Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 4, Number 6

[ Page 2799 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think children and families in this province are very fortunate because of the very strong advocates they have in the community on their behalf, and there are three of those advocates in the gallery today that I would like to ask people to welcome: Mab Oloman, from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates; Cindy Carson, the provincial coordinator from First Call!!; and David Hay, with Campaign 2000. These people have all got very strong, passionate voices for children, and I thank them for their work. Please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I see in the gallery today the mayor of the district of Kitimat, Rick Wozney. Rick has been a very strong advocate for his community and for the northwest, and I'd ask the Legislature to make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the advisory council for the Order of British Columbia. These men and women have gathered in Victoria today to review this year's nominations to the order and select the recipients for the June investiture. I understand that there were 190 nominations, many of whom were submitted by members of this chamber, on all sides. They were submitted this year from every corner of the province.

The OBC Advisory Council is chaired by the Hon. Allan McEachern, Chief Justice of British Columbia, and includes: our Speaker, of course; Mayor Gillian Trumper of Port Alberni, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities; Dr. David Strangway, president of UBC; Mr. Bob de Faye, Assistant Deputy Ministry of Finance; and two members of the order, Ms. Ruth Schiller of Osoyoos and Mr. Hank Ketcham of Vancouver.

Would the House make these members welcome and wish them well in their deliberations.

Hon. L. Boone: It gives me great pleasure today to recognize in the gallery a well-known author from the Prince George region, somebody whose books I think most of us should have read -- and if you haven't, I would encourage you to do so: Stoney Creek Woman , A Little Rebellion , Judgement at Stoney Creek and Justa . The well-known, the very popular Bridget Moran is here from Prince George. Would you please welcome her and her daughter Roseanne Moran.

H. Giesbrecht: I too would like to extend a welcome. I have three guests from the district of Kitimat today. They are here meeting with various ministers and the Premier, and also with the Leader of the Opposition. With us today, I add my welcome to Mayor Rick Wozney. We also have councillors Graham Anderson and Ray Brady. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are three members of the Aggregate Producers Association of British Columbia. They are Barry Irvine and Charles Willms, and a third individual, who is also from my constituency. He ran against me in 1991 and, probably to the chagrin of the opposition, his great claim is that if it weren't for him I wouldn't be here. So they have him to blame. Would the House please give a warm welcome to those members and to Jim Allard, who is a longtime Coquitlam resident and an employer of over 100 people.

G. Brewin: In the precincts today is a group of young people from Woodinville, Washington, U.S.A., from East Ridge Elementary School, along with their teacher, Ms. K. Douglas, and others. Would the House please make them welcome if you run into them in the corridors.

J. Doyle: I am very pleased today to stand up and introduce a citizen from the city of Revelstoke, Richard Barisoff. Richard is in Victoria for a couple of days. He is also a cousin of the member for Okanagan-Boundary. He's one cousin that did stray a little bit, but anyway, make him welcome.

Oral Questions

WOMEN AND GAMBLING

L. Stephens: The Saltspring Island transition house is facing imminent closure because the Minister of Women's Equality has eliminated its grant. The minister has refused to fund it and, ironically, has suggested to the transition house chair that she apply for a casino licence. We know that expanded gambling leads to increased violence against women, and we know that expanded gambling will mean that we need more transition houses.

So my question to the minister is: why is the minister shutting down the same transition houses we will need to pick up the pieces of broken families when this government expands gambling?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is for the same reason that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi had . . . . I think his comments go something like this: it is very important that, on an ongoing basis, access to gaming for the Seniors Lottery Association is not limited in any way. The policies regulating gaming should be applied broadly enough to allow for flexibility, providing that all charitable contributions are met.

L. Stephens: We're not talking about charitable gambling; we're talking about expanded VLTs. Study after study has proven that there is a link between pathological gambling and domestic violence. Studies have proven that an increase in gambling opportunities leads to an expansion in gambling problems.

Can the minister tell us why she is forcing transition houses to close, when her government is about to expand gambling in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, it is really confusing. One minute they're for gambling; one minute they're against gambling. Some of their members have gambling casinos being put forward in their constituencies; other people don't want gambling. They take jobs for gambling tickets, and they take money from gambling lobbyists.

Look at this, hon. Speaker. Scott Nelson is a man who has never been accused of being a church mouse. He's now a big cheese in the Liberal Party. He's president of the Cariboo South Liberal Association. And what does he say about gambling? Scott is going to bring up the possibility of a gambling casino. The president of the Liberals in Cariboo South wants a gambling casino. But this is the funniest part. He says, just like a true Liberal: "I'm not an advocate of the industry, nor am I against it. I'm not for it; I'm not against it."

[2:15]

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to hear the minister talk about what she has done for women in British Columbia, who

[ Page 2800 ]

are going to suffer the effects of expanded gambling. This morning in estimates debate, the minister boasted that her ministry keeps in very close contact with transition houses across the province. These are the people in transition houses who deal every day with the damage that is going to be done to women's lives by expanding gambling in British Columbia.

Can she tell us today whether she has gone to those workers in those transition houses, whether she has gone to speak to the front-line workers, and found out what they think the effects of expanded gambling will have on the vulnerable women that they serve every single day?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's clear that the opposition doesn't have a position on gambling, nor does it have a position on issues affecting women. Let's talk about the real issues. For five years. . .this opposition would dismantle the Ministry of Women's Equality. That's their position on women's issues.

We've spent more than $100 million on stopping the violence. We've spent more than $200 million on child care. We've increased the minimum wage by $2. We provide jobs through B.C. 21 to street women, aboriginal women and women on income assistance. While they're tearing down support for women, we're building it up. British Columbians want to look to the future, and the Liberals are living in the past.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, two things have been made clear today. One of them is that the minister doesn't want to answer any questions on this. And I think the second thing that has been made clear today is that the minister is not committed to doing her job.

The mandate -- if I need to remind the minister -- for the Ministry of Women's Equality is to review the impact of governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women. When will she start to do her job? When will she stand up for women in British Columbia? And when will she undertake an evaluation of the impact that expanded gambling will have on women in our province?

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, every other government in Canada deals with women's issues off the side of the desk, just like the opposition would do. This government has consistently ensured that the Ministry of Women's Equality, through the minister, has consistently been on one of the two most powerful cabinet committees in this government: either Treasury Board or Planning and Priorities. When decisions are being made around fisheries, because 45 percent of those fishers are women, the ministry is on the Fisheries Working Group.

When decisions are being made about boards and appointments, the Minister of Women's Equality is on CCRO, and when pay equity is implemented, the ministry is on PSERC. We're advising this government, influencing on behalf of women and working all the time with this government on behalf of women.

WILLISTON RESERVOIR WATER LEVELS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. Water levels on Williston Lake have now dropped below 2,150 feet, despite a promise made by the now Premier to the people of Mackenzie on March 3, 1994. As of Wednesday, water levels were at 2,147, and contingency plans are proving inadequate. Poor water quality is affecting jobs and the economy in Mackenzie.

Will the minister agree today to instruct B.C. Hydro to shut off the drawdown on Williston lake and protect jobs in Mackenzie?

Hon. D. Miller: The current information I have is that the reservoir level as of the 23rd, at 11:30, was 2,147.01 feet. Hydro has been asked . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I'm finding it difficult to try to speak over the din of the Opposition House Leader. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .who consistently asks questions and then continues to talk while people are trying to give the answer.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: These are important issues, and, as my hon. friend tells me, Mr. Speaker, he does that to his own caucus as well.

B.C. Hydro has been asked by Alberta Environmental Protection to help with stabilizing the flow issues on the Peace with respect to freezing, because of the potential for some problems in that province. They also advised me that they don't anticipate the levels continuing to trend down. In fact, their projections are that because of the slow melt -- it's been cold weather, and we haven't seen the kind of runoff that we normally anticipate at this time of year . . . .

They anticipate that once that runoff starts, they will be -- and they have been -- granted permission by the water comptroller to refill above 2,182. The restriction is off. They do anticipate that they will be at 2,149 by the end of April. . .

The Speaker: Minister, will you wrap up, please.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .so it appears that the issues that are important to the member's constituents are being considered by B.C. Hydro.

J. Weisgerber: It was indeed reported today that Hydro was moderating flows from the Bennett Dam on the Peace River to reduce flooding problems downstream in Alberta. Why won't the minister do the right thing and shut off the flows completely until the flood danger is passed and the lake has risen back above 2,150? Mr. Speaker, a novel additional benefit would be that it would allow the Premier to actually keep a promise.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Clark: The member . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Order, please. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, Premier. I didn't hear the comment, therefore I can't ask that. Would the Premier please proceed.

[ Page 2801 ]

Hon. G. Clark: The member knows, because the member was with me in Mackenzie on the date he mentioned, that we had a town hall meeting in Mackenzie -- it was very large -- with respect to the concern with 2,150, including the 2150 Task Force. We obviously share those concerns to make sure the water levels stay high. We've given instructions to Hydro to ensure that the levels stay at 2,150.

It has gone slightly below that because of serious concerns with respect to flooding in Alberta. I think the member knows -- the member would appreciate -- these . . . . If you turn on the television, you will see the devastation with respect to floods and the problems in British Columbia. We have now been advised by Hydro that the reservoir will start to rise again above 2,150 in the next couple of days.

Clearly the people and the jobs in Mackenzie are important to us, as they are to the member; I know that. I've been there, I've heard the people there, and we intend to live up to the commitments we made.

ABORIGINAL YOUTH AND GAMBLING

M. de Jong: In 1995, in response to the expansion of legalized gaming in Alberta, the Alberta Alcohol . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. Order!

M. de Jong: I think the record should show that we actually heard from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview this session.

The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission sponsored a report in 1995 to study the impact of gambling, specifically on aboriginal youth. The title of the report was "Firewatch on Aboriginal Adolescent Gambling."

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: does he accept the findings of that report?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have not read the report, but now that it's been drawn my attention, I will get a copy of it.

I want to say that when we are addressing the very complex issue with regard to gambling and aboriginal people, we need to recognize that it is an area that aboriginal people have been completely cut out of in terms of the equitable availability of that type of economic activity. While it's a very complex issue, with a very important debate going on around the issue of gambling itself, it also has to be recognized that we cannot, as a government or as a parliament, enter into what is a paternalistic process in deciding for first nations what is best for them. Respect requires that we recognize their ability to make those decisions.

The Speaker: Members, because there was a considerable amount of overtime, dare I say, I'm going to allow a supplemental.

M. de Jong: We'll consider it sudden death, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I assume a pointed question, Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I am happy to provide a copy of the study to the minister. I don't want him to be confused on the issue, though. What we're talking about are the long-term effects of gambling on children, not whether or not a particular band can top up the level of their coffers by a quick injection of gambling revenue. The issue is the effect on children. The report found that the rate of problem gambling among aboriginal youth was more than three times that found among non-aboriginal youth.

My question to the minister is: will he advise us what studies his ministry has commissioned that will allow him to be confident that his government's plans for expanded gambling won't meet with the same tragic results?

Hon. D. Miller: In British Columbia we've rejected the Alberta model of VLTs. In fact, there will be no VLTs. There will be a 19-years-of-age age limit in B.C.

But I'm curious as to which one of the Liberal MLAs, which one of the members of the Liberal caucus, has told the leader to give back the $5,750 they took from Great Canadian Casinos. We know of their concern, hon. Speaker. Which one of them? When did they do it? When did they tell the leader to give the money back?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: Which one of them has told the president of the Liberal riding association in Cariboo South that it's against their policy to ask for a casino? Not one of them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mercifully, mercifully, question period is at an end.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! Order! No, everybody, please. Order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: No, minister, please take your seat. Delta South, please come to order when I say order. And that applies to all members in this chamber.

Now, please don't jump up on points of order about things we think we overheard across the way. I can't deal with those, members. But this, I want to advise, is what happens when we get into this yelling -- 20 people at a time. The House is ill-served by that kind of behaviour on both sides. I would suggest that all of us ought to rethink our approach to question period and how we carry out our duties in this chamber.

That ends the matter for the moment.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the House we'll be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this House, I call Committee of Supply B, and for the information of the House we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

[ Page 2802 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

WOMEN'S EQUALITY

(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $373,000 (continued).

C. Clark: My question to the minister, I guess, is relating to some of the issues we canvassed this morning about the issue of reviewing governmentwide policies. My concern about this issue really arises out of the fact that it appears there is no systematic method, no criteria, which the minister uses in order to assess which issues she deems important enough in order for her to join the table and discuss them.

The reason that concerns me a great deal is because the minister spends . . . . I don't have the figure right in front of me, but I think it's $1.1 million on the policy and evaluation branch of the ministry. So I wonder if the minister could really just clarify for us if there are any specific criteria that she uses to determine which programs she needs to go and strain through her policy parameters to ensure that the interests of women in British Columbia are kept paramount in all of the policies that the government puts forward.

Hon. S. Hammell: I have explained this a couple of times, and I refer the member opposite to the Blues . But let me just maybe put another few words on it to make the issue very clear. The ministry's policies and priorities are the very same ones that are the government's policies and priorities. We've been very clear: they're jobs, health care and education.

C. Clark: I hope I understand correctly that the minister is saying no, there are not any criteria that they use in order to determine what issues they will look at when they want to go to the table and have some input to ensure that women's interests are protected. So that criterion isn't there, I take it, from her answer. I wonder if she could tell us yes or no on that one, whether those criteria are there. If they are there, could we have them? And if they're not there, does the minister see a need to start developing some?

It appears to me that when we're spending well over a million dollars of taxpayers' money in a policy and evaluation branch that is intended to review government policies and their impact on women, there certainly should be some criteria by which the ministry would work to ensure that this money is well spent.

Hon. S. Hammell: I am sure the member understands that the priorities of the minister are the priorities of the government. They are jobs, saving health care and protecting education. Those are the main priorities of the ministry, as they are with the government.

We organize ourselves under three pillars. One of them is economic equality, which relates directly to the jobs initiative. Another pillar is health care, which also relates to the protection of health care. The other is domestic violence, and if you watched earlier this week, we did a major public education program around domestic violence. That issue also relates to health care and economic equality. So these are the issues that we have decided, in concert with government, are the priorities of this ministry.

C. Clark: I respectfully suggest to the minister that there is some incongruence between the priorities of the government -- apparently, at this moment -- and what her ministry's mandate says she is supposed to be doing, because when we talk about jobs, health care and education . . . .

I mean, would the minister deem it appropriate, for example, to go to the Minister of Health and point out to her that her cuts in health care -- or her lack of interest in health care or the overbureaucratization of health care -- and the fact that less money is getting to the patients at the bedside mean that women, when they go in to have a baby, have the baby and get sent home from the hospital almost immediately? I would argue that it does have an impact on women, that it is something the minister should certainly have an interest in. That's a health care issue.

Does the minister go to discuss those kinds of issues? If she doesn't go to discuss those kinds of issues, why not? And if she doesn't know, if she doesn't have any criteria, if there's no way to flag these issues on a governmentwide basis for her ministry and to sensitize all the other civil servants and politicians in the other ministries, then how do we know it's going to be done? How can the minister tell us that she is spending a million dollars on policy and evaluation and that they don't even have a framework within which they work, anything that triggers their interests in evaluating government policies on a governmentwide basis?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm sure there was a question in all that.

C. Clark: My question to the minister is this: if she doesn't have these criteria, can she tell us why she doesn't see the need to have them?

Hon. S. Hammell: I have explained the criteria that we set our priorities by.

C. Clark: Okay, well, the minister talked about her three pillars that the ministry uses, through which they try to view all government policies.

I'll use this example because it's something that's current, something that's being discussed at the moment, and that's no-fault insurance. That is clearly going to have an impact on women; we know that it's going to have an impact on women. If the minister doesn't know, she should know. She talked this morning, I think, about how she was going to do a study or had done it. I'd be interested to find out what the ministry has done on the no-fault file. When have they joined the table in the discussions on that? What input have they had to the ministry that's responsible for it? And what's their progress in those discussions?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have done a study, and what is very clear from the study is that the current tort system is totally unfair to women. I'm sure you would agree with that. We commissioned a report on the financial implications of various options and alternatives for women. It doesn't matter what system you're talking about, the study demonstrates that women's work is undervalued. Under the current tort system, that is the same. Now, that isn't surprising to any of us, because if current work is undervalued in the general system, why it would be undervalued in the current tort system is not a mystery.

Women receive lower awards than men for loss of earning capacity following a personal injury.

The report makes a number of suggestions for ensuring a fair and equitable insurance plan. I have spoken to many women around the province; I have heard all kinds of opinions on the issue of insurance. What is really clear from the women that I speak to is that they want a system that's fair and equitable, that values their work and that is affordable.

[ Page 2803 ]

[2:45]

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us the name of the study? Would she be prepared to make that available to the opposition and to the public?

An Hon. Member: If you did your homework, you would have had it now.

An Hon. Member: Come on.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, the minister is on her feet. The minister has the floor.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Chair, we would be pleased to make the report available, and we will do so.

C. Clark: The minister also referred to the consultations that she's done provincewide about the no-fault issue. I wonder if the minister could give us an outline of what the nature of those consultations was, how extensive they were, and if she could make available the reports on those consultations, which surely were undertaken to demonstrate the response she got when she crossed the province.

Hon. S. Hammell: I have not crossed the province. I have been in a number of communities, talking to women around economic equality and health care, and we dealt with the issues of violence. In these discussions, insurance has come up here and there; we've talked about insurance. We commissioned a report. The report was given to Doug Allen. That is the report that you've requested. We'd be pleased to ensure that you get a copy.

C. Clark: I appreciate that, and I hope we'll be able to get it soon so that we can satisfy our curiosity about how the minister might have determined that British Columbian women support going to a no-fault insurance scheme. I'd be interested in the statistical data on which that kind of an assumption might be based. You know, it's very much like the gambling issue.

I think it really highlights some of the things that are lacking in her ministry's approach to government policy, because the Ministry of Women's Equality exists in order to ensure that all government policy is sensitive to the needs and economic aspirations and safety of women in British Columbia. That is why the ministry exists. How can the ministry do its job if it doesn't even go out and do an analysis of the government's own policies?

The minister talked about some of the areas where she is getting around the table, doing some analysis, providing some input, doing her job and making sure that the Ministry of Women's Equality's views are reflected in government policy. So I wonder if the minister could give us a brief list of some examples of policies where she has gotten involved and where she has gone in and ensured that women's issues are reflected in those policy decisions of the government.

Hon. S. Hammell: If the member opposite is going to put words in my mouth, I suggest that she get them right. So before you say what I have said, be sure you hear what I have said.

What I want to be very clear about is that this current court system is unfair to women. Nobody -- I don't think even the opposition, despite where their rhetoric would go -- believes that the current system is fair to women. We know that it undervalues women's work; we know that. We just had a court settlement where a woman was awarded, for the first time, a reasonable settlement because she was doing a man's job.

Now, I have been in various parts of the province. I've listened to women on a variety of issues, and one of the issues has been automobile insurance. I have heard women say they want an equitable and fair system, and they want it affordable. I know that there has been no decision made on any kind of changes to the system or on keeping the same system; there's just no decision been made. All the information that I've received and the report I commissioned were given to Mr. Allen so that it would advise the decision-making process.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's comments. I still would like to know, though, what the status of the results of her consultations is. Did she also forward a report on the consultations that she made with women in British Columbia on this issue?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm not sure I understood the question. I think the question was: "Would you give me the results of your consultation around the province on insurance?" I've just said I've gone out to the community. I've talked about economic equality, about health care, about violence against women. In my travels, in my home constituency and at socials, I have conversations with women about the insurance system. They want a system that's fair and equitable, and they want one that's affordable. There's no report from me personally; I commissioned a report that was given to Doug Allen.

C. Clark: So I would be correct, then, in assuming that the results of the minister's consultations are really anecdotal. The evidence would have been passed on verbally, I suppose, to Mr. Allen, who was investigating this issue. The consultations that have been undertaken on this and all the other issues aren't anything, can't be substantiated and are really just purely anecdotal evidence. Is that what I'm taken to. . .? Is that correct, minister?

I wouldn't want to put words in the minister's mouth, because no words are coming out. I have to assume, then, that the answer to that question is yes. I'm interested, though, in this larger issue of the way the ministry makes sure that women's issues are reflected on a governmentwide basis.

I think the gambling issue is of particular interest to us. The minister said that her views are the views of the government or that her priorities are also the priorities of the government. So can the minister tell us, then, if she shares the government's priority to expand gambling in British Columbia? Does that fit in with the priorities of her ministry?

Hon. S. Hammell: This government supports gaming in B.C. I'm not really clear on whether the Liberals, the opposition, support it or not. I think some of them support it as it is. Some of them would like it expanded into casinos. Maybe some of them would like it reduced. But I'm unsure . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Maybe some of them want contracts. But be very clear that this government does support gaming in B.C. I personally support the policy as the government has described it.

[ Page 2804 ]

C. Clark: Is the minister saying, then, she believes that expanding gambling in British Columbia will be a benefit to women's health, to women's safety, to women's economic aspirations? Does she believe that expanded gambling will contribute to those key principles of her ministry for which she is responsible?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have had gambling for two decades in this province. For the first time, a government is putting up a program to deal with problem gamblers. I think that's good for B.C. and good for the people.

C. Clark: I hope the minister has a whole bucket of money put away somewhere, because if she is implementing a new policy to deal with problem gamblers, and then her government expands gambling, it would appear logical that the government is going to need more money to deal with problem gamblers. When we talk about . . . .

I think the minister perhaps confuses the issue a little when she says: "You know, we don't have big problems with gambling in British Columbia." Well, what we're talking about is expanding gambling and the problems that will come as a result of this new policy of the government. The minister says she supports this new policy of the government. And I say shame, because that is not going to benefit women. It is not going to benefit women's health, economic aspirations or safety. We know that. Can the minister provide us with any evidence that she has to the contrary?

Hon. S. Hammell: I again want to clarify. It's just that . . . . I don't know whether the record will correct it or whether I need to do this, but I did not . . . . I said the government is putting up a program for the first time in this province -- one that will be one of the highest-funded programs in Canada to deal with problem gambling -- for people that have addictions or problem gambling. This hasn't been done in this province before, despite the fact that we have had gambling for two decades. For those people who are having difficulty with gambling, I think, it's a good move on their behalf.

C. Clark: I thank the minister for clarifying that. I want to get an answer, nonetheless, to the question I asked, which was: can the minister provide us with any evidence she has, or of which she may be aware, that indicates that an expansion of gambling will not be a net detriment to women's health, women's personal safety and women's economic aspirations and economic stability in British Columbia? That's the question I'm very hopeful I'll get an answer for.

The Speaker: Comment?

Next question? The minister is under no obligation to respond to questions, as you all no doubt know. Erskine May tells us that. Next question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Yes, thank you very much. Well, I'll have to assume, and I imagine that every member of the House will have to assume, that it is a no -- that there is no evidence.

An Hon. Member: She's answering; give her a chance.

C. Clark: I'm sorry. Does the minister want a chance to respond or. . .?

I'm very interested to know and want to understand the logical basis on which the minister premises her decisions. What is it? This is what we're all searching for here. Where is the information that the ministry uses to support its decisions? Or is it all anecdotal? Is it all just, you know, something that you might have heard in your consultations, for which there's no report and for which there are no papers to support it?

There are no reports with evidence that suggest expanding gambling will be healthy for women and helpful for women. There is nothing to sort of conclude that the minister's consultations suggest that no-fault insurance would be a good idea.

[3:00]

What I'm getting at here, and I think this is really an essential part of the estimates process, because what we're asking and what the . . . . This is the opportunity for the public to try and find out whether the ministry is spending its money in a rational way. I think the public has a fair expectation that the government would make its decisions based on a firm framework of policy and that there would be firm evidence to substantiate the decisions they make.

So I wonder if the minister could point us to or give us any examples of the kinds of evidence that they look at or use when they decide they want to get involved in an issue and have an impact and ensure that women's concerns are reflected. There must be some process there to support the money that we are spending and the public is contributing to ensure that this job gets done.

Hon. S. Hammell: I can only agree with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that it is important that access to gaming is available on an ongoing basis, not only for the seniors but for other groups. Through this process, $130 million is currently available for those organizations in our community that serve our community, and that base will be increased. Like the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I believe that it is very important that gaming not be limited in any way, and I in fact agree with a modest expansion.

L. Stephens: I want to continue a little bit on the services in transition houses and what some of those future services might be. First of all, I want to ask the minister if she would commit to providing the information that was asked of her ministry by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. It was a request to provide information in regard to the funding of transition houses that was identified in the public accounts. If the minister could simply acknowledge that this information will be forthcoming, it would be very helpful, because then we won't have to go through all of the 82 or 84 transition houses and their funding.

Hon. S. Hammell: We are happy to provide you with the information that's available through the public accounts.

L. Stephens: A number of transition houses currently operating in the province have extensive waiting lists. I wonder if the minister could talk about one in particular, which we discussed earlier, and that's the transition house on Saltspring Island. Could the minister talk about that particular one around the issue of regional services and whether or not the minister is sensitive to the regions of the province and the level of service for women that is required in those regions? In this particular instance, I will ask this question first. The Saltspring transition house is on an island. Does the minister think it's appropriate that there is no service for women on an island?

[ Page 2805 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: In the 1997-98 transition house budget, we will be serving 84 transition houses by the time everything is all developed and on its way. If you're asking me, in an indirect way, if that's enough to serve the needs of all British Columbia women, I'd very quickly say no.

We have given the transition house on Saltspring Island short-term funding. It is actually in a bit of a unique situation, because the house was gifted to the organization if it would be used as a transition house. We have had a great deal of interest, and we are doing as much as we can to assist the community in keeping that transition house open. We will continue to work with them as best we can.

L. Stephens: This particular transition house has been told that they would not receive any funding at all past April 1. Again, the Minister of Women's Equality talks about providing services for women. This is a classic example of that actually not happening. This particular transition house is on an island; there is no place else for women to go.

So I would like to move an amendment to the motion:

[Be it resolved that the motion before the House to approve the expenditures of the Ministry of Women's Equality be amended by reducing the amount of $373,000 therein to $1.]

On the amendment.

L. Stephens: We've talked at length during these Women's Equality estimates about the roles, the responsibilities, the mandate and the vision statement of this ministry. It's clear what the mandate of the policy, planning and evaluation branch of this ministry is, and I quote from the ministry's own document:

"The branch performs reviews of issues affecting women, including research and information-gathering; also evaluates program initiatives; assists in the cooperation, coordination and development of policy and legislation related to Women's Equality initiatives; and reviews governmentwide policy proposals and their impact on women."

During these estimates it has been very difficult to elicit a response from the minister around the particular issues of gambling and no-fault insurance, and another group of concerns to women as well. So if the minister is not prepared to talk about what her mandate is, if she cannot answer questions about specific issues and concerns of women, then we need to have another look at whether or not this ministry is doing its job and whether or not it is in fact fulfilling the mandate and protecting women in British Columbia, or certainly addressing the issues of concern to British Columbia. I think we need to speak to this motion, and I would encourage members to do so.

The Chair: Is there any discussion? I recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove -- I'm sorry, Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I also sometimes forget where I'm supposed to drive home to.

I'm just surprised that the Minister of Women's Equality wouldn't rise and speak to this motion. This is a traditional motion that goes back a long way. It's a traditional motion of non-confidence in the minister. I mean, it's a rare occasion when this happens.

The minister's performance of the last three days in not having any response to the questions she's been asked about how gambling and the expanded gambling policy of this government is going to impact women is shocking. The fact that this government has embarked upon an expansion of gambling in British Columbia, not having done any studies, and not even having read the stack of studies that sit on the shelves in the Legislative Library . . . . And the fact that she would continue to allow the government to move forward with a policy of expanded gaming in British Columbia after the reams of statistics that have been read to the minister in this House is shocking.

One would expect that the Minister of Women's Equality, who has a million-dollar policy shop in her ministry . . . . The member has reviewed the mission statement. People are there to review government policy and to advise the minister, so that when she goes and sits on those powerful committees she talked about in question period today that she actually has some statistical evidence, some independent, third-party evidence and some professional studies that have been done that will reinforce her when she goes up against the Deputy Premier and says: "No.

An expansion of gambling in British Columbia is going to be detrimental to women from a domestic violence point of view, from a financial point of view, from a health point of view, from a lifestyle point of view and from a quality of life point of view." Virtually any measure than anybody would like to take to measure whether or not an expansion of gambling is a benefit or a detriment to women in the province would find that it's a detriment.

If the minister had actually done the research, and if her group had done the policy evaluation that the member for Langley talked about, and if they had followed up and read those studies and gone to the cabinet table with that evidence and said, "This is what we're arguing for . . . . " If she had done that and failed, that would be one thing.

But to not even have done the research, to not even have walked -- on her way into the chamber one of these many times, instead of going down for lunch -- into the library, which is open all the time this House is open, and looked up the various documents and studies that are there and read them and taken them to cabinet to show the minister and deputy minister responsible . . . . Then we wouldn't have had to have moved this type of an amendment, which is a motion of non-confidence in the minister for, quite frankly, shocking incompetence on at least one, if not two, major policy initiatives of this government.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to just reiterate how very close this government is to at least one of the members opposite. This is, again, a letter from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, and he says: "It is important that on an ongoing basis, access to gaming for the Seniors Lottery Association is not limited in any way." What we are suggesting is a modest expansion. We can talk about gambling all we want. There has been no increase in problem gambling from 1993 to 1996, so we can . . . .

It is very hard to get a handle on the Liberal position, because some of them want their communities to have expanded gambling; some people don't want gambling; some people want it to just remain the same. We are aware that they're . . . .

We are supporting a position that is not limiting the access of the seniors or any other community group to the gambling revenue; $130 million goes out to charitable organizations, including those around the prevention of violence against women.

[3:15]

I think we have been very forthcoming when it comes to insurance. It is very clear that the current system is unfair

[ Page 2806 ]

to women. It's acknowledged widely that the current insurance system is unfair to women, and what I've heard women say -- and it makes sense to me -- is that they want a system that is equitable and fair and one that is affordable. But the more we hear from members, the more we know that most often their position around women's issues is that they just don't have one.

On Monday we announced a major public education program around harassment. Nowhere in this country is there a program that is similar. There is a new law in the country that says people cannot be harassed -- be they men or women -- and that following, threatening, watching and harassing women is illegal, with a maximum five-year penalty. We've made the request that that penalty be doubled.

Yesterday we announced a gun amnesty, with the support of the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses. They are the ones that initiated the idea. We picked it up, and together with our partners in the community, we announced a gun amnesty. When it was done previously, in 1992, by just the federal government, it brought in over 30,000 weapons from throughout this country. It's something that women want. It's something that women-supporting agencies want. And it's something we support.

We are working hard to support women. We are following the priorities of the government and following our priorities, and we're proud to do so.

The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if I could ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

The Chair: Thank you. It's a little awkward, but I appreciate that.

There is a group I mentioned earlier. They are now here in the chamber with us. They are from East Ridge Elementary School in Woodinville, Washington, U.S.A. I want to welcome them all to the floor, with their teacher Ms. K. Douglas -- and maybe a Ms. K. Jensen is also with them. Welcome, all of you.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, I'm relatively shocked by the response, actually, because it's a very similar response to what we've heard time and again this week. Actually, the responses have been changing from day to day, as the same questions have been asked of the minister.

The first day she didn't have a clue, because she hadn't read the reports and didn't know of their existence. There would have been drama classes overnight, and on day two the answers were a little different. And today, hon. Chair, three days later, the government having searched frantically through their document files for all letters that had ever been sent to the ministry, they came up with a letter -- oh, shocking! -- from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that said that he didn't want the resources of a seniors group to be limited in any way, other than what the government's already got.

What we're talking about here is the status quo in British Columbia relative to gaming, and the government's desire, despite a specific election promise by the Premier that he wouldn't do it, to expand gaming in the province. Questions have been asked of this minister all week as to whether or not her ministry has been doing what it is supposed to do, which is to analyze, research and advocate on behalf of women in the province.

We have done that work for the minister. We exerted ourselves to go into the library -- something, I suppose, that the minister's million-dollar policy people could have done -- and pulled out stacks of reports on gaming, on the implications of an expansion of gaming and particularly on the implications on women of an expansion of gaming. The statistics are shocking; they're startling.

For the minister to tell us, over the last few days in the House, that she hadn't read them, didn't know they existed and had not advocated at all on behalf of women regarding the gambling issue is shocking. It's one of the largest social policy decisions this government is probably likely to make in the next mid-term. For the minister not to have had anyone in her million-dollar policy shop do any research, any study at all on the gaming issue is shocking.

When I ask her those questions now, she stands up and goes on about some little speaking notes that somebody has drafted for her: "Oh, they say this thing, and they say that thing, and then there's this letter." She goes on and on and on about something that has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. It just reinforces the reason behind this motion. The motion is to reduce . . . .

Oh, now the Minister of Education is going to get up and rush to the defence of the Minister of Women's Equality. It has been one after the other, rushing to the defence of the Minister of Women's Equality this week.

Hon. Chair, the motion says that the minister has not been doing her job. This is a motion of non-confidence in the minister's ability to do her job. She has failed. She has failed dismally in advocating on behalf of the interests of women in British Columbia with regard to an expansion of gaming. She has failed miserably. It's not that she tried and failed, it's not that she did her work, went to cabinet and failed, but she didn't even do her work. Not only didn't she commission any studies, she didn't even take out the books in the library that have the hundreds of studies already done. I think that is absolutely shocking.

For the minister to stand up and say, on the other issue of no-fault, that there are no women in this province that she's talked to that are opposed to no-fault and the effect it will have on people in this province . . . . Well, I can give her the name of one. It's a woman who ran for the leadership of the New Democratic Party; a woman who ran for the nomination in East Vancouver the day the Premier won it, back in 1983; a woman who ran against me in the last election in 1991: Margaret Birrell, a member of the New Democratic Party -- a longtime member, an active member, a vocal member.

For the minister to say that she, in her detailed study, her detailed examination, her detailed pursuit of women in the province who might be opposed to no-fault, had failed to find any . . . . She hasn't even talked to the people in her own province? Maybe the minister can tell us whether or not she attended the NDP convention. I would expect, had she attended the NDP convention, that she would have run into at least one woman who opposed gaming and who opposed no-fault.

The former minister, the member for Surrey-Whalley, I'm sure also ran into those very people. I know she was at the convention. She came to ours, so I assume she went to the New Democratic Party's convention. You would think that somebody there would have taken the Minister of Women's Equality and pointed her in the direction of a woman at the NDP convention who was wearing an anti-no-fault badge or an anti-gambling expansion badge. I mean, somebody must

[ Page 2807 ]

have done that. She had to have talked to somebody, some woman -- if not in the whole province, then at least at the NDP convention -- who is opposed to no-fault and opposed to an expansion of gaming. I think it is shocking.

I don't know if the minister has any other better explanation than the one she just gave for why the taxpayers of British Columbia -- 52 percent of whom are women -- should be paying her salary. She hasn't earned it. On one of the key issues, she hasn't earned her salary. The motion is to reduce her salary to a dollar.

And now we have the former minister, the member for Surrey-Whalley, who is going to jump to her defence. It's amazing how many people on the other side have leapt to the defence of the Minister of Women's Equality. You would think that the minister could stand up and speak for herself. It's either the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Health or, heaven forbid, the Minister of Human Resources -- whose stellar performance we saw in this House last year -- who gives her the advice and stands up for her.

So I anxiously wait to hear from all the members of the New Democratic caucus who are going to stand up and support the Minister of Women's Equality -- who can't stand up and support herself, let alone stand up and advocate on behalf of women in British Columbia.

If the minister herself won't stand up in the House and answer her own questions but needs somebody else to do it for her, who stands up for her at the cabinet table? When the Minister of Women's Equality gets in trouble around the cabinet table, advocating on behalf of women, who stands up for her? Who stands up for her then? Does the Minister of Education stand up and defend the Minister of Women's Equality in her attempt to stand up and defend women around the cabinet table? I know the former minister over here doesn't do it anymore.

But my question is: does she do it in caucus? Does she stand up and defend the Minister of Women's Equality, who can't stand up and defend women at the cabinet table? When she fails to do her job, who is it that steps in and takes over? Because then what we could do is amend the motion further, to give them the money. If we aren't going to pay the Minister of Women's Equality her salary, then we can find out who really deserves it, and we could pay it to them.

So maybe somebody wants to volunteer. Maybe the Minister of Education is going to get up next and say that he's the one who wants her paycheque; maybe it's the member for Surrey-Whalley who's going to get up and say that it's she who wants the minister's paycheque. Somebody's got to get it, because somebody on the other side is doing such a great job defending the women of this province as it relates to gaming. So I'm anxious to see whether it's the minister who's going to stand up and collect her paycheque, or some other member of the New Democrat caucus.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's been interesting sitting here for the last little while, listening to this debate. The motion that has been put on the floor is a serious motion. I know it was introduced in an almost frivolous way. But it is a serious motion, with a serious outcome. Far from the allegations of the Opposition House Leader, I think that this is an issue on which all members should have a chance to rise and speak, as I believe the critic for Women's Equality on the other side did urge. The issue is a serious one.

What this motion would do, essentially, is dismantle the Ministry of Women's Equality. I think what we ought to recognize is that that is consistent with things I have heard since I came to this House six years ago about the position of the official opposition on having a freestanding Minister and Ministry of Women's Equality that demonstrate the commitment of all members of this government to issues that affect women. Under a really hypocritical pretence of opposing gambling, this Liberal opposition would seek to dismantle the office of the Minister of Women's Equality and the ministry itself. What hypocrisy!

The works of this minister and this ministry are well known. They reflect the commitment of all members of this government to advocate on behalf of women's issues.

I'll tell you, briefly, what it has meant to women in my community. It has meant nearly a doubling in day care spaces available to women over the last six years. It's nearly a doubling, under the leadership of the Ministry of Women's Equality. It has meant a doubling, again, of transition house spaces in Prince George to women who are victims of violence. That's an experience that's consistent across British Columbia. That's been done under the leadership of the Ministry of Women's Equality. There are a variety of these programs in my community.

I know that the issue of violence against women is not one that will go away quickly or easily. Women in my community feel safer because of the initiatives undertaken by this government under the leadership of the Ministry of Women's Equality. That's the record. It's a clear record. In housing, in social services, in a variety of other areas, the leadership has been clear.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, the member opposite brings me back to another issue that I wish to speak on here. It is the cover that they're using for the attack on this ministry. It's a flimsy cover.

What's going on here is a clear attack on the principle of having a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality. Really, that's what it's all about here. This flimsy attack by this hypocritical opposition that says it's all about gaming and using that as a reason to attack this minister and this ministry . . . . I say shame!

[3:30]

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The official opposition would have some credibility on this issue if they hadn't held such a vast variety of positions among themselves on the issue of gaming. There is no consistency on those benches or in that party on the issue of gaming. One day, their leader says that gaming is no big issue and expansion should go ahead, and then he decides that we should bar any expansion of gaming. I suspect he'll have another position down the road. There is no consistency in that leader, in that party or in that caucus on the issue of the expansion of gaming.

Today we learn that one of the party officials, the president of the Cariboo South riding association, far from opposing the modest expansion of gaming that this government is proposing, is actively advocating for a casino in his community. That's wonderful. And they stand up in this House and say, "No, gambling is horrible," while their own party official in Cariboo South is advocating for expansion of it there.

Well, we don't even have to go to Cariboo South. You only have to go to the back benches and listen to the member

[ Page 2808 ]

for Kamloops-North Thompson, who says: "Gambling is horrible. We must stomp it out, except when I can get a directed contract for employment for gambling revenues in my riding." Then it's fine; then it's great. This is the Liberal opposition, which has in its pocket a cheque from a gaming interest in this province.

So, hon. Chair, this attack on having a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality is consistent with what I've heard from the Liberal opposition. This flimsy, hypocritical attack on this ministry, under the guise of opposing gambling, deserves to be voted down by every member of this chamber. These members will have credibility in their opposition to gambling when the member for Kamloops-North Thompson abandons his double-faced approach to this, when they have an actual consistent position among themselves and when they have the intestinal fortitude to actually return the cheque. Then they will have consistency.

Then they will have some right to stand up and criticize gambling, instead of having this frivolous, hypocritical attack on the freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality under this flimsy guise.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, that was a stunning performance, because all one has to do is go home and pull out that VCR tape from about six weeks ago and see a tape of that very minister walking into a caucus meeting the day the government's policy on gaming was expanded -- I see the minister is moving on. All the people would have to do is look at that television clip and see that very minister walking into an NDP caucus meeting the day the government announced its policy. I can tell you that his enthusiasm for the gaming policy was less than exuberant.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It was March 13, the member tells me.

So people can go back through their little video library at home and see the Minister of Education stand up in the corridor of the hallway and tell us what he really thinks about expanded gaming, not the rhetoric we heard here.

One other thing I find really difficult to stomach is this diversionary tactic from the members opposite about fundraising and money from gambling interests going to parties in the Legislature. Well, this is the party whose Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society -- a self-described fundraising arm of the New Democratic Party -- bilked charities in Nanaimo for $2 million. Prior to the election, the minister, who is now the Premier of the province, said that he would make a commitment to pay every penny back. How long has it been since that promise was made? How long has it been? I haven't seen a cheque go over there yet. Where is it?

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is not just a minister in this House but also a minister of the cloth, has the gall to sit there and tell us . . . .

The Chair: Order! I hear a point of order from the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. L. Boone: As I understand it, we are in the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. As the member knows, he should make his comments relevant to the ministry. Much as we may be enjoying the member's rant over there, I would ask him to restrict his comments to the Ministry of Women's Equality and to the estimates of that minister.

The Chair: The point is well taken, hon. minister, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm very much aware of it, hon. Chair. I'm merely responding to the comments that were made by the Minister of Education who was well within order at the time. I might let the member know, because I don't believe she was in the House at the time, that we're now debating an amendment to the motion which, in essence, is a motion of non-confidence in the minister responsible. So she might want to get up to speed on that before she engages in the debate.

Hon. Chair, the gall of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- who is also a minister of the cloth, as I said -- to sit there and say to this side of the House "return the cheque," when his party has a $2 million overdraft for the charities in Nanaimo . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! Hon. member, there is an amendment on the floor, and that's the item of discussion to which you should address yourself.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure that the Chair will be as helpful to this side of the House the next time one of the ministers opposite decides to move slightly from the motion at hand.

But that's fine, hon. Chair. I'll come back to the specific matter that was raised by the Minister of Education on the motion: the fact that the opposition shouldn't be raising this motion, because there is some unclearness in his own mind about the position of the opposition, and so how dare we raise this type of motion.

I want to refer to the letter from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi that the Minister of Women's Equality raised. She talked about doing her job and then, in response to this motion, about how she was confused by the members of the opposition: how we are advocating gaming and what a terrible thing that's going to be. The example she used . . . . After three days of searching the files of government, this is what the minister came up with. It was a letter from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi in support of the B.C. Seniors Lottery Association.

Let me tell you how devastating the impact of the seniors' lottery is to people in this province. They have the gall -- the seniors association of British Columbia -- of charging a modest $2 for the tickets. It's almost criminal that they would charge $2 for a lottery ticket. I mean, is that the kind of support that the minister opposite is going to bring to this House?

And the Minister of Education stands up in the House and talks about the opposition and about how there's a difference of opinion, and how hypocritical it is for the opposition to say that they're opposed to an expansion of gambling and have the temerity to support the seniors association's lottery. He uses the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, whom he describes as being on the back bench -- he actually sits at the front bench . . . .

But he made no mention of Bob Smith, a longtime supporter of the New Democratic Party and a close colleague of the minister of both the Crown and the cloth -- the Aboriginal Affairs and the United Church minister -- and a very good friend. So imagine him leaping . . . . I didn't notice him leaping in to hold back and stop the Minister of Education when he was levelling that outrageous charge

[ Page 2809 ]

against the opposition that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was supporting the seniors association's lottery and their $2 tickets. Bob Smith has spoken at length . . . .

The Chair: The hon. member for Surrey-Whalley rises on a point of order?

J. Smallwood: Yes, to raise the previous point of order, to bring it to the Chair's attention that the speaker continues to talk about lotteries and gambling and completely negates his responsibility to the estimates and indeed to the women of this province. I'm affronted by that as a member of this House, and I ask the Chair to bring him to order and ask him to speak to the estimates of Women's Equality.

The Chair: We are on the amendment moved by the official opposition, and we should address the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just so I can make it clear to the House and the member for Surrey-Whalley exactly what the line of debate is, we have introduced a motion of non-confidence in the minister. The reason and justification for that motion is her woefully inadequate response or activity in failing to stand up for the women of the province by telling the government and the minister that gambling is going to affect women disproportionately in British Columbia, and the fact that she has failed . . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order! I recognize the hon. Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. D. Streifel: A point of order. I just read the amendment to the estimates, and I don't read any references to what the member is just speaking about now. I would request that the member stay on the point or end his debate and his rhetoric and get on with life.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, I would just like to make it clear to the member opposite that this is a motion of non-confidence. I will slow down and speak slower and say again: this is a motion of non-confidence. It's a traditional -- it's hundreds of years old -- motion of non-confidence in the minister's ability to do her job. It used to be that the minister's salary was separate from the minister's office. The votes stopped being done that way some years ago, so instead of just voting to reduce the minister's salary to a dollar, the motion is to reduce the minister's office budget to a dollar.

So that's the way it works, and I hope that the member opposite understands that. I'll be glad to speak to the motion.

The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Whalley.

J. Smallwood: On the amendment, let me . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Sorry, hon. member, I apologize. There's a little bit of confusion here.

G. Farrell-Collins: They should have "House Rules 101," a remedial course for the members opposite . . . .

An Hon. Member: You took your seat.

M. Sihota: There are rules here, and the Opposition House Leader knows what those rules are. So let's go through carefully what transpired. The hon. member from Surrey raised a point of order . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Sorry, there was a point of order raised. The Opposition House Leader then stood up and spoke to that point of order. He then took his seat.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: No, just hang on. Hon. Chair, I'll make my case, and the House Leader can make his case. At that point, when he took his seat, the Chair recognized the member from Surrey. Now, under the rules, the member being recognized . . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I'll grant that. The Chair may have made an error in doing so, but nonetheless the member from Surrey was recognized. Once being recognized, she's entitled to take her place in this debate. Those are the rules and the practices of this House. The Opposition House Leader then has the gall to stand up and suggest that we on this side of the House should learn the rules. He should learn them himself.

From a purely technical point of view, the member was quite right to stand up and take her place in the debate because she was recognized. Now, she can sit down in respect of what may have been an error on the part of the Chair. Those are the procedural rules of the House, and the hon. member opposite is dead wrong when he suggests that we don't know the rules on this side of the House. Those are the rules. The member from Surrey was recognized, and under the rules she should be entitled to speak.

The Chair: Hon. members, I'm not sure that I need a whole lot more on this topic.

G. Farrell-Collins: A point of order, hon. Chair. I believe if the member checks Hansard , he'll realize that I had the floor . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Let me just address the point of order that was raised by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, which was after the one raised by the member from Mission, I believe. I had the floor at the time that a point of order was raised. The point of order was made by the member. I gave my input on the point of order, and the Chair then had to rule on the point of order or give advice. I sat down out of respect for the Chair as she proceeded to make her ruling. She recognized the member opposite who, from my point of view, was clearly going to speak to the point of order. She didn't.

She said, "On the amendment," and I rose to resume my place. I think the member opposite understands that. So whenever the Chair decides that we'll get out of the points of order and actually back to the issue at hand, I'd be glad to resume my place in the debate.

[3:45]

The Chair: I thank you, hon. members. I think I have heard sufficient evidence on the point of order. Is that all right with everybody?

[ Page 2810 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I really only had a couple of other items to mention, and then I'd be glad to yield on the debate to the member for Surrey-Whalley.

I guess the point I wanted to make in response was that the members opposite have talked about the changing policy on gambling. What the members fail to recall is that . . . . I believe it was May 6, 1996. On May 6, 1996 -- it was during the election campaign -- the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition were both asked a question. They were asked a clear question, and their responses were published in the Vancouver Province . The question was: are you in favour of an expansion of gaming in British Columbia? Both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, what I'm hearing from the members opposite has nothing to do with the motion. I am justifying to this House and to the member opposite why this motion was put forward. If he will give me latitude for at least 30 seconds, I'd be glad to sum up for him, and then we can move on with the debate. If he has trouble understanding it, I'd be glad to go over and talk to him.

The question was asked about whether they were in favour of an expansion of gaming. Both gentlemen said no. One of those two gentlemen continues to say no; one of those gentlemen has since changed his mind. Now, I don't know if he changed his mind before that or after that, but he has changed his mind.

The point of this motion is that the Minister of Women's Equality has failed dismally in standing up for the women of this province and telling the Premier and the Deputy Premier and the other people around the cabinet and caucus tables that she has done her homework -- she has done the studies required, her ministry has done the work, and she as the minister responsible has done the work she's required to do -- and that she advises them, in no uncertain terms, that she intends to advocate for the interests of women in this province: in her opinion -- and all the evidence is there -- an expansion of gaming will be a detriment to women in the province.

Given that she hasn't done that, the opposition is left with no alternative but to move the motion of non-confidence which stands before us now.

J. Smallwood: I've found it very difficult throughout this debate not to get very angry. There's a long history of the women's movement in this province, and indeed in Canada, and of women setting their own agenda, defining what is important for them in their lives.

I found it particularly interesting to have the issue of gambling dominate the debate with respect to the estimates for the Ministry of Women's Equality, because while I think we would all agree that there is a small number of people that become addicted to gambling, the vast majority of people in this province do not oppose a moderate expansion. The vast number of women in this province . . . .

Interjection.

J. Smallwood: I'd ask the hon. members to listen, because they might learn a great deal if they take the time to listen to what women have to say for a change. Because all too often it is male voices that dominate this House, and all too often it is a male agenda that dominates this House.

T. Nebbeling: Look at the study. Those are the women speaking. Look at the study.

J. Smallwood: I find it really unfortunate that even having said that, one of our gentleman colleagues isn't yet able to hear what women's lives in this province are really like.

For a long time I have worked in the women's movement, not only on issues of harassment but on issues of equity, on safety, on the right to choice -- on numbers of issues that women have identified as their number one priority in gaining control over their lives and their agendas. It's not your agenda, Mr. Member, but women's agendas in this province. It's not a small number of people that are sadly affected by abuse, whether it be gambling or drugs or alcohol or an inability to be accountable to their communities for their abuse of and wanton violence against women. It's women's agendas -- the things that are important to women.

That's what this ministry is about. It is about setting that agenda. It is about giving a voice to women in this province. It is women in this province that are telling this ministry that what is important to them is economic equality, equality in their communities and being free of violence and intimidation. It is that agenda that is directing the attention and the work of this ministry, and I'm very proud of our government's record on that account.

I'd like to speak about women's reality. In some sense, I think that for many of us in my generation, we all too often forget about the battles that are still to be fought. Many of us have fought those battles. Many women have taken their place.

I've stood in this House now for over ten years. When we first came to this House, there were not many women here. Our numbers have multiplied, but we haven't gained a great deal, because still, as we saw in the earlier debate, the debates are dominated by men and men's agendas. It's time for that to change.

I have two daughters. It's interesting that when I first got involved in politics in my community, I got involved as an extension of parenting my daughters. I stayed, however, because of my mother. I looked at her life and how she had worked, and I looked at what she had to show for that work. What she had was a pension that could not sustain her when she retired. What she had was a litany of part-time jobs. She raised four daughters and worked part-time to help augment our family's income, because that's what it took.

All too often, her income was looked at as pin money, without recognition of the fact that at some point in time, she might find herself supporting herself, as an individual, and perhaps even supporting her children. All too often, older women in this province are doing just that, and they are now in the situation where the federal government is attacking and undermining the very little pension money that they have.

For the younger generation . . . . I looked at my daughters, and I thought: "They are strong, they are articulate, and they'll be okay." I'm not so sure anymore. They've entered the workplace, and they're now in a situation where . . . . Our youngest daughter is working two jobs, both of them part-time, because a full-time job isn't available to her. Another daughter has just landed a full-time job, and in a full year she will have the benefits that most of us have come to expect. She came home and said to me: "This job is great.

Do you know that I actually got paid for a statutory holiday?" I looked at her and I thought: "Well, that's the Labour Code. Why would you feel that that's a great thing?" But the reality is that she had worked so many part-time jobs where employers had taken

[ Page 2811 ]

advantage of her -- as they do of most young people -- that she had not had that benefit. She could not speak out and use the laws of the land to ensure that . . . . She needed the security of that paycheque to pay her rent.

For all that our mothers and our sisters and our aunts have fought for in the women's movements, for all that we have gained, when we look at what our children's generation is facing, when we look at those young women that are now searching for their voice and fighting for their place, I think we all need to do a little bit of listening up. I think we need to support the Minister of Women's Equality.

For the men in this House, and in particular for the Liberal opposition: maybe you should listen a little about the priorities of women. For the women in the Liberal opposition: join the women's movement, stand up for the issues that are important to the women of this province, and speak out for the things that are affecting women's lives on a daily basis, instead of taking hypocritical political shots at the minister, who is doing her job.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I stand here and I want to reiterate what the amendment is. The amendment that the Liberal opposition put forward is to reduce the budget of the Ministry of Women's Equality to $1. This minister, who is here, is standing up for women in this House, supporting the ministry and supporting women in this government, in this province, day after day. She has a record that is incomparable in the rest of Canada -- even in those areas where they have Liberal governments. This is the province that has increased the minimum wage by $2 an hour since 1992.

This is the province that recognizes that the majority of women are in those lower-paying jobs, that the majority of women are still working at minimum wage. We'd like to change that, but we haven't been able to do that, and therefore we are trying to make it so that women have some means of economic equality. This is the government that has put employment equity at the front of their agenda, recognizing that people need to take down the barriers to employment, not put them up.

Time after time, this opposition has shown no interest whatsoever in women's issues. None -- absolutely none. They have failed, year after year, to even ask a question of the Ministry of Women's Equality. Now they get challenged on the fact that they have not taken this government to task on gambling. And who do they attack but the Minister of Women's Equality. Do they save their attack for the actual minister responsible for gaming? Do they save their attack for him? No. They come at the Minister of Women's Equality, expecting her to deal with everything.

This government has got a record that can stand on its own with regards to women's issues. This government has put pay equity adjustments in force for women in low-paying jobs. We have increased the numbers that are going out there, that are working in jobs . . . . We have increased the number, for example, of deputy ministers. When we came into government in 1991, that was a man's domain. There were hardly any women there. We are now almost up to half, I think. Almost?

An Hon. Member: A third.

[4:00]

Hon. L. Boone: A third. That's not good enough, but we're on our way up there. We are making progress on a number of different issues. We've seen changes to the Employment Standards Act. We've seen a new family bonus that is going out to low-income people and is actually helping women with economic issues. Those are the issues that women want to have assistance with. They want to have assistance to make sure that their family has food on the table, that they can have a roof over their head, that they can pay for their dental plan. They want those things to happen to them. Those are the things . . . .

To have this opposition stand here and reduce the salary of the minister who is responsible for making sure that those programs take place, for making sure that transition houses are there, for making sure that we have dollars there to support women . . . . I cannot believe it. I can't believe the hypocrisy of this group that would constantly choose to give reductions in corporate taxes instead of putting those dollars into pockets. Every single time we've raised the minimum wage, that opposition over there says that we're going to close down businesses. Every single time we've raised the minimum wage, the opposition attack us and say that this is not possible to do.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. L. Boone: Every single time . . . . Stand up for women once in a while. Stand up and say that you support the minimum wage; stand up and say that you support employment equity.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! Hon. minister and members, it is impossible . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: Stand up . . . .

The Chair: Hon. minister, just a minute, please. I'd like to draw to your attention that nobody can hear anything. I would urge all of you to bring yourselves into some form of order. The hon. minister has the floor. Carry on.

Hon. L. Boone: I wish the women would raise their voices in support of women when it comes to things such as the minimum wage, such as employment equity, such as pay equity. We've never heard anybody say anything . . . .

When we increase the minimum wage, they all say: "You can't do that. You can't do that, because you're going to shut down businesses." That's what they say, over and over and over. This is an appalling motion -- one that I think every member on the opposite side should be absolutely ashamed of -- to attack the one minister who is standing up and is responsible for women, and who is actually taking a stand and making a difference on behalf of women in this province. I, for one, will not be supporting this motion, and I certainly hope that nobody on the other side does, either.

C. Clark: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion, because I can't tell you how strongly I'm prepared to support it. What we're talking about here with the reduction of the minister's salary is whether she is doing her job, whether she deserves a penny of taxpayers' money for doing what she does. The fact is -- I think we've established this very, very well today and over the last couple of days -- the minister is not doing her job. She doesn't deserve the salary of a minister. She doesn't deserve the expense account. She

[ Page 2812 ]

doesn't deserve all the perks that go along with it, because she isn't doing what she's supposed to do.

The Minister of Women's Equality is responsible for ensuring that every program of this government is sensitive to the needs and the concerns of women. That's stated again and again and again in the mandate for the Ministry of Women's Equality. If she's not doing her job, who is? Are we to expect that the Minister of Employment and Investment is so sensitive to women's issues that he doesn't need the Minister of Women's Equality to come and help him out and make sure that those concerns are heard? Is that what we're supposed to understand?

The Minister of Women's Equality hasn't done one iota of work to find out the impact that expanding gambling will have on women in British Columbia. She is aware of all the studies that in fact were in the Legislative Library, which I think she has a borrower's card to -- or at least her staff do. Those studies are all there that tell us over and over again that expanding gambling has a deleterious effect on women's health, on their personal safety and on their economic stability. Based on those studies, we know that.

Maybe the minister would argue that in British Columbia everything's going to be different. What will happen? Maybe what will happen in British Columbia will be so different that none of these studies will have any validity at all. Well, I would ask you, hon. Chair, how she knows that. She hasn't done any studies. She hasn't done any work. She hasn't gone out and tried to analyze the effects that this will have. She isn't even willing to go to the minister responsible for gambling and tell him that she has some concerns about this. She isn't even willing to go to him and tell him that he should undertake a study. That is the mandate of her ministry. That's what the ministry exists for.

This government tells British Columbians that it cares about women's issues, and it says: "We care so much about women's issues that we have a Ministry of Women's Equality. We have a Ministry of Women's Equality, and it's got a mandate to protect women." But what they don't tell British Columbians is that the minister isn't prepared to carry out that mandate. The minister isn't prepared to do the job she's being paid for -- and that's the bottom line.

That's what this motion is about. It's telling the truth to British Columbians about the failure of this government to protect women's interests. If this minister isn't out there surveying the breadth of government policy and looking at the impacts it will have, what is she doing? If we're spending over $1 million a year on the policy and evaluation branch for her ministry, and they're not doing this job, what are they doing? What do they do?

The policy and evaluation branch, I assume, is supposed to evaluate policy. We've asked the minister again and again and again to tell us whether they've had any impact, whether they've bothered analyzing a whole bunch of policies. Then we've asked her . . . . Well, she said they have evaluated some policies. But she won't tell us what they are. She won't tell us where they've gone and done all this work or how they've spent this $1 million.

That tells me that if she doesn't know those answers, why are we paying her to do the job? Shouldn't there be somebody maybe more capable of doing the job? Isn't it time for this government to admit that they're not bothering to do the job, that the creation of this ministry at this point is really just showmanship? -- showpersonship, I should say. It's just smoke and mirrors.

The Ministry of Women's Equality has a minister. It has a mandate to protect women. It has a mandate to go out and examine government policy. It has a mandate to make sure that the Minister of Employment and Investment remains sensitive to women's concerns. But they don't do it. They can have all the mandates in the world, but if they don't do it, what good is having a minister at all? Why do we have a minister if she won't do the job she's being paid to do? As a taxpayer myself . . . . On behalf of all the taxpayers in British Columbia, I think they'd agree we shouldn't be paying people who don't do their jobs.

I see the Minister of Human Resources might fall into a similar category, but I suppose that would be a different debate. That would be an entirely different debate, and maybe we want to discuss that when we get to the estimates for Human Resources -- whether he deserves his pay. How many ministers in this government deserve their pay? This government made a lot of promises to the people of British Columbia, and so far they're not keeping very many. Their promise to ensure that women's issues are on the front burner, that women's issues are kept uppermost in the minds of all the ministers of this government, is not being carried out.

She's not that different, I suppose, from many, many, many of the other ministers over there. But when it comes to expanding gaming in British Columbia, something that is so important to women in this province . . . . And I noted, too, that the member for Surrey-Whalley talked about how her government felt about gambling. But I didn't notice her say that she was a strong supporter of expanded gambling. I didn't hear the member for Burnaby-Willingdon or the member for Vancouver-Burrard or the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville say that they were firm supporters of gambling. I didn't hear any of them say that they're strong supporters of gambling.

You know, I think that if enough of the ministers in this government and enough of the backbenchers did their jobs and stood up for what they believed in -- stood up for the beliefs of their constituents -- there might be enough people to stop their drive to expand gambling in British Columbia. There might be enough people in that government, if they were prepared to stand up, if they were prepared to grow a backbone, to say: "We are going to stand up for what we believe in."

The Minister of Women's Equality should say: "I'm not just going to stand up for what I believe in; I'm going to stand up for all the women in British Columbia. I'm going to take a stand. I'm prepared to take the risk. I'm prepared to take the flak to do what's right." If she's not prepared to do what's right, then we shouldn't be paying her to do this job.

With that, I will conclude. I don't think I need to reiterate that I am very strongly in support of this motion. I would encourage all members of the House who have a conscience on this issue to stand up with us on this side of the House and send the minister a message. Tell her that you expect her to do her job: you expect her to stand up against the expansion of gambling because it's bad for women.

M. Sihota: You know, the opposition is going to come to regret that they placed this motion before the House. I'm going to explain that in a few minutes. First of all, let's go back to the election campaign. During the course of the last election campaign, the Liberal Party campaigned on eliminating the Ministry of Women's Equality. That was an election commitment they made. In fact, they went so far during the course . . . .

[ Page 2813 ]

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want them to hear this, so I'll pause. Just have it out on the heckling, hon. members, because I want you . . . . They went so far in the course of their election commitment to say that the operations of the Ministry of Women's Equality would be subsumed under the office of the Premier. A man -- the Leader of the Opposition -- would then become the new Minister of Women's Equality. That's what every one of them on that side of the House campaigned on: eliminate it, and put it in the office of the Premier -- a man.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I want them to hear this. Where, during that election campaign, was the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain? Did she speak out against the plan to eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality? Where was the member for Okanagan West? Did she have the jam to take on her leader and say that it was wrong to campaign on that? Where was. . .?

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Let me finish. Where was the Women's Equality critic for the Liberal Party during the election campaign? Did she have the wherewithal to look her leader straight in the eye and say it's wrong to get rid of this ministry? Where was the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head? Not once -- and I was here in Victoria during the election campaign -- did she stand up and say publicly: "My leader is wrong to say that he should be responsible for the operations of the Minister of Women's Equality." Where was the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale?

Did she stand up even once during that election campaign and look her leader in the eye and say: "Look, guy, you're wrong"? No, not once. Yet they come into this House and utter oh such brave words -- directed at this minister who stands up and defends women's rights, at this political party that has been at the forefront of protecting women's rights. It's really simple to come into this House and utter these brave words. But you know, they're only words.

Hon. Chair, let's talk about actions.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Let's talk about actions. On the amendment . . . .

Interjections.

[4:15]

The Chair: Hon. members . . . . Hon. member, I wonder if you'd sit for just a minute. I would like to draw us all to order.

This is an interesting debate. There are lots of things that people want to say, and given the rules, I think you will all have a chance to say them on your feet. I would encourage you to choose that kind of moment to make your comments.

M. Sihota: My point is that I would first of all encourage them all to rise up on their feet -- each woman in this House on the opposite side -- and say that their leader was wrong when he took that position in the course of the election campaign. I put that challenge to every one of them, hon. Chair, and we'll be listening with great interest on this side of the House.

Secondly, let's talk about actions. After the election, what did the Liberal Party do? The first thing they did was get rid of their caucus chair, a woman, and replace her with a man. Their House Leader is a male; their Whip is a male. Every person of influence on the opposite side is a male. Not once have they provided women an opportunity . . . . Their actions tell us that women inside their caucus have been silenced.

There are only four points, and the third point is this: not once . . . . I can understand the politics being played here with regard to the gaming issue. But, quite frankly, the nature of the debate that we've heard for the last couple of days, started by the Liberal opposition, is outrageous. Have they once raised the issue of the difficulties that women of visible minority backgrounds face? Have they once raised that issue in the House? If they want to have a debate about a significant public policy issue, I would suggest that they spend more time debating that kind of an issue than . . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Oh, now they say that it's coming. All of a sudden, they've been awakened to that effect.

They'd be better advised to spend far more time talking about the abject poverty facing women on pensions which, by the way, are being reduced by your colleagues federally. They would be far better off speaking to those issues or even to be speaking to the issue of minimum wage, which they haven't raised at all during the course of this debate.

This motion before the House is not a motion of non-confidence, because without the minister there's no ministry. Rather, it's a fulfilment of their election promise. They are now going on the record confirming what they campaigned on. Coming into this House, they thought they were oh so clever by bringing this motion before the House. Instead, they've been suckered in by that male House Leader of theirs, who has caused them to make yet another political gaffe.

K. Whittred: The member opposite has spoken of actions, and I intend to address that in just a moment. I would like to start by saying that I very much appreciate the comments of the member opposite, the member for Surrey-Whalley. Even though we are on opposite sides of the House, we are women of similar generation, and I think we appreciate the same complexity of the issues.

The issue here is whether or not the Ministry of Women's Equality is fulfilling its mandate. I suggest to you that women's issues have been put on the back burner. One of the issues is that when these very difficult social issues come into collision with economic policy, I suggest that it is the social policy here that is losing.

The member opposite asked for action. I would like to give a few examples. He spoke of seniors' pensions. That is my critic area, and I understand as much as anyone -- and I have learned to understand in the last few months -- the complexity of these enormous, broad issues that touch on social issues, economic issues, geographic issues, gender issues and every other kind of issue you might want to mention. One of the most disheartening factors of recent months has been the rise in seniors' poverty -- mostly of senior women. Here is one example of where social and economic policy are colliding.

And which one is losing? The social policy. We are seeing a reduction in that area for the first time in many, many years.

[ Page 2814 ]

Another example I will give you is in women's sports. I had a call one day in my office, and a girls' hockey team had won the championship for the province and was going to the national championships. There was no money. One of the many experiences of my life as a parent was as a member of the minor hockey association, and I can remember planning many trips. There used to be lottery money available for that sort of travel, but no longer. So what are we doing now? We're expanding gambling, and again, the social policy is losing to the economic reality.

Another area that is very dear to my heart is schools. A little while ago we had school children up in the gallery. At this time, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars being raised on behalf of school funding to supply schools with everything from textbooks to computers to playground equipment. Some will say that's wonderful. But it is another example of women losing out. Who do you think it is, primarily, who goes and works in those casinos at night to raise money for the schools? Is it the dads? Some dads, yes. It is mostly the moms. Who goes out and fundraises for minor sports? Again, it's mostly the moms. Again, we have this collision of economic versus social policy.

I heard a frightening story the other day that I think will even concern members opposite, and it was about an elementary school teacher. She was several months pregnant. She taught in a disadvantaged area of town, and her school was doing a casino to raise money. She felt obliged to go and sit in a smoke-filled casino until the wee hours of the morning to raise money for her school -- again, a collision of economic reality and social policy. And that is where women are losing out. Women are being put on the back burner.

This expansion of gaming is a vital and revolutionary bit of social policy. It is changing the way we raise money and the way we do business in those very institutions that the family gathers around: our sports, our schools, our children's playgrounds and so on. Those affect families; they affect moms. Moms are women. They affect women the most.

It is said -- and I will conclude on this note -- that a picture is worth a thousand words. The picture of the hon. Deputy Premier leaping to his feet like Superman in this House yesterday, I think, said it all about where women's issues stand in the priorities of this government.

J. Kwan: You know, I've sat for the last number of days and listened to the members opposite, and then here today we have an issue, a motion that they've moved, and I want members to focus on what it is they are advocating. The motion that is before us right now is: "Be it resolved that the motion before the House to approve the expenditures of the Ministry of Women's Equality be amended by reducing the amount of $373,000 therein to $1. This is the motion we're debating right now. The members opposite want to eliminate the Women's Equality ministry. That is their agenda.

You know, we were discussing the issue earlier, and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said that life is full of regrets. Well, let us look at some of those regrets from the members opposite. During the election campaign, it was they who had campaigned on the elimination of one of the most important ministries, and that is the protection for women. Those members opposite wanted to eliminate it. Is that a regret? I want to ask the hon. members opposite: where have they been on issues that have been critical to the lives of women?

Let us talk about the issue of equality. I want to quote this statement from the member for Richmond East. She says: "The government" -- referencing the NDP government -- "also said it would put more women in government board positions as they become vacant . . . . " But the member for Richmond East, who was then the Women's Equality critic, said she would oppose such measures. Well, I want to ask: why? Is it better for women to have men in powerful positions, or is it better to have women to represent our issues and bring our issues to the table? Why is it that they oppose the representation of women on boards? Where is their real commitment on behalf of the women across British Columbia?

I want to talk about another issue that is critical to women and the future of women and their children, and that is the right to choose -- reproductive rights, fundamental rights that ought to belong to every woman in this province. Where were the members opposite when that issue was being debated? Well, I want to quote the member for Abbotsford. He said: "I am pro-life, and I will act on those beliefs." I also want to quote the then critic for Women's Equality: "But if this government truly cared about the health, safety and choices for women in this province, they would close the freestanding clinics . . . .

" This is their position in their protection and advocacy for women's rights and women's right to choose.

I want to talk about another issue that is critical to women and the future of women and their children, and that is employment standards. I want to talk about the minimum wage, because I was raised by a mother who made less than the minimum wage. She made $10 a day as a farmworker, raising six children. I thank this government for implementing and ensuring that there be a minimum wage. It is because of the lack of those standards that our families, children and women suffer. Where were the members opposite when we dealt with the minimum wage?

They did not support minimum wage, because, heaven forbid, that may just help the many thousands of women and children who are living in poverty. They do not support that. Where do they want to go? They want to give big tax breaks to corporations. That's what the other side is all about.

You know, it astounds me, because we are meant to come together to work on an issue. We're meant to come together to ensure that people get the best representation and that the rights of people are protected. Yet when it becomes critical for the members opposite to stand in this House to advocate for those rights, they fail -- and that's proven by the history of their actions. They fail women time and time and time again. They want to sit here and have us believe that they actually care about women's issues and that they actually care about their children. I have to ask members opposite: where were they when it really counted?

[4:30]

I want to talk about the importance of what this ministry is doing. We should focus on the offenders who cause problems, who abuse women. That is what this ministry did when it implemented and brought in legislation on stalkers. You've got to remember that the fault here is not with the women; the fault here is not an issue outside of the offenders. It is the offenders whom we must take action on, and our government has done that and will continue to do that. And this minister, the Minister of Women's Equality, stands up for women and will continue to stand up for women. I only wish members opposite would do the same.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. This is not a debate about the women on that side of the House against the women on this side of the House. Let's be very clear here. This amendment is a motion of

non-

[ Page 2815 ]

confidence in that minister. This is a motion that reduces the office of that minister to a dollar. This is a motion about accountability, about leadership and about responsibility -- and about owning up to that responsibility.

Frankly, in the last three days, we've sat in this House and seen something absolutely unprecedented. We've seen an absolute lack of depth, an absolute lack of knowledge and an absolute lack of commitment shown on the part of that minister for sticking up for women in this province on the issue of gaming -- on the issue of expansion of gambling.

It's interesting that the critic for Women's Equality on this side of the House had to go into the library here and find reports that this government did on the expansion of gambling and gaming and bring them to this minister's attention -- when that issue is in front of cabinet and in front of that government right now. The critic over here had to show that minister reports that her government had done which she had absolutely no clue about.

This office of the minister apparently spends over $1 million on policy and development that is relevant to women in this province -- on the implications of policy that this government develops and passes and how it affects women. And she has no clue about studies that her government did that actually say . . . . Our critic had to point out to her that these studies said that gambling -- guess what -- did not have good implications for women. In fact, it harms their health, it harms their personal safety, it harms their opportunity for jobs, and it has harmful implications for their children. And she didn't know that.

We've sat here for the last three days and seen an absolutely pathetic performance by this minister in trying to answer questions on behalf of women on policies that her cabinet and her government are putting forward that have harmful implications for women. That is what this debate is about. It's not whether that side of the House supports women or this side of the House supports women; it's about whether that minister is accountable and responsible for the ministry that she is in charge of and, that she has shown a lack of responsibility and accountability for in the last three days, because she hasn't been able to answer the simplest questions.

She was asked -- today, yesterday, the day before -- about the million dollars that her ministry spent on policy and development on behalf of women. She was asked: what criteria does her office use to decide which policies will be looked at? A simple question. "Okay, you've got $1 million. You've got all these policies being driven at you -- from cabinet, from women's groups, from all kinds of places across the province. So just a minute: what are your terms of references? What are your criteria?

How do you decide what policies you're going to look at on behalf of women?" Guess what: she couldn't answer that simple question. What are the terms of reference? What are the criteria? You've got a million bucks. That's a lot of bucks. How are you spending it? How are you prioritizing what policies you're going to look at?

Now, there were some major, major issues emerging in the months after the election. One of them was gaming. What has this minister done to address the very, very important issue of gaming as it relates to women? We've heard the Premier talk about gaming; we've heard the Deputy Premier talk about gaming. But what did we hear from this Minister of Women's Equality?

What is she telling them about the effects of gaming and how it's going to affect women in this province -- how it's going to affect their kids, how it's going to affect their families, how it's going to affect their personal safety, how it's going to affect all those very, very important things that she purports her ministry is supposed to reflect on behalf of women? She hasn't told us a thing. She didn't even know studies existed.

There were studies from 1994 -- three or four years ago -- that her government did, that the B.C. Lottery Corporation did, which showed statistically that there were harmful effects from gaming, and yet she asked us to share them with her. Her government commissioned the study. They did the study! They did the study, and we had to go the library to point out to her that they actually paid for a study that was done. She absolutely didn't have any knowledge of it. I just find that astounding.

It's interesting -- that a member opposite accused the women of this side of the House of being silenced. Well, I've never been accused of that. Hon. Chair, you may have even asked me to perhaps be a little quiet on this side of the House. I just can't see how the women on this side of the House have been silenced, when we've had women standing up here for the last three days trying to get an answer out of that minister on how she directs her cabinet colleagues about policies that they're implementing and how they will affect women.

And it's absolutely pathetic that she can't tell us what criteria this government -- her ministry -- uses to decide which policies will be looked at. She can't tell us what the terms of reference are. She doesn't know what studies exist. She doesn't tell us what outcomes have been looked at for women.

In fact, earlier today we heard that there's a transition house on Saltspring Island that apparently got funding from this ministry, and now they're going to pull that funding -- at the same time they're going to expand gaming. There's going to be an expansion of gambling, but they're pulling the funding for this transition house.

When they appealed to this minister and said, "Okay, look, we really need this money, and we have statistics that show there's justification for this transition house on Saltspring Island," do you know what her ministerial assistant -- what the office of this ministry -- suggested to the committee that runs this transition house? They suggested that they go get a casino licence. Unbelievable! They suggested they get a casino licence. Well, you know, this is coming from the Ministry of Women's Equality, so they took it to their board. And do you know what the board did? They rejected that.

They did the right thing. They rejected that because they know that the implications of gambling are not good for women. They know that, and they did not endorse it. But this minister and this office don't have the guts to stand up for women in this province. They don't have the guts to tell us how their policies are filtered. She does not have the guts to stand up to her cabinet colleagues and say: "Look at all these studies."

The Chair: Hon. member . . . .

S. Hawkins: Our government commissioned these studies.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order!

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order. It is most unusual to have a member stand in this House and slag another member in such an unparliamentary fashion. And really, I would ask the member to withdraw her remarks with respect to intestinal fortitude and try to maintain some decorum while making her point.

[ Page 2816 ]

The Chair: I thank the hon. minister for that, and I request that the member withdraw those remarks. They are indeed unparliamentary.

S. Hawkins: I'll withdraw the remarks if they bother the minister, hon. Chair.

The Chair: No, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: I'll withdraw the remarks.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

S. Hawkins: I believe it's a considerable amount of money we're spending on this ministry. We would hope, if we're spending that amount of money, that it just doesn't become a cheque-cutting ministry -- you know, that it just doesn't become a ministry where you funnel money in and you sort of just throw papers around and say: "Okay, well this looks good, this looks good, this looks good. So let's just throw money at this program and hope it works." No! This ministry is supposed to serve a very important purpose.

It's supposed to filter through policies and programs and the effects of how these policies and programs affect women, and brief cabinet on how women are going to be affected by the decisions they make.

Now we know that this cabinet is going to be making a decision. They're going to be making a decision on expansion of gambling. We keep hearing varying ideas on what's going to happen: there's going to be some expansion, or there's going to be modest expansion. They keep going back and forth. Well, we don't know, but we expect this minister to stand up for women and say: "Look, this policy could have these effects on women. This gaming policy could have some very, very harmful effects on women. And here are the studies." And you know what? The studies don't come from anywhere else; they come from your own government. They were studies that you did. They're sitting in the library.

The Chair: Hon. member, through the Chair, please.

S. Hawkins: Our critic, hon. Chair, had to bring it to the government's attention -- had to bring to the minister's attention that the studies that show the harmful effects of gambling on women actually exist. This minister had never seen them.

And I guess that's why, more than anything else, I have to support this motion. I and the members on this side of the House expect that when you have an office on this issue -- women's equality -- you're going to have an advocate for women, you're going to have someone that can stand up for women, you're going to have someone that can take the data or actually commission studies and say: "Look, this is what it's going to do to women." But this minister can't even answer a question related to the issue -- a very, very significant issue that's come before her in the last three days.

Again, I guess I'll just reiterate why I'm supporting this motion. It's because of the lack of depth, the lack of knowledge and the lack of commitment shown on the part of this minister towards women, and the lack of accountability and responsibility in leadership she's shown in her role in the debates in the last three days. I support this motion.

E. Gillespie: Hon. Chair, I am appalled at the myopia of the members of the opposition who bring forward this amendment. What they claim to be a lack of confidence in the minister is in reality a lack of confidence in the ministry.

I want to relate just a couple of personal stories that I think demonstrate a little bit broader vision of the life of women in this province. I want to talk first about women and health, and about some personal experiences around birth in particular. Twelve years ago, when I had my first child, the experience of birth was one in a surgery: straps, knives, lights, etc. -- a highly medical, highly technical kind of procedure. Five years ago, when I had my third child, that child was born in a hospital room that was, as much as possible, very much like my own bedroom.

[4:45]

Those kinds of changes in health care for women did not come about because of physicians. Those kinds of changes in health care did not come about because of men. Those kinds of changes in health care came about because of the demands of women that birth be a natural process. Birth is not a disease. Birth is something that ought to occur in a family kind of environment and not in a surgery.

I'd like to talk for a moment about something which has often been an issue on the floor of this Legislature, and that is the issue of child care -- safe child care for the children of this province. It's an issue that we see on the floor of this Legislature; it's an issue that we see across this country. For me, the decision to run for office in this province was an issue that was centred around my ability to find safe, affordable, accessible child care where I knew that the people who were providing that child care for my children were paid a decent wage, had decent benefits and could go home to a decent home in the evening.

The kind of strides made by this government in the whole area of child care to establish the one-stop access for child care; to establish an information place for parents to go to; to make sure that child care providers have a decent wage; to make sure that we have safe, accredited, affordable and accessible child care across this province . . . . This is not an accident; this is a design. This is the policy of this government, and it has come through the leadership of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

The third point is just a small point I would like to make about women in business. I had an experience recently of talking to a woman who had been in business in my community for over 20 years. In that period of 20 years, she had established herself. She had a regular banking relationship. When, after 20 years of dealing with this bank, she decided to change the name and location of her business, and went to this bank that she had dealt for over 20 years to get a loan in order to change her name and location, she was denied that loan. This is a woman who has been in business in a community who has been well respected for over 20 years.

Now, this weekend I attended the celebration of a women's lending circle in my community. The establishment of this lending circle in the Comox Valley came through the leadership of the Women's Resource Centre, which receives funding from the Ministry of Women's Equality. The lending circle has brought together a partnership of the credit union, the Community Futures society and the businesswomen themselves, in order to establish an opportunity for women in business to get the loans they need to make the changes they need to make their businesses successful.

Twenty-five years ago I went to a meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in Kitsilano. At that time that particular group of women was considered to be radical, was feared by many; yet the demands of that group of women 25 years ago have in many ways become

incorpo-

[ Page 2817 ]

rated into the way we do business in this province. But we clearly have a very long way to go. Women have a very long way to go in achieving any kind of equality. The Ministry of Women's Equality keeps the matters of equity -- of equality of opportunity -- in front of this House, where they need to be and -- where we have the opportunity to make the decisions to create the legislation which can truly change women's lives.

G. Wilson: I rise to speak to this motion because I think it important to go on the record with respect to my views and the views that I am sure are held by members of my party. No doubt I will be called upon, in a vote, to stand and have my vote recorded. I think it important when that is done that there be some Hansard record as to the reason why I'm going to vote against this motion.

Let me say that last session there was a motion to reduce the Premier's budget to $1 and I voted against that. In my judgment, I think what we have to do is look carefully at the wording of each motion that comes forward and ask ourselves if what we're being asked to vote upon here is going to improve the general lives and the general opportunities of British Columbians. I will support anything that I believe will advance the general well-being of the British Columbia people and, particularly because I'm elected for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the people in my riding.

So I look at this motion and ask myself: having now listened to this debate for a number of hours -- along with a number of staff members who are sitting here waiting to complete the estimates of Women's Equality -- how will this motion improve the lives of women in my communities, in my riding and in the province? I ask myself if passage of this motion -- which is essentially to reduce $337,000 in the minister's office to $1 -- is going to solve the problems that have been outlined by members of the Liberal opposition.

If they believe, as I believe, that the expansion of gaming is hazardous, a dangerous thing in this province, my question is: will passage of this motion stop the expansion of gambling? The answer I come to is: no, it will not.

I ask myself: if they believe, as I believe, that there are issues within Women's Equality that can be improved upon and that we can essentially attack some of the discrimination that is still overtly out there against women, will the passage of this motion help to stop that discrimination? My answer is: no, it will not. Certainly if we look toward the open discrimination that exists against aboriginal women in this province . . . .