British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 12, 2002

H0312am-03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Morning Sitting Volume 4, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Committee Clerk................................................................................................................ ......................................................... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 12, 2002 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 1787 J. Les Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 1787 Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Hon. G. Abbott J. MacPhail Hon. L.

Stephens Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 1801 Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued) J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark K. Johnston L. Mayencourt J. Bray

1787 TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 The House met at 10:03 a.m. Prayers. Reports from Committees J. Les: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for the second session of the thirty-seventh par- liament, entitled Revitalizing the Provincial Approach to Treaty Negotiations: Recommendations for a Referendum on Negotiating Principles. I move that the report be taken as read and re- ceived. Motion approved. J.

Les: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. [1005] Leave granted. J. Les: I m o v e t h a t t h e r e p o r t b e a d o p t e d .

T h i s r e - port reflects the Aboriginal Affairs Committee's con- sideration of all matters and issues concerning ques- tions which the government should submit to voters to implement the commitment to give all British Colum- bians a say on the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations through a one-time provincewide referendum, while ensuring that consti- tutionally protected aboriginal rights and title are re- spected. The committee's report recommends a mail-in ref- erendum ballot with a set of 16 enhanced and ex- panded principles for treaty negotiation.

As well, it calls for a process of reconciliation and an expression of regret from the provincial government as a way to revi- talize the treaty process and set a new vision and con- text for negotiations. The committee's public consulta- tion process confirms British Columbians' support of the treaty process and their interest in playing a role in revitalizing it. The committee is confident that these principles will assist the province in achieving a strong and renewed mandate to advance the negotiation of fair and workable treaties.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the report, and I would like to thank all members of the committee for their input and dedication through- out the process. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be continuing debate on estimates for the Ministry of Education. If we finish that, we'll begin debate on esti- mates for the Ministry of Health Services. In this House I call Committee of Supply, and we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Christen- sen in the chair. The committee met at 10:09 a.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL AND WOMEN'S SERVICES On vote 19: ministry operations, $535,278,000. Hon. G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for 2002-03. In par- ticular, we'll be moving vote 19 and vote 20. [1010] I would first like to introduce the senior ministry staff, who are part of our estimates team here today.

On my immediate right is our deputy minister, Bob de Faye; on his right, Lori Wanamaker, who's the assistant deputy minister, corporate services, and assistant dep- uty minister, safety and standards; and on the left of the Minister of State for Women's Equality is Kaye Mel- liship, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of Women's Equality and child care and of housing and building policy as well.

Also with us — not all these officials are in the chamber at the present time but cer- tainly will be playing a role at different points here, as we move through the estimates agenda — is David Richardson, the assistant deputy minister of commu- nity services and culture; Prad Khare, assistant deputy minister for aboriginal, multiculturalism and immigra- tion programs; Dale Wall, who is the assistant deputy minister of local government and the community char- ter; Brian Dolsen, who is the assistant deputy minister for the Winter Olympics secretariat and the Vancouver agreement; Pauline Rafferty, who is the chief executive officer for the Royal B.C.

Museum; Judy Brachman, who's the director of communications; Leta Hodge, who's the manager, executive operations, deputy min- ister's office. Monica Kendel from Women's Services is with us, as well, as part of the team. These are just a few of the skilled people who work with dedication and commitment in the service of the ministry and in the service of the people of British Columbia. I'm also pleased to be working in partnership with two colleagues, the Hon. Lynn Stephens, Minister of State for Women's Equality; and the Hon.

Ted Neb- beling, Minister of State for Community Charter and 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics bid. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is a large ministry with 30 responsi-

1788 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 bilities and 30 agencies, boards and commissions. It is a ministry that has a mandate to, among other things, enable effective local government, aboriginal and women's services; foster safety and standards in the built environment; provide citizen access to govern- ment and support services for communities and first nations. Although we face fiscal challenges, the government will protect local government grants to municipalities and regional districts.

These payments are necessary for local governments to continue to deliver much- needed services to their communities. This commit- ment also means that public library grants will be fixed at their current level for the next three years. We are maintaining funding to the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program, which will invest a total of $800 mil- lion in local government infrastructure to March 2006. We are increasing funding in our 58 government agent offices across the province and working with strategic partnerships to enhance information access within those communities.

As well, I am pleased to advise that the community charter is on track to complete a new legislative framework for local government. We're taking other positive action as well. For ex- ample, we are focusing our housing resources on those most vulnerable, in partnership with the federal gov- ernment, through the Canada-B.C. affordable housing program. Certainly, we are working with local gov- ernments, non-profits and, indeed, the private sector to develop partnerships that will ensure that the value of our resources are maximized.

We're working towards eliminating barriers to private sector housing options, by working with groups across the non-profit and in- dustry sectors. My ministry, as well, will continue to support ini- tiatives to stop violence against women and for coun- selling for children who witness abuse. We are continu- ing the ministry's aboriginal programs and services and, with the federal government, increasing program funding to help solve aboriginal urban challenges and to build capacity within their own communities.

We're moving forward with our commitment to increasing funding to the First Citizens Fund and to the physical fitness and amateur sports fund. Finally, we have im- plemented the provincial nominee program, with 79 nominees to date, targeting key skill shortages in the province. As I look ahead, I am confident that we can now take these positive steps to fulfil the mandate of this ministry, while holding the line on expenditures. [1015] My ministry's many responsibilities mean that what we do really matters to people in their daily lives.

For these reasons, we're determined to handle those responsibilities with care and consideration. As we move forward to hearing the questions from both the opposition and government members in this chamber, I do want to thank the opposition for setting out the order in which they would like their questions to proceed during these estimates. It will certainly as- sist in making the most efficient use of staff time. I thank the member for that, and I do look forward to the questions from members of this House. J. MacPhail: I was provoked to ask my first ques- tion by the minister's opening comments.

He is respon- sible for three of the four groups of employees who are equity groups within the government service: aborigi- nal, multicultural and women. Could the minister please outline for me the percentages of employees who fall within those three equity categories through- out his ministry? Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have specific percent- ages with respect to those groups within the ministry. J. MacPhail: Is it that they're not available or that they're not right here? If they're not here right now, we'll have plenty of time to get them. I would just ap- preciate them over the course of the estimates. Hon. G.

Abbott: The problem is that the informa- tion is not here. This ministry brought together all or portions of eight different ministries. While the mate- rial is available, we will get it to the member as soon as we can. J. MacPhail: I'm going to proceed, but that will influence my discussions throughout the estimates, so the sooner I can get that, the better. I'll proceed with the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I'm going to start with the most recent announce- ment that the government made in terms of the pay equity report.

Just to put it in context, the Liberal gov- ernment repealed private sector pay equity legislation last summer and then hired Nitya Iyer to recommend how to achieve pay equity without using legislative means. The report actually was released. The govern- ment has had it since February 28. The public saw it last Friday. What plans does the government have to imple- ment the recommendations? There are several recom- mendations, which the person inquiring into this made. Perhaps we could go through them recommen- dation by recommendation. Hon. L. Stephens: The report's recommendations are substantial.

They're very complex. It's detailed as well. The Attorney General and the rest of cabinet and government are going to take the time that we need to fully review the recommendations and their financial implications. However, some of the highlights do speak to public education awareness and strategic partnerships with the private sector in achieving pay equity. The gov- ernment is going to take the time to review those rec- ommendations thoughtfully and thoroughly, and at that time there will be an announcement of what the course of action will be. J. MacPhail: How much did government pay for the report?

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1789 Hon. L. Stephens: This report is the Attorney Gen- eral's, and the Attorney General would be the person to ask that question to. His estimates will be up shortly, I imagine, and you could do it at that time. [1020] J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm in a quandary here. As you know, there are two opposition members. It may not be available to us to inquire of the Attorney General. This is clearly a matter that should be the responsibility of Women's Equality.

If there's some guarantee that Liberal government members are going to be asking these questions of the Attorney General, so be it, but this is the appropriate place to ask these questions. Somehow estimates is becoming such a joke that it relies on the opposition to ask questions, which is ex- actly what's happening, and we may not, due to scheduling of two Houses here, be available to ask these questions of the Attorney General. I don't know why it is that I can't get this information out of the Min- ister of State for Women's Equality. It's called Working Through the Wage Gap .

That means the wage gap between men and women. Shall I just put these questions on the record, and then we can recess and the minister can get the answers for me? Hon. G. Abbott: The member should ask questions within the ambit of this ministry. It is pointless, regard- less of the protestations around not being able to attend other estimates, that she should ask questions that are not within our ambit of authority. She should confine her questions to that area. J. MacPhail: This report was done as part of a cabi- net decision. Why is it that the minister isn't aware of how much the study on pay equity cost?

Why is it that she's not aware of that? It was released ten days ago. Hon. L. Stephens: The member opposite should be aware that the ministries responsible for various activi- ties and reports have the technical information. I will simply reiterate to the member that this is not a Minis- try of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services report. It is the report of the Attorney General. If she wishes to know the technical questions around that report, I again suggest that she speak to the Attorney General when his estimates are up. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm going to keep asking my questions, Mr.

Chair, and if the minister has to stand u p a n d t a k e t h e F i f t h , s o b e i t . T h i s i s r i d i c u l o u s . T h e Minister of State for Women's Equality is responsible for women's equality policy. Is that correct? Hon. L. Stephens: That is correct. I will just reiter- ate to the member opposite that this particular report we are discussing was not paid through this ministry. It is the Attorney General's report. You can ask him how much it cost. J. MacPhail: Is pay equity part of Women's Equal- ity? Hon. L.

Stephens: In the development of policy relating to women, pay equity — equal pay for work of equal value, equal pay for equal work, and employ- ment equity — is part of the overall policy develop- ment of the Ministry for Women's Equality. J. MacPhail: Well, then I'm going to continue to ask questions about the pay equity report. That's exactly what I'm going to do. It's Women's Equality policy. This report deals exactly with the responsibility of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Did her minis- try make a submission to the investigator?

Perhaps the minister could advise me of the proper pronunciation of the woman's name. Hon. L. Stephens: The member does have the proper pronunciation, and, yes, the ministry did make a submission. J. MacPhail: That submission is not part of the re- port. Why not? Hon. L. Stephens: The conversation was between the task force and the previous Deputy Minister for Women's Equality. She provided information from the ministry, written information that was available, that had been done on numerous occasions in the area of policy development through the ministry. J.

MacPhail: Did the minister make a submission in her own name? Hon. L. Stephens: No, I did not. J. MacPhail: Where can the public find the submis- sion that the Minister of State for Women's Equality made to Ms. Iyer? Hon. L. Stephens: I would be perfectly happy to make available to the member opposite the information that was provided. [1025] J. MacPhail: Given that the minister of state is re- sponsible for women's equality and that she has said pay equity is a factor leading to women's equality, what recommendations in this report does the minister personally consider the most important? Hon. L.

Stephens: Again, I think what we are dis- cussing here is a report that government has not had an opportunity to review. We will continue to do so. We all have the view that pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, is a very thorny issue that we must all face, certainly in every workplace — some workplaces more than others. We are committed to reviewing this report thoroughly and thoughtfully and to developing a strategy from those deliberations. At

1790 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 that time we will be able to make a public statement on the strategy and what further actions we will be taking. J. MacPhail: So far I don't have any understanding or belief that the minister has even read the report, because I'm asking her personal views. They're per- sonal within the context of her responsibilities — not her personal views when she goes back to her riding, but the minister's personal views as they relate to her responsibility at the cabinet table. Has the minister read the recommendations? Hon. L.

Stephens: Yes, I have read the recommen- dations. I would like to say that I think the task force was able to pinpoint a number of issues that are cer- tainly of serious concern to this government and to women in British Columbia. J. MacPhail: I just want to suggest to the public and perhaps to you, Mr. Chair, why I'm asking these ques- tions of this minister. Does the women's policy branch still exist? Hon. L. Stephens: It absolutely does. It's a very strong branch. It is working very diligently on a num- ber of initiatives.

As a matter of fact, the policy branch is working on three interministry committees: one that deals with health care and women, one that deals with poverty and economic issues, and the other that deals with safety, security and justice issues for women. The policy branch is very active, and it is very much fo- c u s e d o n s o m e o f t h o s e i s s u e s t h a t w e b e l i e v e a r e pressing concerns to women in British Columbia today. J. MacPhail: Here's what the webpage says for the minister's own responsibility.

The women's policy branch "provides policy analysis and research support to government on issues that affect women. Priorities: economic, health and justice issues for women." It "par- ticipates in initiatives to support women's equality; works to integrate gender analysis in government leg- islation, policies and programs by providing informa- tion, advice and support to ministries." Even if this isn't something that the minister wants to claim ownership of, the report Working Through the Wage Gap, it is her policy branch that is responsible for the analysis.

It is her policy branch that is responsible for giving advice on how to integrate such matters into other areas of government. That's how I read it. What are the plans? For instance, what is the minis- try's plan to deal with recommendation 1, which is to undertake preliminary research to identify and priori- tize four to five industries for industry case studies and to group industries for subsequent studies? It seems to me that that's exactly what the webpage refers to as the responsibility of the women's policy branch. Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I will say to the member that we have had the report for a week.

We are going to be reviewing the recommendations very carefully and very thoughtfully as government as a whole. We will be developing our strategy and our responses to the recommendations. At that time they will be made public, and the member will be able to review them as well. [1030] J. MacPhail: Is that the answer to my question, or is that some script you're reading from? I asked the min- ister a very specific question. It says here that step 1 is to undertake preliminary research to identify and pri- oritize four to five industries for industry case studies.

It seems to me that's what the women's policy branch is about. It says it participates in initiatives to support women's equality, works to integrate gender analysis by providing information and advice and support to ministries — on exactly this topic. If not this minister, then who will be doing that? Hon. L. Stephens: I will reiterate to the member opposite that we've had this report for a week. It is the Attorney General's report. It is certainly an issue that is of primary concern to women. The government is care- fully reviewing the report and the recommendations.

When we have completed those deliberations and we have decided what our response and strategy will be, it will be made public. Again, the member will have an opportunity to comment at that time. J. MacPhail: There's no question that achievement of pay equity is this minister's responsibility. There's no question about it — by her own website, by her own assignment of responsibilities and by her own discus- sion in the public purview.

Now she sends mixed mes- sages about how she's dealing with that responsibility, but in recent weeks she has admitted that there is much work to be done and that it is her ministry's responsi- bility. Regardless, the minister can stand up and give the pat answer. Her senior minister can help her there. I will continue to ask my questions so the public can understand what, if any, support they have — particu- larly women — from this minister to move forward on this report. It's her responsibility.

The report states that it's necessary for government to provide staff and funds to increase awareness of the right to equal pay for equal work. How much staff and how much funding does this minister have to commit to that objective? Hon. L. Stephens: We have had this report for one week. There are a number of recommendations in it that we are going to be considering very carefully. The issue of pay equity is one that encompasses the broad government social policy. We will be reviewing that report and its recommendations.

Again, I will say to the member: when the decisions have been taken, they will be made public, and the member will have an op- portunity to review those recommendations. J. MacPhail: Equal pay for equal work has been the law for over two decades. It's not any revolution as a

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1791 result of this report. How much funding and staff are currently within the Ministry of State for Women's Equality to increase awareness of that right? Hon. L. Stephens: That is part of the strategy that government will be developing in response to these recommendations. All of those details will be available at the time that strategy is made public. J. MacPhail: My question was separate and apart from the report. Equal pay for equal work has been the law for over two decades — actually, more than two decades. It's separate and apart from the report.

How much staff and funding has your government commit- ted to make the public aware of equal pay for equal work? [1035] Hon. L. Stephens:

Section 12 of the Human Rights Code quite clearly states equal pay for equal work. Various mechanisms are available to individuals on a complaint basis. That is still there. This whole issue of pay equity encompasses the Human Rights Code, various other pieces of legislation and certainly other ministries and policy development initiatives. Again I will say to the member opposite that the decisions we will be taking around pay equity, equal pay for equal work and employment equity will be in the government strategy that flows from this re- port we just received a week ago.

All of these questions she is asking are very valu- able and very pertinent. However, at the moment, hav- ing only had this report for one week, government has not had the opportunity to review these recommenda- tions carefully and thoughtfully and to develop a strat- egy with the resources that may go with it at this time. I can commit to the member that when this has hap- pened and government does have a strategy, it will be public and certainly shared with members of the oppo- sition. J. MacPhail: I'm actually not working from the re- port right now.

I'm working from the minister's own performance plan for the ministry for which she is re- sponsible. They're the performance measures for the Ministry for Women's Equality. Here's a performance measure: economic autonomy for all women. Under indicators: equal pay for work of equal value. We've moved on from equal pay for equal work. It's a broader concept. Measures: employers with formal plans for achieving goal of equal pay for work of equal value.

Target, year 1 — which, according to the ministry's performance plan, has already been fin- ished — which was '01-02: establish baseline number of employers with pay equity. That's where my question flows from. It happens to be the same as what the pay equity investigator recommends. It's the minister's own per- formance plan measure. Don't even look at the report. Go to the website. Go to the minister's performance measures and check: "Establish baseline number of employers with pay equity." What has the minister done on that? Hon. L.

Stephens: The document to which the member refers is an old document from the previous administration. We have no such document. The only areas we are addressing are the service plans that have been on our website for quite some time, which lay out the initiatives of this government and of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. In terms of what we are doing in our policy branch, we have nine individuals there. As part of the eco- nomic and poverty area they are responsible for, pay equity has certainly been identified as one of those items we are working on.

We are gathering information from other jurisdic- tions. We are looking at models. To move forward, we are developing a framework which will form a part of the government's overall goals and objectives dealing with pay equity. J. MacPhail: Sorry. We just pulled this off the web- site today. It's the website of the Ministry of Commu- nity, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We didn't have a ministry called that. These are the performance measures and targets of this ministry. [1040] Hon. L.

Stephens: I want to refer the member to the service plan of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services government priorities. I'd also like her to refer to better services for children, families and first nations. I would also refer her to goal No. 7, which is equitable opportunities for all British Colum- bians, where we talk about the provincial inventory of transition houses, where we talk about a safer strategy, a provincewide perspective and long-term strategies for safety of women in communities. Goal No. 3 is also addressing systemic barriers af- fecting women.

Those are the areas this ministry is going to be pursuing, pursuant to our agenda that we have laid out quite clearly in our service plan sum- mary. J. MacPhail: Thank you for that information. Perhaps the minister could address the perform- ance plan that's on her website. I'm just wondering. A lot of the information I got is from the government's own sources, so I'm questioning the minister on her own sources. If somehow the minister is now saying that the public can't rely on the information they're putting forward on this issue, just stand up and tell me.

Otherwise, I'm going to continue to question the minis- ter on the information put out by her ministry. Performance plan No. 2 says: "Economic autonomy for all women." The indicator will be employers work- ing toward work-life balance and workplace equity. The measure will be the number of organizations and businesses receiving services through the centre for workplace excellence. Is that gone now — the centre for workplace excellence? Has that been cut?

1792 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 Hon. L. Stephens: It appears the member opposite does have a webpage from the previous government. In fact, the centre for workplace excellence is no longer an entity, certainly not in this ministry or any other. Any references to that demonstrates that the member here does not have the current information. We will m ak e a n e f f o rt t o f i n d o u t ju s t what i s o n t he w e b s i t e presently. The staff doesn't seem to have an under- s t a n d i n g o f w h a t i s t h e r e . I a m u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n that our service plan

summary is there. This is what we are working from. J. MacPhail: This was pulled off the website on March 12, 2002. That's today. The minister can't answer to the report that was made public. We can't rely on the minister's website for information about pay equity or what the goals are. The minister read out one or two lines from her service plan that have no detail attached to them. We can't find out what staff or funding this minister has committed to the objective of pay equity or economic equality. Let me ask this. The Minister of State for Women's Equality exists.

Will it have the responsibility for coor- dinating any pay equity initiative? Hon. L. Stephens: Again, that is a decision that has not yet been taken. There are a number of ministries engaged in the conversation around what the strategy may be, but, again, that is another detail that has not been decided. J. MacPhail: Well, then let's find out whether the minister should be the one coordinating this or not. On Friday, February 22, the minister stated that a single woman makes 96 cents for every dollar a man earns. Now, of course, I guess I shouldn't rely on the minis- ter's own website.

We're finding out that even though someone goes to it today, the minister says: "Oh, all of the cuts haven't actually been listed there yet." The minister's website says that women make 64.4 percent of what their male counterparts make. [1045] Perhaps the minister would like to work through how she thinks it's logical for her to take one single statistic of a small group of women and somehow ex- trapolate that that's it for all women. Let me just ask the next question. Does the knowl- edge of a larger gender wage gap change the minister's approach to addressing the issue of pay equity? Hon. L.

Stephens: The gender-based wage gap is a very complex one; it's not simple. There are no simple solutions. Various industries have various statistics. For women with different levels of education, the sta- tistics are different. For women who want to work part-time, again the statistics are different. W hat we ne e d t o d o i s l o o k at t he av ai l ab l e i nf o r- mation that we have. We need to look at the reports that have been provided, including the one that just came forward a week ago.

We need to do a very careful a n a l y s i s o f w h a t w e c a n d o t o i m p r o v e t h e w a g e s f o r women in the workplace in British Columbia across all the industries. We've had some suggestions. Recommendations have been put forward in this report that are very in- teresting. Again I'll say to the member that if you look at Statistics Canada and various other organizations…. Let me just share this with the member. When we look at the gains that women have made in the work- place over the last number of years, there are all kinds of statistics and information that support that.

I'll just read a little bit here from the Globe and Mail March 4

article by Bruce Little: "By last year [women] accounted for 46.2 percent of all job holders, up from just under 44 percent at the end of the 1980s." He goes on to say that between 1996 and 2001, the economy created 1.6 million new jobs. Of those, men picked up 764,000, and the other 850,000 — 52.7 per- cent of the total — went to women, who made inroads in a wide range of occupations, not just the sales and service jobs that many women hold today, although they did take 62 percent of those jobs created.

Even in what is traditionally the male-dominated blue-collar world, women picked up almost 20 percent of the 287,000 new jobs in this traditionally male do- main. "Last year, women held 15.3 percent of those jobs, up from 14.9 percent in 1996." In the white-collar world, the same thing. Doctors, nurses, professors and teachers — women increased from 56 percent to 58 percent of the jobs that are held there. Whenever we look at what gains are being made for women, they are quite substantial. We need to cele- brate those gains. We certainly need to celebrate that women have fought for these jobs.

They have gotten the education that they require to fulfil these jobs, and as such, they are making inroads into occupations that just a few short years ago were, for all intents and pur- poses, barred to women. In the science occupations, women are making inroads as engineers and architects. There's lots of good news, and I think those are the things we should celebrate. Now, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a lot of work to do, and there are a lot of systemic barriers facing women in the workplace today. Wage inequities are one.

Access to senior management positions is an- other one. [1050] These are the issues that we are looking at in our policy branch to form the kinds of statistics that we need to move forward with a strategy that, as I've said before repeatedly, the government will be developing in terms of how we are going to move the issue of gen- der-based wage disparities forward for women in the province of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: I'm very happy to discuss the Bruce Little article. The member may not know it, but my background is in labour economics.

I am very familiar with how the participation rate affects employment equity as well.

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1793 What Mr. Little addresses is the fact that, given a labour shortage — he doesn't actually address this, but the statistics make this point, and he doesn't follow through on this — the participation rate in our labour force has always been lower amongst women, as w o m e n m o v e f r o m u n p a i d w o r k i n t h e h o m e t o t h e paid workforce. Pretty much now, over the last two decades, the participation rate amongst men has been level at about 65 percent.

Any expansion of the work- force comes from where there's underrepresentation in the participation rate. That's women. So, yes — abso- lutely — more women are working. There's no ques- tion about that, and that's all Bruce Little's report says. I read it with great interest to see whether he was com- ing to any conclusion other than that. Yes, the participation rate amongst women in the workforce is almost the same as men now. Let's look at the wages behind that. In fact, we can take the perfect example of doctors. The minister brings up the issue of doctors. One of the reasons why the B.C.

Medical Asso- ciation is so furious at the way this government is articu- lating the raise that physicians got is because they're say- ing physicians got, on average, a $50,000-a-year increase. If you look behind those statistics, female physicians are not anywhere near that level of getting an increase. Why is that? Because female physicians — and thank God, we've got female physicians at the rate we do today — are nowhere near the earning level of their male counterparts. Why? Yes, they're in the workforce, but they also bear the burden of child-rearing. They're paid on piecework, basically.

I know that people don't like to describe fee-for-service as piecework, but it is piecework. Depending on how long you work, the more you get paid. That's how a physician is paid, and women have to go home and raise their kids when they're a physician. Mr. Little is exactly right. There's a growing par- ticipation rate in the workforce from women, but they earn less. Physicians are a prime example, and that's why there are physicians out there today who are furi- ous with the government trying to spin that, on aver- age, physicians got a $50,000 increase.

It doesn't take into account, at all, the gap between men and women. I feel badly that the minister even raised that point. On March 25, 1992, here's what the current Minister of State for Women's Equality had to say about that very point: "Pay equity, access to day care and violence against women and children are problems for which society as a whole must bear responsibility." [1055] Let me ask the minister now. It's true that it was a decade ago, but the minister is now in a position of responsibility to influence those three issues.

With pay equity, I can't find one area in which the minister is taking responsibility for influencing it. Let's move on to day care. How does the government's child care policy reflect the societal responsibility that the minister said was society's responsibility as a whole a decade ago? Hon. L. Stephens: The member raises some good points when she talks about the inequities between the pay that men and women receive, and she used the example of physicians.

It's not just physicians; it's across the whole of the workplace, for the very reason that the member raised, which is that women do have the primary responsibility of raising families. Again, you know, you look at Women in Canada 2000, a report by StatsCan, and it says that women and men both average 7.2 hours per day on paid and un- paid work, but women spend an average of 2.8 hours daily on paid work and 4.4 hours on unpaid work, while men spend 4.5 hours on paid work and 2.7 on unpaid work.

It certainly makes the member's point and mine: that the fact that women do have more hours of unpaid work is a factor in the areas of remuneration for women. This is an area that the kinds of work we're doing in the policy department are going to be address- ing. Child care, as the member has raised, in my view, is an economic issue. It certainly is for families and for single moms. Access to quality, affordable child care is extremely important to the families in British Colum- bia. We've recognized that quite clearly. Last fall I had the opportunity to do a tour of the province.

I visited 12 communities, had a wonderful turnout from all of those communities. That was every region of the province. We mailed out 20,000 surveys to parents and child care providers around the province. We had over 4,000 responses, which was very good for the tight time line we had asked them to respond in. T he y r ai s e d wi t h u s a nu m b e r o f i s s u e s t hat we 're going to be addressing. We're going to try to make a new, much more streamlined child care system. We're going to try to make it as easy and simple as possible for parents and child care providers to access and to use.

We're in the process of developing a comprehen- sive, integrated and sustainable child care grant pro- gram. One is an operating grant, and another is a capi- tal grant. We're working very hard. We are, again, in the process of making sure that the plan we put for- ward is one that is going to serve the families in British Columbia well over the next number of years. J. MacPhail: Well, the provision of child care is integral to the discussion around pay equity. The min- ister tried to skate around the issue that there was no, really….

I can't interpret it any other way than her tar- geting the fact that single men and single women with the same education level make almost the same money. Well, duh. Of course they would, because you've re- moved all of the factors that create the wage inequity in that examination. One of those factors is who looks after the children in society. The minister was deliber- ately, in my view, obfuscating when she focused on that one single statistic to try to get away from the fact that there's a wage gap.

Young men and women or single men and women who haven't had child care responsibilities and are educated equally make the same money. That's exactly right. I would also say that men and women who bear the responsibility for child care equitably probably are moving closer to making the same amount of money as

1794 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 well. I bet you a physician who has responsibility for being home to look after his kids probably makes the same amount of money as a female physician who has to be at home looking after her kids. I don't under- stand, with the minister trying to obfuscate the issue of pay equity by articulating that one statistic, how she can possibly do her job at the cabinet table. [1100] I don't know how they do their job, but I've got people sitting down there, in our research department, listening to the debate.

What they do is look on the government's websites to see whether they can assist in this discussion. The minister's own website has been discredited in the first hour of debate, so let's go to the Premier's office. Here's the Premier's office. This was taken off February 5, 2002. Accountability statement for the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

"I am the Minister of State for Women's Equality, and under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, I am accountable for achieving the following results for 2002-03: develop best-practices guide to assist minis- tries in ensuring that new policies and programs do not disadvantage women." Now, the first policy and program that the minister should turn her mind to is her own child care policy. What is the minister doing to ensure that the child care policy that they're bringing in doesn't disadvantage women, as her accountability statement says? Hon. L.

Stephens: I'd like to address a couple of issues that the member raised. In terms of the dated document that the member referred to earlier, we do have on our website the current performance plan for the ministry. The document to which the member re- fers was retained for reference purposes on the web- site. However, it's clear now that just retaining it for reference purposes has caused some confusion, and so what the ministry will be doing is updating the website to make sure that others will not be as confused as the member opposite.

The second item I wanted to address was the mem- ber talking about the different factors that deal with the wage gap. I just want to read into the record informa- tion from Women Count 2000, which is a document that was prepared by the previous administration, by the previous Minister of Women's Equality. It talks about the impact of education on the wage gap. I just want to read what it says, because I think it will clarify quite succinctly what the member and I have both been talk- ing about.

I believe the member and I are both of the view that this is a serious issue that needs to be ad- dressed, and it is complex. There isn't a quick fix to this. "The hourly wage gap between men and women is widespread among individuals of all ages, education levels, occupations and industries. However, it varies for different groups. For example, in 1997 single women who had never been married earned 96.4 cents for every one dollar earned by their male counterparts.

For comparison, women with university education earned 84.5 cents for every one dollar earned by their counterparts, and women who had less than a high school diploma earned only 69.1 cents for every one dollar earned by their male counterpart. "About half of the overall gender earnings gap can be accounted for by differences between men and women in their wage-determining skills, abilities and attributes. These include level and type of education, work experience, job responsibility, training, tenure, labour market attachment and other productivity-related factors.

"The other half of the wage gap stems from discrimination. A significant portion of the wage gap, one-quarter to one-third, is attributed to the historic undervaluation of the work done by women." So as the members in this chamber can see and cer- tainly the member opposite is aware, this is a serious issue, and it is a complex one. It's going to require a g r e a t d e a l o f i n i t i a t i v e a n d e f f o r t o n t h e p a r t o f g o v - ernment, certainly, but also on the part of industry and on the part of women-serving organizations to address this very serious issue. Now in terms of the child care.

Again, I'll say to the member: child care for women in British Columbia is an economic issue, as it is for all women across Canada. There can be no denying that. We need to make sure that what we put in place is a child care system that will in fact support single moms and working families with quality, accessible and affordable child care. That is what we're working towards. [1105] First of all, there are two new-era commitments that this government made. One was to target families who needed it the most, and the second was to encourage expansion of safe, affordable, quality child care.

Those are the two principles that are guiding our decisions in formulating a new policy, and, again, when that policy is complete we will be making it public. We will be doing consultation with child care providers and par- ents alike. I am sure that at that time the members op- posite would want to participate in that initiative as well. J. MacPhail: I have a lot of questions on child care, the specifics of that. What I'm trying to deal with in child care right now is the provision of child care as eliminating the wage gap as it relates to the differing responsibilities for child rearing.

That's what I'm focus- ing on in pay equity. There will be lots of questions on child care later. The minister's report, which she read out, said…. I assume that by reading it out, she supports the direc- tion the report was going in. The

section she read out s a y s t h a t i t i s b e c a u s e w o m e n d o d i f f e r e n t w o r k t h a n men — that can be the partial explanation — and that women's work is undervalued when you divide it into the traditional categories. What is the minister doing? The report itself, even though the minister doesn't want to claim responsibility, says that the government has a responsibility to encourage women into tradi- tionally male-dominated industries. The minister has had that information before her since 1997, so what is this ministry doing in terms of all of the changes in education that are occurring elsewhere in the govern-

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1795 ment? What is she doing at the cabinet table to advo- cate for women entering male-dominated industries? Hon. L. Stephens: There are a number of initiatives that the women's policy branch is undertaking. In terms of the three separate areas that I talked of earlier, the economic and the poverty interministry commit- tee…. They're looking at the traditional jobs that men have held. We're looking at dependent care, non- traditional occupations and non-standard benefits. As well, we are working with the federal-provincial- territorial working groups.

British Columbia is leading these three initiatives. We are looking at a wide range of occupations that women need to have a little bit more support to access. Certainly, the non-traditional occupations are one of them. J. MacPhail: Could the minister be a little more specific about "looking at"? H e re 's m y v i e w o f wh at 's h a p p e ne d . T he I nd u s t ry Training and Apprenticeship Commission had this as a specific mandate, and the HCL, Highway Constructors Ltd., Crown corporation had this as a specific mandate: moving the employment equity groups into non- traditional work.

Both of those were eliminated by this government. The apprenticeship program that was K-to-12 has now been eliminated. It's up to the various school boards, with huge pressures on funding, to decide whether they'll carry those on. I think I need a little more detail than "looking at." The government has eliminated the programs that were achieving that in a very concrete way. What have they replaced them with? Hon. L. Stephens: The minister responsible for labour has been very diligent in working through the issues the member raises.

There was evidence to the contrary of what the member has said. [1110] The Minister of Human Resources has been work- ing very hard to try to come up with various training programs to assist all members of society to participate. He has $300 million at his disposal to do that. He made an announcement yesterday dealing with opportuni- ties for training. Where the government views the abil- ity of all members of society to participate in various training programs and to access job opportunities wherever they may be, those are initiatives that will be developed as we move forward.

The ministers respon- sible will be making those announcements as well. J. MacPhail: I can read this into the record before I ask every question. It's the minister's accountability statement. I think this is upon which her salary rests. She is to develop the best-practices guide to assist ministries in ensuring that new policies and programs do not disadvantage women. The government cut ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. They cut the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, which had a specific legislative mandate to en- courage employment equity.

I'm not sure what the minister was referring to — that there was evidence to the contrary. The evidence is quite clear that more women than ever, through the Highway Constructors Ltd. model, were employed in the non-traditional sec- tor. The apprenticeship program for girls in K-to-12 is now up to the whim of the school boards. How is it that the minister is fulfilling her account- ability? What role is she playing in replacing ITAC or the apprenticeship program at the K-to-12 level? Hon. L.

Stephens: I'm sure the member is aware that this government is going to be doing things differently than the previous administration did. I've just outlined some of the initiatives that other ministers of govern- ment will be developing. The specific programs that the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Human Resources — or Children and Family Development, for that mat- ter…. They are going to be looking at their various client groups and the programs that are going to be developed for them.

What I am doing is looking at what the best practices are and providing that kind of information and support to the ministries as they go through the process of developing these new programs and practices. J. MacPhail: As it relates to getting women — let's say girls in high school — into apprenticeship programs, what is the best practice that the minister is working on? Hon. L. Stephens: The Minister of Education is very clearly the person that the member should talk to.

What we have been doing is working closely to make sure that the kinds of programs that will benefit young girls, particularly in the education system…. We're certainly looking at initiatives in terms of eating disor- ders, for instance, and advising and supporting job fairs — supporting those kinds of initiatives that the school boards themselves bring forward and that the Ministry of Education encourages. The changes to the education system will allow for the school boards to make more decisions along these lines if they choose to do so.

My ministry will simply be advising the Minister of Education on what some of those programs and services should be. A big role for this ministry is public education — an important part. The more we can talk about the issues around pay equity, the issues around opportunities for various non-traditional jobs for girls and the various opportunities for high school students, to make sure that they realize the opportunities they have in their senior years in K-to-12 and that they perhaps consider staying on the academic course, because that does in- crease their opportunities for further education….

It's in all of the ways of trying to encourage young people to make some choices in their lives that will be of bene- fit to them and trying to provide the information for them to do that. [1115] J. MacPhail: Every single document I pick up here about what this minister's responsibility is does not permit her to refer these matters off to other ministers.

1796 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 The minister is supposed to be an integral link — the women's equality link — and an integral advocate in all of the program changes that I'm discussing. Again, this is pretty much up to date. It's the appendix to the service plan of this ministry: "A government priority of greater equity and equality for B.C. is to ensure that the government programs address issues relating to women's economic and social equality." Government programs.

I asked the minister at the very beginning: what funding and staff does the minis- ter have in place to support moving forward on pay equity? The minister stands up and says that education is the key. There's no question about it — her own words. I don't know why the minister doesn't actually take credit for this report. What she's standing up and saying is exactly what the pay equity report is saying. It says that the government has to use the educational system to teach people about employment equity. What are the specifics?

What funding and staff does the Minister of State for Women's Equality have as- signed to carry out this obligation, this necessity? Hon. L. Stephens: The women's policy branch has nine staff, as I mentioned before, and about $780,00 attached to it. As I know the member is aware, there are many issues that impact on women's lives. In fact, we are 52 percent of the population. Women are eve- rywhere in every part of society. There are a great many issues out there.

We are going to be concentrating on three: women- centred health; safety and security, which is the vio- lence against women initiatives; and the economic and poverty issues that we've talked about. What we will be doing and what we are doing…. I would like the member to perhaps keep in mind that we are a gov- ernment of nine months. We just finalized our budget a month ago. The initiatives that we are going to be working on I have outlined to the member. In many of those initia- tives it is still too early to give the member a definitive answer on what some of the outcomes of these initia- tives will be.

In the fullness of time, when they are de- veloped and we are ready to roll out the strategy, the public will be aware of what that is. The member op- posite will be aware as well. J. MacPhail: Yes, but even though the government is nine months old, it has taken a great deal of action that affects women already — cut the pay equity legis- lation. It's been a full year now that women, because of this government, have been without pay equity legisla- tion. The government cut the universal child care pro- gram.

In estimates last year I asked this minister: "By January, will parents who have to rely on the previous government's child care program know how much they'll be paying for child care in this year?" They still don't know. It's a quarter of the way into their family budgeting year, and they still don't know how much they're going to be paying for child care come Septem- ber. The vote of the ministry operations — the esti- mates…. Let me just read what it is. I'm trying to pin down the minister to talk about her responsibility.

Under the estimates subvote it says: "Women's Ser- vices — provides for the review and research of issues affecting women; participation in federal/provincial discussions and initiatives related to women's equality goals; the review of governmentwide policy proposals a n d t h e i r i m p a c t o n w o m e n ; a d v i c e t o m i n i s t r i e s i n their review and analysis of existing and proposed government policies…." Let's just go with the first one: budget documents '02-03. What analysis has this minister done on the im- pact of this budget on women? [1120] Hon. L.

Stephens: I know the member opposite is familiar with the process of developing budgets for government. Ours was somewhat different. What we did was make sure the government caucus committees played a role in determining the budgets for ministries. We certainly had many conversations around what kind of budgeting would go forward for the various ministries. When the core services review was com- plete…. [The bells were rung.] The Chair: Point of order. I believe there was a vote in Committee A, so this House will recess to the call of the Chair. The committee recessed from 11:21 a.m. to 11:22 a.m. [T.

Christensen in the chair.] Hon. L. Stephens: Before, we thought we had to go to the little House to vote, but it turns out it was a false alarm. I'm glad to be back and talking about issues that affect women. I was talking about the core services review that the government as a whole underwent to develop our budgets. It was a very good process; it was an excellent process. We were able to focus on the pri- orities of government.

One of the things we did was look at an overview of all the ministries and whether there would be groups that may be disadvantaged or disproportion- ately affected by the decisions government made. When we did this, it was clear that women and chil- dren were going to be bearing the brunt of a lot of these decisions. As a result, government made the de- cision to put $500 million back into the budgets, so $500 million was added back in. What some of the ministries, particularly this min- istry, are concerned about is how government deci- sions impact women.

The member is quite correct that this is part of the responsibilities of the Minister of State for Women's Equality. What we've been doing is working very carefully and very collaboratively with

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1797 the Minister of Human Resources, the Attorney Gen- eral, the Minister of Health — all of those areas in gov- ernment that provide services which impact on women. We are determined to work with those minis- tries to mitigate, as much as possible, negative impacts on women and children. I have to say, too, that this government had to make some very, very difficult choices. The reason we had to make those difficult choices, member, is because there isn't any money left. There isn't any money. Your gov- ernment spent it all.

What we're doing is refocusing the e c o n o m y . W e a r e m a k i n g s u r e t h a t w e p u t i n p l a c e those economic drivers to bring British Columbia back to the level of economic opportunity it used to be at. We used to be No. 1; we are now No. 10. [1125] Our government is committed to turning that around. However, we are also concerned and commit- ted to making sure that those people who rely on the social services of our province, those who are the most vulnerable, are protected.

In my ministry the responsi- bilities I have in that regard are through the violence initiatives and through the child care initiatives. I want to tell the member that the funding for both of those areas is the same as last year. There have been no cuts to services. In fact, we've been able to increase the level of funding for the program areas of both child care and women's services. I've protected the funding for transi- tion houses, safe homes, second-stage housing, coun- selling for women and children who witness abuse, and the public education program.

I'm very proud of what we have been able to do in this ministry. I can tell you that in regard to some of the other issues that affect women across government, we are working very hard to mitigate those as well. J. MacPhail: Just a note for the minister that the rhetorical rants of the Minister of Health Planning pro- voked a lot of telephone calls to our offices, and they weren't flattering to the Minister of Health Planning in terms of abdicating responsibility.

I hope the minister isn't going to carry on with that and, when we're ask- ing questions about what effects her government's budget cuts have on women, to somehow try to go somewhere else. [H. Long in the chair.] Let me ask some very specific things of the minister in carrying out her responsibility to provide analysis of how the budget affects women. Let me give the minis- ter a list that I'd like her to respond to, for her analysis. That's her responsibility in the budget document.

Legal aid cuts, child care cuts, family maintenance enforcement program elimination, Pharmacare cuts to seniors — who are disproportionately women — and increase in the regressive taxes of PST and MSP. Hon. L. Stephens: Mr. Chair, welcome to the chair. Of the areas that the member has just touched on, the only direct responsibility that this minister has is child care. However, I do want to say that the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for the family maintenance, is working very hard to mitigate those areas that I spoke about earlier.

In terms of legal aid, I suspect that I will agree with the member opposite that legal aid is certainly a critical and important service generally for everyone in the province and for low-income people. It's particularly important for single moms who are looking at custody and access orders. I can tell you that the minister responsible, who is the Attorney General, is going to be making sure that adult criminal and youth offender cases, mental health reviews, child protection cases and domestic violence restraining order cases will in fact have access to legal aid.

In addition, funding will be provided at reduced levels for a public legal education and information program and family law legal aid. Member, in regard to legal aid, British Columbia still has the third-highest per-capita funding for legal aid in the country. J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the minister is aware of what it says in her estimates, in the subvote. I've read it out once now; I'll read it again. It's not un- der her purview to refer this matter, the question that I'm asking, to other ministers. Here it is. That is why the minister exists.

Believe you me, there's much dis- cussion among the public about the viability and the existence of this ministry of state. This is the time for the minister to prove the value of the ministry of state. Here's what it says. The minister is responsible for "the review of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women." That's why I'm asking about these particular cuts. Let's just explore legal aid. The minister was brave enough to get involved in that and actually admit that there have been changes. Poverty law coverage has been eliminated from legal aid.

Is the minister aware of who's poor in this province? [1130] Hon. L. Stephens: The issue of legal aid for poverty groups, particularly for single moms and women who are more disadvantaged than others, is one that this government has talked about and wrestled with for some time. In terms of what this minister has done, I've just told you that funding for domestic violence re- straining orders is still going to be available — also child protection, mental health, public legal aid and family law legal aid. We still have the third-highest level of legal aid funding per capita in the country.

I acknowledge that there are many instances of people needing to access legal aid. That's true. What's we're trying to do is the best we can with the limited resources we have. The Attorney General has worked very, very hard and very diligently to try to make the kinds of decisions to provide as much support as he possibly can as we work through these very difficult times. I've said before that these are difficult times. All

1798 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 members of government are trying to do the best they can. If the member would like to have some more de- tailed information from the Attorney General on what exactly he is doing with legal aid and what he plans to do, please feel free to partake of his estimates. J. MacPhail: Has the Minister of State for Women's Equality reached the conclusion after her review that women are not disproportionately disadvantaged by the legal aid cuts? Hon. L.

Stephens: I think I have acknowledged that in fact there are some difficult issues that women are going to have to work through in the province. I have not said that everything is rosy or wonderful, nor has any member of this government said that things are rosy and wonderful. We've said quite clearly that we've had to make some very, very difficult choices and decisions. The fact is that there isn't a lot of money. What we did was look at the services that are provided.

We looked at services provided across governments in Canada, and in many instances British Columbia enjoyed the richest p r o g r a m s i n s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . W h a t w e ' v e h a d t o d o i s l o o k a t s o m e o f t h e s e a n d t r i m s o m e o f t h e m b a c k . Where we are looking to mitigate, we are doing that. As time goes on, I'm sure the member will see the evi- dence of that. J. MacPhail: Yes, there were some tough choices to make. On June 5, 2001, this government gave the big- gest tax break to the richest in the province. The wealthiest in the province are disproportionately men.

The people who are now paying for that tax cut, which wasn't discussed during the election, are women. That's what I'm trying to get. That ain't rocket science. Pretty much every woman in the province has figured that out. I'm just trying to figure out whether the Min- ister of State for Women's Equality brought that to the attention of her colleagues, as is her responsibility. It turns out, she hasn't. Let's look at the family maintenance enforcement program. Is the minister aware of who uses this pro- gram by gender? Hon. L.

Stephens: To the member: the tax cuts that we brought in benefited all British Columbians — all British Columbians, member. They were tax cuts tar- geted at those making under $60,000 a year. Those people now have the lowest tax bracket in Canada. They are people under $60,000 a year, not over. They are people who we believed, and we felt, deserved to have the kind of tax breaks we believe are in the best interests of all the workers in British Columbia. [1135] The tax cuts were critical.

I know the member op- posite has difficulty understanding this, but tax cuts are critical in restoring confidence in the economy and in consumers. That was a critical factor in how we get the province moving again. In terms of the actual numbers of the tax cut, even with the additional decisions that government has made, people today in British Columbia still enjoy a lower tax rate than they did with the previous gov- ernment. J. MacPhail: I don't know why the minister sets herself up like this to defend government policies that go directly against her responsibility.

Is it that she's afraid of what's going to happen at the cabinet table? I don't know why she stands up with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services whis- pering in her ear: "Go get her on the tax cuts." Here's what happened with the tax cuts. The dis- proportionate effect of the tax increases that this gov- ernment brought in on February 19 virtually wipes out the tax cuts for people earning $60,000 or less. The combination of fee increases, tax increases and other off-loading more than wipes out the effect of the tax cut on those earning $60,000 or less.

And guess who earns $60,000 or less, disproportionately: women. I don't know why she lets people nudge her and say: "Go get 'em, minister." It's embarrassing that peo- ple don't understand what her job is at the cabinet ta- ble. The tax increases were regressive, and the tax re- ductions were on a progressive tax income system and, therefore, disproportionately benefit the wealthy, who are men. The combination of regressive tax increases and disproportionate tax reductions on a progressive system mean women are disproportionately harmed.

I don't know why the minister is allowing herself to be used as a tool to argue anything else. It may be that it's time now for this minister to admit that there's no role at the cabinet table for a person who is to defend women's equality. My question was specifically around the family maintenance enforcement program. Is the minister aware of who the clients are by gender for the family maintenance enforcement program? Hon. L. Stephens: A couple of things. The member was talking about disproportionate tax penalties for women. We just went through earlier in our discus- sions this morning, Mr.

Chair, where these women are working, how many of these women are working and the percentages of women working in these various industries. Almost 50 percent of women are working in blue- collar jobs or white-collar jobs or management suites or professionals — science occupations, health field, edu- cation. Those individuals make pretty good money. Now, a large percentage of the working-women popu- lation is in those categories. They benefited from the tax cuts. There are women who are making low incomes.

Those are the women that we need to make sure have access to higher-paying jobs, have access to the training programs that the Minister of Human Resources is developing, have access to educational programs, post- secondary institutions — a n d t h a t t h e y s t a y i n s c h o o l

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1799 and get a grade 12 education. Those are the vulnerable people that we are interested in, and those are the peo- ple for whom we have been working hard to mitigate some of the effects of the decisions that government has made. In terms of what we are doing, I think it's very clear that this ministry is working very hard across ministry, which is one of our mandates — the member realizes that, understands that, acknowledges that — and that in fact is what we are doing. J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my ques- tion, please? [1140] Hon. L.

Stephens: The family maintenance en- forcement program rests with the Attorney General and with the Minister of Human Resources. The Minis- ter of Human Resources has made some changes. I suggest to the member that she speak to either of these two ministers on their program changes and what they are doing in their ministries. J.

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could interpret for me what it means — and this is why taxpayers are paying for this ministry; that's the reason for the exis- tence of this ministry — w h e n i t s a y s t h a t W o m e n ' s Services is responsible for the review of govern- mentwide policy proposals and their impact on women. Is the minister aware that the family mainte- nance enforcement program, by vast majority, offers services to women? Hon. L. Stephens: What the government has done is look at the majority of essential priority services to wo m e n. W e hav e m ai nt ai ne d t ho s e .

T hat i nc l u d e s t he child care programs. That includes the Stopping the Violence programs, which I mentioned earlier we are responsible for. We talk about the cumulative impact across the ministries. We are working to ensure that those priority essential services are maintained. The reason we are doing that, member, is to make sure we protect the vulnerable people in society. Again I will say that the minister is responsible, and MCFD, Health, Attorney General and Human Resources are working within their ministries to develop programs that will in fact benefit those on low incomes as much as possible.

Taking into consideration the fact that what we've had to do is get our house in order, get our spending in order, make sure we put in place the kind of programs and practices that will encourage economic develop- ment in this province so that all members of British Columbia can participate in the economy…. There is a statement that the Minister of Human Resources makes, which I quite like. He says that the best defence against low income is a good job. I would have to agree with him.

We need to have as many people as we pos- sibly can participating in the economic opportunities of this province, making sure that they are able to support themselves and their families in a way that enhances their quality of life. That's what this government is do- ing. J. MacPhail: The family maintenance enforcement program is a program where women and men who are single moms and dads, but mostly single moms — dis- proportionately, over 90 percent are single moms — have assistance from the government to enforce child maintenance orders.

Over 90 percent of the clients are women, and the government said: "If you're a single mom and you have to rely on social assistance, we're cutting any support that you may get from that pro- gram." They were allowed to keep $100 a month out of the enforcement order. There was huge uptake in the 1990s for women to participate — and men. I don't want to in any way denigrate the role of single dads here, but the vast majority were women. They were going after d e a d b e a t p a r e n t s . I n s o d o i n g , t h e y r e g i s t e r e d , a n d they got to keep $100 per month. I'm going back in memory.

It might have been per child, but I think it was just per mom. The government just cut that pro- gram. Now single moms are $100 per month less well off, in addition to all of the other cuts that are being made to welfare. That affects women disproportionately. Did the minister bring that point, which is the reason she's being paid, to the attention of her cabinet colleagues? [1145] Hon. L. Stephens: I would li ke to direct the mem- ber to the Minister of Human Resources. The Minister of Human Resources has provided me with some in- formation.

As the member knows, income assistance is a needs-tested, last-resort program. I think the member also knows that the exemption was introduced to en- courage the pursuit of family maintenance through the Attorney General ministry. That is now mandatory, so the Ministry of Human Resources feels that the exemp- tion is no longer necessary. For any further questions, what the member may do is speak to the Minister of Human Resources.

Now, in terms of whether or not this ministry sup- ports this initiative, what we are supporting and what one of our primary mandates is — and I've repeated this to the member opposite…. Poverty and economic opportunities is one of the areas that we are working very hard on. That's one of the areas that we've been talking about this morning. What we want to do is make sure that the economy is vibrant and growing — something that it has not done for the past ten years.

We want to make sure that the tax regime is one that is welcoming not only to people to come to British Columbia to invest but also to the industries and the workers who are working in the province. That includes women. We want to make sure that the educational opportunities are there for people. We want to make sure that the training opportunities are there for people. That includes low-income women. Member, we are working very hard to address these issues. They are serious, and they are important.

1800 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 As I said earlier, we've had to make some difficult deci- sions. Ministers and the government overall are work- ing very hard to address and mitigate some of the con- cerns that the member raises. J. MacPhail: Did the minister come to the conclu- sion, in her review of the policy of eliminating the ex- emption from the family maintenance enforcement program, that it wouldn't harm women disproportion- ately? Hon. L.

Stephens: You know, as I've said repeat- edly to the member opposite, the government is sup- porting the essential priority programs and services in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. What we've found in our review is that many of the programs were simply not sustainable. As a matter of fact, there was an independent review that said that we have a $3.8 billion structural deficit. We need to make sure that dollars are spent wisely on programs that will deliver the highest-priority ser- vices to those who need them. That is, in fact, what we are doing.

We had to make those choices to ensure that those essential services are maintained. The path that we were on was simply not sustain- able. It would have meant that more and more people would have fallen off the economic ladder. We have taken steps to correct the path the previous administra- tion was on. That was that member's government, as I said earlier, which was proven to have brought British Columbia from first place in Canada to the last place. We've taken steps to reverse that.

At the same time, we have targeted our programs on the social side to ad- dress these issues in a way that is effective, efficient and sustainable for the people of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: This is the minister's opportunity, throughout these discussions today, to convince women that they're not disproportionately harmed by this budget. I'm making the case that they are. The min- ister is standing up and giving some…. Actually, I'm not sure what her reply is.

I asked her a question: did she do her job like she's supposed to — that's what the minister gets paid for — and what conclusion did the minister come to? I didn't get an answer. [1150] Let me just try to narrow it down a little bit more. The minister has said one of her areas that she's con- centrating on is poverty. Let me just try to narrow it down a little bit more as it relates to the family mainte- nance enforcement program. The number of partici- pants in the family maintenance program are dispro- portionately women. They are poor. The statistics all show that. They are now being forced….

Clearly, what the minister just articulated was that for the first time — I found out this information — it's mandatory for participation in the family maintenance enforcement program. That means a woman, regardless of whether her partner is abusive or violent or whatever, must pursue that deadbeat parent for enforcement. Before, when the woman did that, she got to keep a portion of the child support payments. The govern- ment has eliminated that.

It would seem to me it's pretty simple to make a case that when the government is reducing by $100 per month the support a person receives through the family maintenance enforcement program and those people are disproportionately women and disproportionately poor, it would be on the radar screen of the Minister of State for Women's Equality, given that she has said one of her priorities is the examination of poverty of women.

That's the con- clusion I would come to, yet the minister can't even answer me about whether or not she came to any con- clusion about the elimination of the family mainte- nance enforcement program exemption. The reason that I know all of this is because these proposals used to come forward from the bureaucracy to our government year after year. I first received this proposal when I was Minister of Social Services. Then I received it when I was Minister of Finance. We duly considered it as a government. Do you know what we did?

The Minister of Women's Equality would stand up and say that this disproportionately affects women. This disproportionately harms women. We would have a discussion. We didn't pay our caucus to examine government policy like this government does. We didn't pay our caucus. We saw it as part of our responsibility of representing all British Columbi- ans.

Our caucus would discuss this, and we would say: "No, we're not going to do this because it dispropor- tionately harms women." I'm wondering what information the Minister of State for Women's Equality has that's new and that got her to reach a different conclusion than previous gov- ernments that had the same cut put before them year after year. Hon. L. Stephens: The member is correct. I know that in fact this proposal has come forward through the years.

In the discussions we had around family main- tenance exemptions and also earning exemptions, it was on why people shouldn't be allowed to keep more of their earnings and why we claw those earnings back. I must admit that I was one of those people who said that, no, we should have a step system in which people are allowed to earn X number of dollars, and as their income increases they're gradually weaned off social assistance. I was of that view. [1155] Since that time we've had a number of discussions, and we've looked at various models in place around the country.

Much to my chagrin, the evidence was that a model like that did not in fact move people into the workforce; it did not. The conclusion that our gov- ernment came to was that we needed to put in place a range of new programs that in fact did move people to employment. The decision was taken that family main- tenance is now mandatory. The exemption would no longer be needed. The Minister of Human Resources estimates that it will affect about 10,000 clients.

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1801 While we could not continue down the path of the previous government's initiatives, we are quite clearly aware that a lot of low-income people need to have the supports and resources to enter the workforce. The Minister of Human Resources is doing that. He is com- piling a range of new programs to help people who are l o w i nc o m e t o m ak e s u re t he y h av e ac c e s s t o t he e c o - nomic opportunities of the province. J.

MacPhail: It'll be a fascinating discussion this afternoon to know how eliminating the exemption for the family maintenance enforcement program, com- bined with demanding that women go back into the workforce when their oldest child is three, leads to better job opportunities for women. That'll be the ques- tion that will start after question period, Mr. Chair. With that, I move the committee rise, report pro- gress and certainly ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 11:56 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Trumper in the chair. The committee met at 10:14 a.m. ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (continued) On vote 22: ministry operations, $4,861,081,000 (continued). [1015] J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I was just looking at Hansard to see where we left off yesterday.

Before I can pick that up, I'd like to actually go back to some of the ques- tions I was asking around the funding formula. Yesterday I asked the minister the question about the Vancouver school board, which released a budget document update for the staff and parents that shows the Vancouver school board is set to receive less fund- ing than in 2001-02. To sort of set the background around that, the minister's explanation is that Vancou- ver's enrolment is going up marginally but the funding formula does not redistribute money between districts.

She further said there was a buffer grant to ensure money would not be lost for the Vancouver school dis- trict. The effect of the funding formula between dis- tricts is nil unless it benefits them. That's what the min- ister said yesterday. This morning information has come in that spells a different picture. First, a Vancouver Sun

article this morning headlines: "Vancouver school board faces a $25 million deficit." It reads as follows: "The Vancouver school board is facing a whopping $25.5 million deficit that will have a huge impact on services, largely because of funding changes by the Liberal government, trustees were told Monday in a report that stirred anger and anxiety. "'It's devastating for the district,' said board chairwoman Barbara Buchanan after a sombre meeting.

"At the meeting, senior managers told trustees, principals, teachers and parents about the impact of the Liberals' new funding formula and the downloading of millions of dollars in unexpected costs onto school boards. "Under the new formula Vancouver will get $7.4 million less from the province in a total operating budget of $364 million." It goes on to say: "As well, there will be $13.7 million in extra costs, many of them unexpected, and a structural deficit — of the board's own making — worth $4.4 mil- lion." First I'd like to ask the minister: could she explain the $7.4 million shortfall? Hon. C.

Clark: A s I s a i d l a s t n i g h t , t h e f u n d i n g formula itself is not responsible for the redistribution of funds between districts. The Vancouver school district does not lose money as a result of the change in the funding formula. K. Johnston: With regard, minister, to the same

article and the Vancouver school board's situation, I w o n d e r i f I c o u l d a s k a q u e s t i o n . I t r e f e r s t o u n e x - pected increases in the budget for the Vancouver school board. I was just wondering if you had an ex- planation on those particular unexpected increases. Apparently, the total's $13.7 million. I just was wonder- ing how that came about. Hon. C. Clark: Of the increases that boards will be facing, the principal increase will be funding years 2 and 3 of the teachers' contract — the 7.2 percent in- crease that teachers got.

That is going to be the princi- pal cost pressure that school districts face over the coming year. Certainly, that's going to be a challenge for them — there's no question about it — but I think

1802 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 we've given them the tools to be able to manage that with Bill 28 and the new funding formula. [1020] K. Johnston: I have another question with regard to the shortfalls. It talks about the MSP premiums. I think it's $1.1 million. The school board is uncertain of any type of funding allocation or support on that. I'd like to k n o w i f i n f a c t t h o s e w i l l b e c o v e r e d u n d e r t h i s f o r - mula. Hon. C.

Clark: The ministry did receive an addi- tional $18.25 million in the budget to support MSP payments, and as a result, the block grant we make to school boards went up. The announcement of the block we made on February 1 was $3.79 billion, largely as a result of the increase when we made the announce- ment to school districts of the allocation we would be disbursing. That had gone up to $3.809 billion. The money is in the grant, and the grant was correspond- ingly increased from our original announcement on February 1. K. Johnston: I wonder if I might just address the issue — on this

article as well — of arbitration costs of $800,000. I'm not fully cognizant of what that might be, and I wonder if I might get an explanation. Hon. C. Clark: Arbitration costs are costs incurred by boards as a result of l abour rel ations d isputes they have. It's not something the ministry has ever funded or has ever been in control of, so that's certainly a local b u d g e t d e c i s i o n t h e y m a k e a t V a n c o u v e r . I t ' s s o m e - thing they control and that they fund entirely them- selves. K. Johnston: I just wanted to ask one further ques- tion.

There's a $4.4 million structural deficit that's re- ported in this article, and it has to do with utilization of capital funds, I believe, from a prior year. Could I get clarification on that particular matter? Hon. C. Clark: To be quite honest, I'm not clear on what the Vancouver school board is referring to when they talk about their structural deficit and the cause of the deficit. What we will attempt to do is contact the superintendent in Vancouver and the chair in Vancou- ver and talk to them about some of the details of their budget. School districts, of course, manage their budgets internally.

We're always aware of some of the larger issues with respect to their budgets, but specifics like that aren't something we always have a great deal of detail on, because they do manage their own budgets. I can certainly get back to the member about that. I'd be delighted to do that after we've had a chance to have a conversation with the Vancouver school board. J. Kwan: Getting back to my earlier question, the funding loss the Vancouver school board is faced with is $7.4 million.

Could the minister explain the discrep- ancy between her previous statements suggesting that the Vancouver school board is not receiving less money and their statement that they're receiving $7.4 million less? Where is the shortfall coming from? Hon. C. Clark: I didn't say the Vancouver school district would be getting more money. What I did say was that the Vancouver school district is not being dis- advantaged as a result of the change in the funding formula. J. Kwan: I'd like to know this from the minister. They're losing money. They're not getting more money. They're losing $7.4 million.

Could the minister explain the $7.4 million loss? Where is that coming from? [1025] Hon. C. Clark: It's always difficult to interpret how school districts have come up with some of the num- bers they've come up with. As I said, the funding for- mula itself is not responsible for any losses for school districts. School districts aren't getting any less money as a result of the change in the funding formula. I want to be clear about that. Now, I think what the member is confused about is the difference between the funding formula and fund- ing.

The funding formula is a formula we use to calcu- late how much money school districts will get. That isn't the same thing as the amount of money school districts get. I think what the member is concerned about is not the funding formula itself. The funding formula does not disadvantage any district, and dis- tricts don't lose money as a result of the change in the funding formula. However, many districts will see less money this year than they did last, many of them because they have declining enrolment.

In addition to that, as I said last night, every district is going to receive a little bit l e s s m o n e y b e c a u s e t h e a m o u n t o f d e b t t h a t w e c a r r y on their behalf to fund classrooms in their districts, in their schools, has increased. It's about 1.3 percent that is going to be carried across the board by districts. I think the member needs to be clear about differentiat- ing between those two things. J. Kwan: The minister said yesterday: "Vancouver's enrolment is predicted to decline, I believe." Then she said: "No, wait a minute.

Vancouver's enrolment is going to be up very, very marginally this year. The funding formula does not redistribute money between districts, as I said. We built in a buffer grant to ensure that that didn't happen, so the effect of the funding formula between districts is nil unless it benefits them." That's what the minister said yesterday around this issue. I have with me today the 2002-03 budget

summary document from the Vancouver school board relating to the '02-03 funding loss of $7.4 million. It says that the Vancouver school board's '02-03 provincial funding allocation has been decreased by $9.9 million, consist- ing of a $2.2 million loss of funding from provincial

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1803 funding allocation system — FAS — formula changes and the loss of one-time '01-02 provincial supplemen- tary grants of approximately $7.4 million. Could the minister confirm whether or not this information is correct? Could the minister please explain the loss, as stated in this document, of $9.9 million, which nets to a total of a $7.4 million loss for Vancouver? Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect when she suggests the Vancouver school district is going to be losing money as a result of the change in the funding formula. They are not.

The Vancouver school district is going to have less money, though, this year than last, principally because of the cost of the debt we carry on their behalf to fund classrooms in the district. Now, we could have de- cided, I suppose, not to build any classrooms at all and not to incur any debt. You can provide money for edu- cation, but if you don't have anywhere to teach those kids, if you don't have a roof to put over their heads, it's not going to do you a whole lot of good. You can pay for all the textbooks in the world, but if they're wet with rain, kids will have trouble discerning what's on the page.

That is the principle reason the Vancouver school district has seen a decline. I do not know where the $7.5 million figure comes from. It is not correct. [1030] L. Mayencourt: To the Minister of Education: I wonder if you could give us a bit of an understanding of the capital projects that have been approved for Vancouver school board for this calendar year. Hon. C. Clark: We're preparing to make an an- nouncement for 2002-03 in April, and I think I'll save the details of that announcement until we get to that date. If the member is interested in the information for 2002-03, I'd be delighted to give that to him.

L. Mayencourt: Yes. Hon. C. Clark: Okay. It's $17.5 million. Now, these are the projects for 2002-03. There are other projects that are ongoing, like False Creek Elementary, which is in the member's riding. That's going ahead. That's from a couple of years ago. In addition to the things I'm listing off here, there will be a whole ton of other ongoing projects that we're paying for and carrying on with that aren't on this list, because this is just the one year. Lord Byng Secondary is getting a seismic upgrade. William Van Horne is a renovation that includes a seismic upgrade.

There are upgrades going on at Gen- eral Gordon Elementary, Grandview Heights Elemen- tary, David Livingstone Elementary, Nootka Elemen- tary, Grenfell Elementary, David Lloyd George Ele- mentary, Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith, Sir Charles Tupper Secondary and General Gordon Elementary, which I think I mentioned. That's a different one. That's an accessibility upgrade. King George Secondary is getting an accessibility upgrade. University Hill Secon- dary is getting an accessibility upgrade. That's about $17.5 million in Vancouver alone for 2001-02 alone.

That doesn't include the 2002-03 an- nouncement we'll be making in April, and it doesn't include all the other projects that are ongoing from years previous. L. Mayencourt: Those projects that are ongoing right now are really important for people in my riding and for the people of Vancouver to understand, be- cause that's the investment we're making right now in education in the city of Vancouver. I wonder if there is any possibility, if you have the information here, to expand on that.

Those are important figures for my constituency and other constituencies in Vancouver to consider in light of this new story, I believe. [1035] Hon. C. Clark: All right. I'd be delighted to give the list to the member. It's a long list, though. We've got Killarney Secondary, under construction. We've got Laura Secord Elementary, to increase the capacity; John Norquay Elementary, to increase the capacity; Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary, to increase the ca- pacity; John Henderson Elementary, to increase the capacity; Collingwood Village elementary, a new school.

We've got False Creek north elementary school, which is a new school. We've got Nootka Elementary, which is almost complete. That's to increase the capac- ity. At Eric Hamber a capacit y incre ase i s on the way. Point Grey…. We've got Lord Byng Secondary, to in- crease the capacity, as well, and we've got Hastings Community Elementary, increasing the capacity. We're increasing the capacity of Renfrew Elemen- tary. We have almost completed increasing the capac- ity at G.T. Cunningham Elementary. We are tendering the increase in

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0312am-03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0312am 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3fed6e4e733f50d1921d78702b09a956c63b1f89

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).