from the minister's own

service plan.

[1610]

Then the

minister's child care initiative is targeted, by her own words, to those who

need it the most. It would seem to me — just from an economic argument, let

alone the right thing to do for our children — that low-income families need

child care as much as or more than anyone else in order to stay in the paid

labour market. Yet the very people who are now getting child care subsidies, the

low-income working-poor families, are having their child care subsidy cut — a

$26 million cut on a $126 million budget of child care subsidies. How does the

minister rationalize that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: Priority services for women remain in place. Those include child

care programs, transition houses, counselling programs, and it also includes the

services of the Minister of Human Resources.

We examined

all of the ministry changes across ministries to ensure that essential services

would be

[ Page 1830 ]

maintained. There are job placement and training programs that will be

available to the clients that the member speaks of — primarily single parents

— to help make that transition into the workplace. The child care subsidy

administered by the Minister of Human Resources is available for those clients

who will be in that job training or earning low income to assist with their

child care costs.

MacPhail: The minister is quoted as referring to these cuts to the child

care subsidies to low-income families, saying the changes were necessary to make

the system more affordable for taxpayers, even though they will result in needy

parents paying more. Is that a correct quote?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I do not recall having made that statement, if in fact I did.

Perhaps the member could put some context as to where and when and all of those

other details.

MacPhail: The minister made them after the cuts were announced

post–January 17, 2002, in an interview. I'll provide the minister with the

interview. I always want to give the minister a chance to undo her interviews,

but so far the minister hasn't challenged this one as it appeared.

Can the

minister explain how making needy parents pay more for child care benefits those

who need child care the most, which is her initiative under child care?

Hon. L.

Stephens: We're not talking about needy parents paying more; we're talking

about trying to provide equitable child care services for families in British

Columbia. That includes all families.

There is a

subsidy available from the Ministry of Human Resources to assist low-income

families in accessing quality child care. That remains.

I've said

to the member repeatedly that my responsibilities are around trying to expand

the number of child care spaces in British Columbia. The new child care plan

will do that. When that is ready, we will be rolling it out, and the member will

have the opportunity to view it.

Since we

are moving along in the afternoon, and the member hasn't taken this opportunity

to discuss in much detail what is in the service plans, I would just like to

take this opportunity to talk a little bit about some of the priorities that we

have in this ministry. I think it's important that all members, and certainly

the general public, have an opportunity to hear what we are going to be doing in

the next year. We have quite a list here. I want to talk about some of the major

projects included in our service plan, some of our other priorities and some of

the issues we're going to be working on.

[1615]

We are

going to be developing a best-practices guide. This is clearly one of our

priorities. It certainly will be designed to assist ministries in determining

some of the considerations around new policies and programs and practices of

ministries. We're going to be assisting them through the cross-ministry work —

how they can, in fact, factor into their deliberations issues that may impact

women negatively. That's a major undertaking that we will be doing.

We're also

going to be doing a reporting document. What we would like to do here as part of

the accountability of government, if you like, is develop a document that lays

out quite clearly what we undertook as a government and as a department of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in order to address those systemic

barriers that women face. This is a document we will be able to report on from

year to year to measure ourselves and see how far we have moved down that road

to addressing these systemic barriers for women.

One of the

key strategies is that we will be developing a safer community strategy to look

at what resources are available in communities to help protect women in

transition houses and shelters and how communities can, in fact, keep women

safer. That's an important initiative we've undertaken, which we hope will be

complete by the end of this year.

We're also

doing a provincial perspective for the delivery of women's services. Here is

where we hope to provide, in one place, services that are available to women

across the province. We're looking at a Web-based model. Most people have access

to the Web these days. It is certainly the new way of providing information. We

believe that to have all of the government programs and practices that will

impact on women and assist them in accessing government services…. They will

be available in that format.

We're also

working on a number of health issues. Access to abortion. We are making sure

that that, in fact, is moving forward and that nothing is coming forward that

will impact that service in a negative way — those legal medical services for

women. I know the member opposite will share my views on that.

We've also

said quite clearly in our New Era document that we're going to be

implementing a prevention of domestic violence act. That is an initiative that

is underway with the Attorney General. We are in the process of gathering the

various pieces of legislation from across Canada and other jurisdictions and are

looking at legislation that may be appropriate for British Columbia.

Some of the

other areas we're working on…. This is through the cross-ministry committees

I've identified. We're looking at filling the labour market shortage in trades.

We want to have a discussion paper to address that issue.

We're also

looking at and working with the Minister of State for Mental Health in

transition house access, mental health and substance abuse. More and more women

who are coming to the transition houses are presenting with these two

difficulties that they are undergoing in their personal lives, sometimes as a

result of abuse in their homes. They're having difficulty finding a place to go.

Not all transition houses are able to accept women that have substance misuse

issues. We're addressing that.

[ Page 1831 ]

We're

looking at development of an awards program for women in leadership. The

Lieutenant-Governor has expressed some interest in working with us on that.

The

ministry is also going to be addressing aboriginal needs, as the member well

knows. That is certainly a focus of the ministry overall, and it's certainly an

issue that is near and dear to my heart in terms of aboriginal women. There are

a large number of issues that affect aboriginal women, and we're going to be

addressing those, both through the direct policy development we are doing in our

policy shop and in the aboriginal secretariat of the ministry overall.

That, as

well, goes for immigrant and visible minority women in our immigrant and

multicultural

section of the ministry. There's lots of overlap, and there's lots

of working back and forth to address those issues.

[1620]

The

federal-provincial-territorial meetings continue. We are preparing their

economic projects: dependent care, non-traditional occupations and non-standard

benefits. These are items that have been identified across Canada as needing to

be addressed. We are moving forward on those, and British Columbia is leading

the discussion.

We are also

looking at violence indicators. The federal government has committed to

developing a violence indicator — not a checklist, but they are developing an

indication from across Canada of what violence indicators may be, like a risk

assessment model. We're working with the federal government in that regard.

In our

interministry committees…. As I said earlier, we reduced the committees of

Women's Equality from 32. Prior to our government there were 32 interministry

committees. We've reduced those to three to make them much more focused and much

more able to carry out the policy priorities that we've identified. Justice is

one of them — safety and security measures. Again, we believe that is one of

the priority areas of this ministry, to make sure that women are protected from

violence. We have put in place the funding mechanisms to make that happen.

We've

talked a little bit about the economic issues — wage parity. That's one of the

policy developments the ministry staff are working on.

In health

care we are looking at mental health and substance misuse issues.

There is a

lot of area that this ministry is responsible for. There's a lot of policy

development that is on its way. The staff are working very hard. We're making

sure that we remain focused on what it is we need to do. We've tried very hard

to look at those essential priority areas for women in British Columbia. As I

said earlier, they fall under women-centred health care, to make sure that in

fact women have access to health care, to make sure that the poverty and

economic issues that women face in this province are addressed, and to make sure

that the safety and security issues that women face in this province are

addressed.

Those are

the areas that we're going to be working on over the coming year. I look forward

to any questions the member may ask in regards to those areas.

MacPhail: Those are exactly the issues that we've been discussing. I

appreciate that the minister wanted to get up and give her version in a compact

way, but we have been talking about best-practices guide. I've actually been

asking the minister what she's done about it today in advising her colleagues

about what the best practices are for their policies. Does it make sense to cut

the family maintenance enforcement program?

I can

hardly wait to see the best-practices guide. These are exactly the questions

I've been asking the minister of state for employment.

Let me just

go through the ones that…. I'll fill in where we've been asking questions and

ask some more.

You're

undertaking a document about the commitments the government made. What about the

commitment to have a stand-alone ministry for women's equality?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The commitment to have a stand-alone ministry for women's

equality. When the government sat down to look at the kind of new government

programs and new government restructuring that we felt was the best way to

deliver services in British Columbia, it was clear that women's issues, women's

equality and all of those areas that affect women could best be served through a

ministry that was more community-based. Therefore, the decision was taken to

create a ministry that was Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

[1625]

These areas

are all community-based. When we look at what is contained in this ministry,

that's very clear. We have the opportunity with three ministers to advocate and

put forward issues that are of concern to women. In fact, that is what happens.

We also have the ability to partner with various other parts of government. I've

mentioned a couple of them. One is the aboriginal, and the second is the

multicultural. There are many natural connections in this ministry that impact

on women. We have found that in fact, it has been very productive, it is working

well, and we are making sure that the cross-ministry integration and

coordination is working in this ministry. We also have the ability to make sure

that it is happening all across government ministries.

MacPhail: The minister wrote, prior to the last election: "A B.C.

Liberal government will carry on the core funding for women's centres, and the

Ministry of Women's Equality will continue to exist as a freestanding

ministry." How will those two promises be reflected in the document that

the ministry is undertaking?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The letter to which the member refers was written in 1999, well

before this government came to be. There were a number of initiatives that, of

course, all governments look at, all parties look at. As the member well knows,

events change. The events that change are primarily the restructuring of

government which we said quite clearly, prior to the 2001

[ Page 1832 ]

election, was exactly what we were going to do. I've just gone through the

changes that we made to the Ministry of Women's Equality.

In terms of

programs, we've been speaking about that for the entire day — the reason for

these changes. The government feels quite clearly that we need to do government

differently. In fact, the ministries reflect that, and the programs reflect

that. What we are trying to do is make sure that in the social ministries, we

put in place the priority essential services that people need to address those

issues that affect their lives.

We've been

talking today about services to abused women — women who, through no fault of

their own, are living under some very, very difficult circumstances. We've made

sure that the funding is there for them when they need it — that there are

transition houses, safe homes, counselling services and that there are

counselling services for children who witness abuse. We are making sure that

we're going to be able to do some public education around the effects of

violence against women and how we need to effect those changes.

We've also

made sure that we have the funding for child care spaces. The funding this year

has not changed from last year. We are continuing with building those affordable

child care spaces.

Hon.

member, the decisions that we have taken quite clearly show that in this

ministry, we are committed to making sure those priority essential services for

women are maintained.

MacPhail: I hardly know where to begin. The minister reiterated the

commitment to a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality in January 2001, and

she full well knows that. At the time when the government was saying that they

deserve to be the government, they pretended and acted like they were a

government-in-waiting. They just didn't bother to tell the truth. That's another

one where the minister didn't tell the truth.

The third

week in January 2001 the MLA for Langley announced…. She may remember this. It

was talking about A Decade of Accomplishments , and her response to that

report was that her party had changed its mind about the future of the ministry.

They're not going to implement the 1996 platform of eliminating the Ministry of

Women's Equality. The then MLA for Langley announced, in January 2001, that her

government-in-waiting would have a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality.

[1630]

We're a

small band. There's only two of us, but we work very hard to do our research.

For the minister to stand up there, surrounded by her other colleagues, and

think that she can get away with this kind of stuff is just unbelievable —

unbelievable.

Now we're

on to item No. 3 of what the minister wanted to talk about, and that's on my

topic too: safer communities, safer communities strategy. Let me tell you what

the Trial Lawyers Association says about the government's cuts to legal aid and

the closures of the courthouses. In an open letter to government dated January

23, 2002, the Trial Lawyers Association — not known to be a bunch of commie

pinkos, and I don't think they have NDP membership cards — said: "The

cuts and closures announced last week by the provincial government went too far.

Unfortunately, all British Columbians will pay the price, particularly women and

children." What does the minister have to say about that?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I will reiterate to the member opposite what we talked about

earlier, in terms of legal aid. Again, I will just simply say that on a

per-capita basis, British Columbia is the third highest in Canada. I will also

simply say that the funding for legal aid services will continue to be available

at existing levels for cases involving domestic violence restraining orders;

mental health; child protection; adult criminal and young offenders, including

duty counsel.

If the

member would like to canvass what the trial lawyers of British Columbia have to

say, I suggest she do that with the Attorney General.

MacPhail: I'm only addressing the issues that the minister herself wanted to

talk about, which was safe…. Maybe there's a different definition. Does safer

communities, which the minister is lauding as an initiative she's working on,

mean something different than the personal safety and security of women?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The area that we are working on, of course, is the physical

structure for services for women and the counselling services. We're also going

to be working with local communities, with the police forces, with victims

services, and with all individuals, groups and organizations involved in safety

and security issues for women. We are getting that initiative underway, and it

will encompass a broad range of consultations.

MacPhail: I'm sure the Trial Lawyers Association will be comforted by the

minister's remarks.

Here are

some of the changes to the justice system that I'm wondering how the minister's

safer communities strategy…. I assume she's talking about safer communities

for women, because that's her responsibility. Here are some of the changes, the

cuts, to the justice system and legal services: closing of courthouses in 24

communities; a budget target of 5,000 fewer criminal prosecutions; gutting legal

aid funding, particularly as it relates to poverty law — the poverty law

clients, the clients who had the assistance of funding from poverty law under

legal aid were, in the vast majority, women; eliminating Crown victims services

so that women and children will have to go to court now on their own;

eliminating family advocates — the family advocates actually protected the

interests of children in custody cases; and gutting the Human Rights Commission.

[1635]

This is one

that the public isn't even really aware of yet: a massive gutting of the Human

Rights Commis-

[ Page 1833 ]

sion. Funding will be slashed by one-third. The Human Rights Commission is

responsible for ensuring the protection of equality rights as they relate to

women. How do those cuts jibe with the minister's initiative? What will she do

in her safer communities strategy to make up for the effects of those cuts?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I've said clearly that the service plan objective is to develop a

safer strategy for women in communities. That is what we intend to do. We intend

to talk with police services, local governments, local women-serving

organizations and victim services to develop the kind of strategy that

communities require. Some communities, particularly those in the more rural and

remote parts of the province, struggle daily with trying to provide the kinds of

services that women need. I can assure the member that there will be ongoing

consultations and that this is a top priority for us. We will continue to work

towards that safer strategy.

MacPhail: The minister lauded the work of reducing 32 interministry

committees to three committees, but she did say there was one committee left to

deal with justice. What's the workplan for that committee?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The justice committee is working through the Attorney General's

ministry and with the Solicitor General's ministry. We're addressing the issues

in terms of the domestic violence legislation. We're addressing issues in terms

of the federal-provincial changes to various federal legislation. We're working

with the Solicitor General's ministry in terms of the sexual assault policy. All

of those issues that impact women in the legal sphere are being examined by the

committee.

MacPhail: Is this a closed-door committee, or are there public

representatives or stakeholder representatives on it? Or is it the government

deciding these matters amongst themselves?

Hon. L.

Stephens: They're the usual interministry committees of government that work

cross-ministry, collaboratively, with other parts of government to address the

issues of the day. Our ministry, as the member well knows, has a responsibility

to do that. We need to be aware of issues that are affecting women, and we need

to be able to make representation on women's behalf. That's what these

interministry committees will do. They have a very aggressive plan and agenda

and, as I said earlier, are working very hard to address these issues that

affect women.

We are just

beginning the process. We only received our funding, and we have been

reorganizing government, as the member well knows. We are addressing these

concerns, and we will continue to address others as they arise. For those

justice issues that are top priority for women in British Columbia today, the

member can rest assured that we are in fact working very hard to address them.

[1640]

[H. Long in the chair.]

MacPhail: The reason I asked that question was because this is a concern of

a lot of women across the province — women who have organized themselves into

advocacy roles on behalf of women who don't have the time to speak on their own.

That's a group of women's organizations.

What is the

minister's working relationship with women's organizations such as the B.C.

Coalition of Women's Centres? How often does the minister meet with those

stakeholders? Are those stakeholders being consulted on this safer

communities…? Am I calling it right? I wrote down safer communities. If I'm

calling that incorrectly, the minister can correct me.

What is the

working relationship with those stakeholders?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The working relationship with the stakeholders is very good. I've

had a number of meetings with the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses,

the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, specialized victim services and the

B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres.

With the

exception of the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, the stakeholders in other

women-serving organizations have committed to working with me and with this

government to make sure that important issues concerning women are addressed.

As a matter

of fact, I can tell you that I have formed a minister of state's working group

that does have individuals from these organizations I have mentioned as members.

They will be the people that we will be consulting with initially, and then with

a broader array of women-serving organizations.

Quite

clearly, we've decided, and we'll be using the expertise of women-serving

organizations to address these very real and very pressing serious issues that

face women today.

MacPhail: When was the last time the minister met with any women's group?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The one that immediately comes to mind was October 23 with the

B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres. The next one was budget day when a number of

stakeholders were guests of mine in the House for the budget presentation. We

had a number of conversations at that time.

MacPhail: There was a meeting in October and one on February 19. Who were

the stakeholders who were the guests of the minister?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There had been a very extensive meeting with stakeholders right

across the continuum. I've met with many of the child care services

organizations, including the aboriginal child care association. If

[ Page 1834 ]

the member wishes, I can certainly give her a list of the meetings that I

have had over the past number of months. I can ask the staff to make a list.

MacPhail: I'm just asking the minister what her work

schedule is for this

reason. There has been controversy surrounding the Ministry for Women's Equality

over the course of the last six weeks. I'm just wondering what the minister's

feedback has been from women's organizations.

There has

been quite a public dispute between the minister and the B.C. Coalition of

Women's Centres. Somehow the minister has said this month — just this month,

and we're at March 12: "I think the women's coalition is working from a

political point of view and not from a women's point of view — to assist the

women of B.C." That's a direct quote from the Times Colonist , March

1, 2002.

I'm curious

to know the minister's distinction between what a political point of view is

that would make it not a women's point of view. If she's not meeting with the

B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres, who's filling that gap? Who is the minister

meeting with, and what has been the response?

[1645]

Well, let's

see. What was their response to the budget? The stakeholders who the minister

had here as guests — what was their response to the budget? Who is the

minister meeting with that meets her needs of being a woman but not political?

Hon. L.

Stephens: In terms of the first question, I would refer the member to the

B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres' website, which quite clearly says that they

are a political organization. I believe they use the words — and I'm

paraphrasing here — that they are the political opposition, because there is

no one else. That's quite clearly stated on the coalition's website. I can only

deduce from this that, in fact, they do view themselves as being very much

political and very much the opposition. That is their choice.

I met with

them on October 23, as I said. We had a meeting arranged for March 1, which they

chose to cancel. It's very well known and certainly has been made very explicit

to all women-serving organizations that I'm very happy to meet. As a matter of

fact, we have some meetings that are kind of stacked up, because there are so

many.

We need to

be talking, but as the member well knows, sometimes it's very difficult to do

over here in session. As best I can, I'm trying to meet with women-serving

organizations on a regular basis. Some I meet with very regularly; others not so

regularly. Also, I do have conversations by telephone with organizations and

individuals in women-serving organizations in the province.

MacPhail: Does the minister only meet with people who agree with her, then?

Is that why, because this website said that they were opposed to the

government's agenda…? Does the minister only meet with people who agree with

her?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I want to correct the member. The meeting was cancelled by the

women's centres coalition. It was not cancelled by me. They chose to cancel. If

they would like to meet again, all they need to do is to pick up the phone or

send me a request.

Again, the

issues that affect women in this province today are very serious and very

critical. We are working as hard as we can to address those issues. They're very

real. They're certainly very real to women who are in abusive situations, to

single moms who are looking for child care and to moms who are looking for

employment opportunities. Every opportunity I get, I am talking with those

women. I'm talking with the organizations that represent women.

What we

need to do is work together in a coordinated and collaborative way to address

these issues. I think women who genuinely want to see the advancement of women

and see some of these issue resolved will work together in that manner. I have

to say that the women-serving organizations I have met with thus far and have

known through past years as the opposition critic are doing that, and we will

continue to do that.

MacPhail: What was the minister's

schedule for meeting with women on

International Women's Day?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I had an invitation to attend a function in Nanaimo.

Unfortunately, the estimates were going to be called, and were called, so I

spent the day here in Victoria working through some of these issues that the

member and I are talking about.

[1650]

MacPhail: International Women's Day was on Friday of last week. The House

wasn't sitting.

International

Women's Day is a pretty important day for women in this province. I was

surprised. I was looking for the Minister of State for Women's Equality. It

passed by. The celebration of the achievements of women and the commitment to

working more passed by this Minister of State for Women's Equality completely. I

think that pretty much says it all.

The

minister said that she had stakeholders here on budget day. What were those

stakeholders' reactions to the budget that the minister brought in along with

her government?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The various stakeholders in women's services in the province….

As a matter of fact, I have a note here that just came in, which I received from

the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses. It's just a note to "express

our appreciation for your support of Stopping the Violence programs. We look

forward to working with you over the coming months." I received another one

from a couple of transition houses. There's a number of individuals and groups

[ Page 1835 ]

and organizations in the province who understand the seriousness of the

problems we face and are prepared to work to help resolve them. The member

opposite, I think, should perhaps take that to heart.

In terms of

International Women's Day, we have a message on our website. I sent letters to

the editors of every community and regional paper in the province. As I said

earlier, I had been invited to a function in Nanaimo but couldn't attend because

estimates were called, and I was here in Victoria preparing for estimates. As a

matter of fact, there were a couple of invitations to attend in my constituency

as well.

As I said

earlier, those commitments had to be cancelled in terms of dealing with what I

believe and what I see as the fundamental issue around addressing women's

concerns in the province. I believe that the importance of making sure that

government programs and practices…. Certainly, this ministry's programs and

practices around addressing the needs of women are important and have priority.

The decision I made was that we would, in fact, be working very hard to develop

those programs further and prepare for estimates and make sure that all members

of this House know the good things we are doing and that all members of the

community know the good initiatives that are underway and all of the good news

coming from this ministry.

MacPhail: The Minister of State for Women's Equality is the voice of this

government for women. She chose, for whatever reason, not to celebrate

International Women's Day in order to talk to this Legislature during estimates.

I'm flattered. There's been one other member from the government caucus who's

asked this minister a question.

I would say

that next year the minister can give preparation for answering my questions a

miss. She can work with her caucus to see whether any of them have questions. No

caucus member but one has stood up to ask this minister a question. No other

government member has a concern, obviously. Perhaps the minister's priority next

year, if the ministry still exists, could be to actually join with women on the

one day of the year where women celebrate successes and outline plans for

further action — one day of the year.

My question

actually was: what did the stakeholders that the minister had as guests here…?

What was their reaction to the budget on budget day?

Hon. L.

Stephens: As the member well knows, budget day is one that is…. The news

of budget day that goes out is new. It takes a while for individuals to respond

to it.

[1655]

The

discussions I had with the various stakeholders that were guests of mine for

that day revolved around the initiatives that we were going to be undertaking to

address the systemic barriers for women. They are very committed; I am very

committed. This is the program development. This is the cooperation that I and

the women's stakeholders are going to be developing our work around. I look

forward to it. They have expressed a pleasure and an interest in doing that. I

take them at their word, and I'm sure we can bring together the kinds of changes

in British Columbia that we'd all like to see.

MacPhail: What are the cuts the minister is making to women's centres?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There are no cuts or reductions this year.

MacPhail: You know, the minister is supposed to follow the Premier's lead,

where he says this is the most open and accountable government. The Premier said

in his estimates that for the first time ever, he has given the public a

three-year service plan, and that's the basis of discussion for estimates. He

claimed that as a jewel in his crown, so could the minister please answer the

question?

Hon. L.

Stephens: There are no changes to the women's services program for this

year, '02-03. However, in '04-05 we will be reducing or eliminating the funding

— the $47,000 that goes to each women's centre in the province. I've said

quite clearly that we are going to be working with the women's centres to find

ways that we can assist them to replace that $47,000 somewhere else in the

community or to find organizations to partner with in their community to provide

the resource and referral services that they currently provide.

Now,

women's centres that currently hold contracts with the ministry in regard to the

Stopping the Violence initiative — the transition houses, safe homes and

second-stage housing — women's counselling programs or Children Who Witness

Abuse…. Those contracts are in place and will remain in place from now until

the end of '04-05.

MacPhail: Upon careful questioning, the minister admits that the funding for

women's centres is eliminated — eliminated. I'm sure it'll be great comfort to

women's centres that the minister finally came clean and said it will be in the

third year of their service plan.

The

website. Maybe the website has been altered at lunchtime — I'm not sure —

but the ministry's own website says: "Women's centres are often the first

place women go for help in their communities in times of crisis. Providing

operating funding for these services helps them deliver vital services to women

in communities around B.C."

We got that

from your website. Maybe that was left over from the previous government. Is

that the case, or is that on the website because of this current government's

view?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The funding for the women's centres will continue for the next two

years. What we

[ Page 1836 ]

the government have said clearly is that we are doing business differently.

The areas of advocacy, resource and referral, we think, can be done another way.

The women's centres are primarily resource, referral and advocacy. Therefore, we

decided that we are protecting the priority essential services: direct crisis

intervention services for women. We have made sure that the funding for women's

centres is in place and will remain in place for a further two years. We have

committed to working with them to find the replacement for the $47,000 or to

find partners in their communities. This is what the commitment has been, and

this is what we will do.

MacPhail: What did the minister mean, when she was a member in the

opposition, when she said that a B.C. Liberal government would carry on the core

funding for women's centres?

Hon. L.

Stephens: The reorganization of the government meant that we were going to

do things differently, as I've just laid out to the member. We value the work

and the services that women's centres provide, but services can be delivered in

a different way.

[1700]

What we

have done is commit to help the women's centres find either alternate funding,

as I've said before, or partners within communities to help them maintain the

services that they think are important. We are not the only funders to women's

centres. The Stopping the Violence programs that we do contract with some

women's centres for will be maintained throughout to '05.

MacPhail: Well, let's look at alternate sources of funding for these women's

centres. The Campbell Valley Women's Centre. I got this out of the Langley Advance.

I know the minister is into a bit of a struggle about the accuracy of the

Langley Advance reporting. This report is by Jordan Bateman. We got it

off the website today.

Let's see

what it says. "The Campbell Valley Women's Centre will close on March 30

unless a miracle happens." Now, this isn't a commie pinko. This isn't an

NDP member making this allegation; it's Randy White. Oh, Randy White — who is

he? He's the federal MP for Langley-Abbotsford. The centre is going to close,

and Randy White, the MP for Langley-Abbotsford, is angry. Here's what he says:

"Due to the lack of provincial and federal government support, the Campbell

Valley Women's Centre will stop assisting our youth, yet money is directed to

areas of much less importance."

What's the

minister's answer to that? In her own back yard, in her own community there

aren't any alternatives. What's her solution for the Campbell Valley Women's

Centre?

Hon. L.

Steph