1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10583 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Tree-fruit industry. Mr. Harcourt –– 10583

Comptroller-general's report on member for Omineca. Mr. Miller ––

Kelowna cancer clinic. Mr. Chalmers –– 10584

Disposal of household hazardous waste. Ms. Cull –– 10585

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10585

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Reid

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Guno

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Peterson

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I see that the mayor of Masset,

Gordon Feyer, is here, and with him is Ald. Evelyn Basso from the city

of Prince Rupert. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In the members' gallery today is an old friend and a very hard-working

alderman from the city of Kamloops. On behalf of the second member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Smith) and myself, I'd like the House to join me in

welcoming Ald. Russ Gerard.

MR. ROSE : I've just been

handed a note to the effect that 29 grade 7 students from Cedar Drive

Elementary School are in the gallery with their teacher, Mr. Gordon

Foulkes. I understand that they're going to have a tour of the

buildings, and if I can manage to meet with them at 3:30, I'll be

pleased to do it. Will you welcome them to their first visit to the

Legislature.

MR. CHALMERS : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery this afternoon we have visiting from the great riding of

Okanagan South, Mr. Bob Holt, who is the general manager of Sun-Rype

Products. Would you all help me make him welcome, please.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's always a pleasure to introduce a colleague from another

Legislature, and in the gallery today is the NDP MLA from the riding of

Edmonton-Strathcona, Mr. Gordon Wright. Joining Mr. Wright are Mrs.

Mary Wright and Heloise Wright. Could all members join me in giving

them a warm welcome.

MR. SERWA : On behalf of the

second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would

like the House to welcome Mr. Ronald Marriott, who is a public works

superintendent for the district of Peachland. He is providing technical

support for the three aldermen I introduced this morning. Would the

House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I'd

like to introduce today to the House a former Minister of Agriculture

in this government and now the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation,

Mr. Jim Hewitt. He's in the precincts and will be meeting with me very

shortly. Would this assembly please make him welcome.

Oral Questions

TREE-FRUIT INDUSTRY

MR. SPEAKER : The Leader of the Opposition. [Applause.]

MR. HARCOURT : Thank you for your welcome. I may say to the government that I got a much warmer welcome in the Okanagan than they did.

have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The fruit-growing

industry is in desperate shape. Of the $500 million federal

agricultural assistance package, $40 million is currently unallocated.

A couple of hours ago the federal Minister of State for Agriculture

confirmed that the funding is available, and he awaits the provincial

minister's call. Has the minister decided that the fruit growers will

receive their fair share of this unallocated federal money?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

As you can well appreciate, we have had the Lusztig Commission of

inquiry report sent out to the industry. The industry is currently

making some of its recommendations known relative to what has been said

in the commission of inquiry. They are being conducted through the

hearing process — for instance, today in Oliver. Very clearly it would

be premature for me to make an announcement before the recommendations

are finished through those hearing processes.

We will

obviously react out of necessity to help the industry, as a government,

because we know how important it is to the economy of the Okanagan. But

to say that we should do it immediately without having the process of

the hearings fulfilled to the commitment of what we are requesting the

fruit growers to do, and the packing houses — all sectors tied to the

tree-fruit industry.... It would be premature to direct them to a

position of finding a future for their industry in the Okanagan, and a

future for all the young people and old people alike who are involved

in that great industry.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, the tree-fruit growers are going broke.

have a supplementary question to the minister. The Lusztig report

ignores the plight of the fruit growers. Surely by now the minister

knows that the fruit growers and the people in the Okanagan totally

reject the Lusztig report. Has the minister decided to scrap this

ill-conceived report and to get some immediate cash to the tree-fruit

growers — an immediate cash payment of ten cents a pound?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I should say very clearly that what amount of cents per pound goes out

will be decided — that's future policy at this stage. For you to say

that many fruit growers are going broke.... There is an estimation that

as many as 10,000 grain farmers might go broke in Saskatchewan this

year.

Everybody knows agriculture is in a dilemma, and it's

not unique to the fruit industry. The grain sector in the Peace River

area of this province is also suffering from financial woes relative to

crop returns.

What we must address as a province and as a

country are the subsidies that are causing a major part of the problems

we face today. Those subsidies take place not only in Canada and the

U.S.; they support a lot of the product imported into this country as

well. We have to address that problem, as

[ Page 10584 ]

well

as trying to look after our particular fruit growers in the Okanagan.

We will make a diligent effort, let me assure you, to try and address

all those problems.

COMPTROLLER-GENERAL'S REPORT

ON MEMBER FOR OMINECA

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could

explain how the comptroller-general's report, which was used three

years ago to substantiate the firing of the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), is now being used today to vindicate the member for Omineca's

return to the Social Credit caucus.

HON. MR VANDER ZALM :

First I'd like to take the opportunity of welcoming back the Leader of

the Opposition. I saw him last night sporting a bright T-shirt saying

that we should all take the summer off.

AN HON. MEMBER : Like he does.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I wondered about that.

I'm

not sure upon what information that question is based. I'd have to get

some more explanation. I think the question was that there was

something said about the comptroller-general's report having vindicated

a member of the House. I believe that's what it was.

MR. MILLER :

The Premier's inability to recollect facts is well known. In 1987 the

Premier, on reading the report, said that the conduct of the minister

did not live up to acceptable standards. That same report is now being

used by the chairman of the caucus to vindicate the return of that

member. Could the Premier advise whether that term "acceptable

standards" is on a bit of a sliding scale? Does it change as we get

closer to an election?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Certainly I can recall the report, and I can recall a decision was

made, in part based upon the information in the report. We're now

considering a statement made three years following that particular

incident and report, and we are very pleased to welcome the member back

to caucus. I would like to tell the member as well — obviously he's not

aware — that caucus decisions are made by caucus, which certainly

operates very democratically and based on consensus.

KELOWNA CANCER CLINIC

MR. CHALMERS :

I have a question for the Minister of Health. A number of the people in

our constituency of Okanagan South are now somewhat confused about the

timing and scope of the cancer treatment centre, which is to be built

there as per the recent announcement, because of the announcement for

the Kamloops clinic. Could the minister please clarify the scope and

the timing of that treatment centre for Kelowna.

[2:15]

HON. J. JANSEN : It is deeply

unfortunate that cancer touches so many families in the province of

British Columbia. When it touches, it is very devastating to the

victims and their families. It is understandable that the support of

families and communities in these situations is extremely important. In

my mind, it is important that we place facilities such as radiotherapy

in the communities where people live.

Our studies have

shown that the demographics in the province of British Columbia are

going to produce a significant additional patient load. As well,

radiotherapy is now the preferred method of treatment over chemotherapy

in the province of British Columbia. The Cancer Control Agency of

British Columbia has anticipated that by the year 2000 we will require

an additional 13 radiotherapy units in the province of British

Columbia. As such, we have indicated that we would like to place four

of those in the interior of the province — two in Kelowna and two in

Kamloops — the same size as the units now located in Victoria.

was enough of a concern to the opposition side that the Leader of the

Opposition raised it in the House on April 10: "...given the fact that

the local governments from Prince George through to Cariboo prefer the

Kamloops location, Is the minister prepared to reconsider his decision

and locate a full-service cancer clinic in Kamloops?" This is in

contradiction to the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms.

Marzari), who says: "Jansen is spitting in the face of the B.C. Cancer

Control Agency."

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Even

when answering a question, I must ask the member who asked the question

and the minister answering him to have a look at the standing orders

about the word "brevity." When a question is asked that would allow a

minister to have a long dissertation about something which might be

best covered in his estimates, the Chair is somewhat distressed,

especially when it was told that the question was not only urgent but

brief.

You are also not allowed to use your name or anyone

else's name during answers. As we close this Parliament — hopefully

within the next two years — the members who have joined us in 1986 will

have learned that one basic rule. Would the member please continue.

HON. J. JANSEN : The issue is a complex one, and I think it requires clarification. However, my point in explaining the issue

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN : I don't seem to have much support on the opposition side on this issue.

My point is that we don't hold the people of the interior the same as the members of the opposition do.

[ Page

10585 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. minister.

DISPOSAL OF HOUSEHOLD

HAZARDOUS WASTE

MS. CULL :

To the Minister of Environment. Years of environmental neglect caught

up with this government last weekend in Victoria when thousands of

greater Victoria residents jumped at a rare opportunity to dispose of

household hazardous waste. Two thousand cars dropped off toxic

materials, but hundreds more had to be turned away when they ran out of

barrels on Sunday for everything but non-recyclables.

Will

the minister admit that a temporary depot only open one weekend, with

nothing further scheduled now until October, is totally inadequate to

provide for safe disposal of household hazardous wastes in this

community?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's interesting that

the member, who only a month ago was quoted in the local media as

saying our toxic waste day was unnecessary and too late, is now using

just the opposite approach.

Mr. Speaker, the positive

initiative of the Ministry of Environment in working with the Capital

Regional District to have hazardous waste cleanup days all around this

province is extremely successful. The one in Victoria was the most

successful one ever held in Canada. I can inform the member also that I

met with the Capital Regional District last evening at 5:30. We'll be

putting a release out tomorrow advancing the date of the second one in

Victoria. Also, her facts about the opening of the local depot were

untrue.

MS. CULL : A supplemental question. The

success of the depot is actually a condemnation of what this government

has been doing with respect to the environment. Your belated and

reluctant response to environmental concerns has fallen short. People

want to act responsibly, but the government stands in their way. Has

the minister now decided to meet the demand in our community, between

now and the next toxic waste weekend, by opening up your own ministry's

environment on a regular basis?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite funny, actually — if not sad — that this

member, who Is knocking the day, was there with the TV cameras on

Saturday morning at the opening. She was smiling and saying what a good

day it was. This House has a different approach. She was quite happy to

take the T-shirt I gave her that announced the day.

Mr. Speaker, my ministry works in cooperation with the Capital Regional District.

That cooperation is working just tremendously, and that member knows it. That's

probably what upsets her so much That's why over 2,000 people in their

cars came through that depot and will come through in September when we do it

again; they realize what this government is doing. It's a very successful

and popular program, as that member knows, because she talked to the people

as they were driving through in their cars the other day. There were no complaints.

They think it's a responsible action by a responsible government.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing I can assure the member that I will continue to

take advice, not from her party or critic but from the Capital Regional

District, because that's how we work with government. We work with the

people who want to solve the problems, not just make silly statements.

MR. SPEAKER :

Would all members please be advised that this afternoon at 4 o'clock or

1600 hours there's a reception for the legislative interns who have

served both caucuses over the past few months. Those members who are

not required in the chamber would be welcome at that reception.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

On vote 34: minister's office, $284,000 (continued).

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chair, I'd like to go back to the questions that I asked the

minister a number of times this morning but still haven't got an answer

to. I'll start with the last question I asked. Has the ministry done a

provincewide cross-ministry analysis of what the barriers are to

women's advancement in government?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head continues.

MS. CULL :

I don't like to be repetitive, but obviously the minister wasn't

listening and was conferring with her colleagues. I'll ask once again.

Has her ministry done any analysis to determine across government what

the barriers are to women's advancement in government service?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Chair, I'm waiting for the minister's staff person to take her seat

there and give her the answer, but once again I will ask the question:

has the ministry done any analysis across government ministries to

determine what are the barriers that women face in advancing in

government service?

HON. MRS. GRAN : What I really would appreciate, if the member is willing to cooperate, is if you

[ Page 10586 ]

could just put several questions together; then we won't have to keep jumping up and down.

MS. CULL :

I am asking the questions one at a time because I asked them this

morning at least once — all five of them — and I thought the minister

was having difficulty dealing with them in a group. So I'll deal with

them one at a time, and this is the one I would like the answer to

right now. She has heard it at least five times, and I hope there will

be an answer.

HON. MR. SMITH : There are a number of

areas under the direction of the Ministry of Government Management

Services that I have an interest in and that people in my constituency

have asked me about and asked me to raise some issues with respect to.

One

of them relates to the whole question of allocation of space by the

B.C. Buildings Corporation. The matter of concern is to what extent, by

way of policy.... I know that individual situations naturally would

arise which you would have to deal with on a site-by-site basis, but

generally they have concerns about the policy of the Buildings

Corporation in communities the size of Kamloops, or perhaps smaller,

where there is a choice in the allocation of space between publicly

constructed, funded, managed and operated buildings and those that can

be done by the private sector on an as-need basis and a leaseback basis.

raise that issue because I think it is an important policy

consideration around the province, especially in the smaller interior

communities where there is at once a need for government office space

that is of good quality and capable of serving the needs of the public

and also a need for the private sector not to be unduly competed

against by the public sector. It often is a matter of a careful balance.

recognize that those public policy issues, because they do impact on

the level of activity that goes on in the community.... While we always

appreciate the construction of government facilities in those smaller

communities, because the impact of construction is sizeable and in most

of our economies construction itself has a significant impact on

employment levels — we appreciate any new construction activity — it is

the case that typically in those areas buildings that are constructed

in the private sector are owned and managed locally, and as a

consequence the money that derives from them by way of competitive rent

is recycled locally, if you like, and frequently reinvested locally.

It's

an important policy consideration for many of the small communities,

not only for the Buildings Corporation as it provides office space for

government services, but as well for some of our Crowns who don't use

the Buildings Corporation. I know that's not in your purview, but I

think the leadership that is shown by the Buildings Corporation and

Government Management Services in that regard can have an impact on

those other agencies using, as I suggest, the purchasing power of

government, therefore, in the area of buildings to facilitate both

economic activity and local investment that is enduring in terms of

tenant mix and, of course, providing good-quality space for the

provision of public services, which, appropriately, is always a goal.

would like on behalf of my constituents, if I can, to get some sense of

the general policy direction that the Buildings Corporation has in that

regard.

[2:30]

The second question I have relates as well to the whole issue of

using the public purchasing power In order not only to fulfil

provincial policy goals but also to act as a stimulus and in a

leadership role in the economy. I have heard from successive ministers

of Government Management Services of extremely successful programs in

manufacturing. I know that in Kamloops our unemployment rate is a

testimony to that, having gone from 29 percent in 1986 — when I was

elected — to just over 8 percent today. This is in no small measure due

to the success of such organizations as the Thompson-Nicola

Manufacturers' Association, which has drawn together the manufacturing

capacity of the community and has utilized the purchasing power of

government to create and fill demand, as well as create jobs.

think a logical extension of that pertains to many of our environmental

initiatives, because it is the case — as many of us recognize — that

the fundamental changes that we will have wrought in our society will

come about through the fundamental changes we'll have to make in our

own individual purchasing habits.

Ultimately, to have a

clean environment you need recycling. To have proper recycling you need

markets for what is recycled. A logical extension of this is that

government's purchasing policy could be used creatively and effectively

to assist in leading the way in the economy to purchase recycled

commodities. This will have a positive effect on our environment and —

not coincidentally — show leadership.

I would be interested

to hear from the minister about some of the recycling: to what extent

we're examining — for instance, in the whole area of paper — some of

the wood products, fuel products and other recyclable products for

which there are some halting attempts to develop plants and

infrastructure in British Columbia; and to what extent your ministry is

taking some leadership role in that regard. Perhaps she could give us a

report and an update in that area which is very important to every

single citizen of this province.

All you need to do is look

at the way in which local communities are grasping on to the recycling

leadership that is being taken by our own Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Reynolds), an extremely strong Minister of Environment in this

government, and the way in which that is being embraced by the public

with enthusiasm and clarity of purpose.

It would be helpful

for those people to know that just as they are making those changes in

their own habits, big government also is making changes in some of its

habits.

My constituents have asked me to seek answers to

those questions for the public record. I will be pleased to learn the

result now.

[ Page

10587 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General brings up

some excellent points. The Ministry of Government Management Services

is extremely proud of the environmental initiatives within it,

including the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

In answer to what

I perceived as a question about private sector versus government

buildings, the policy in BCBC is to have about 60 percent of our

buildings belonging to the private sector. In fact, B.C. Buildings

Corporation works very closely with the private sector. They rely on

private sector consultants, contractors and trades people; in fact, the

corporation has dealt with over 5,000 contractors. Their in-house staff

is kept to a minimum. Over 50 percent of the operating costs are spent

in the private sector, and over $200 million is spent in the private

sector annually.

BCBC has a very firm policy about working

with the private sector in each individual community, assuring each

community that whatever is built — be it the corporation or the private

sector — serves the needs of that community.

But let me go

back to the environmental issues in this ministry. The environmental

purchasing policy is something that we're all extremely proud of. That

policy was approved by cabinet in 1989 and has been a key focus in the

ministry ever since. It has included projects like Project Paper Push,

which was initiated to turn government waste paper into a reusable

asset. It has been extremely successful.

Also within the

ministry there's a dedicated group of environmental champions who work

to apply the goals of the ministry to the day-to-day activities of

their branches, which is a unique approach in this or any other

government to the task of environmental improvements.

believe the future in government looks to environmental initiatives

such as those that have been put forward and championed by this

ministry — purchasing through the Purchasing Commission. I know that

over the next few years more and more ministries and agencies outside

of government, including hospitals and school boards, will see fit to

purchase through the Purchasing Commission, because they have

established a nationwide reputation of doing an excellent job and of

being very fair and caring beyond question.

I want to thank the Attorney-General for his comments and his questions.

MR. REID :

To the same minister. I'd like to follow up that discussion a little

bit. I commend the former minister in relation to his initiative

towards recycling, especially around the oil program that was brought

into the province and which has been well received by municipalities

out there, besides the provincial government.

But the question I wanted to ask the minister and would ask her staff to respond

to is that in the middle of last year there was identified a large volume of

hard, solid plastic seeding trays for the Ministry of Forests which needed to

be recycled or disposed of. I understand it created quite a dilemma for the

Purchasing Commission, and in order to take advantage of that large volume of

containers the B.C. Purchasing Commission was going to locate a plastics recycling

firm in the province that would take back and use that hard plastic in 30 percent

of containers of some kind manufactured in British Columbia.

follow up the Attorney-General's economic suggestion relative to that,

I would like to know if today the Purchasing Commission still has an

incentive to have products supplied by it and others: firstly,

manufactured in B.C. if possible; secondly, utilizing current B.C.

recycled products to make that happen; and thirdly, dealing with the

question of volume of certain products we have within government. Oil

was one which your ministry dealt with through the previous minister,

and I know you followed up with Mohawk Oil. With the dilemma that the

Environment ministry and our government has with large volumes of hard

plastic, can the minister advise the status of that relative to today?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The policy of the Purchasing Commission in the tendering is to favour

products that are environmentally friendly. There is also a policy and

an ability within the Purchasing Commission to send people into the

communities in the private sector and to work with those companies to

assist them in doing a better job of bidding and, in fact, complying

with the environmental policy that the Purchasing Commission has.

The question regarding the trays from Forestry I'll have to take on notice and get the answer back.

MS. CULL :

I wonder if the minister has now had a chance to come up with the

answer to my question. I see that she's not answering the question and

perhaps doesn't know the answer to the question.

I'd like

to then go on to my next question. Could the minister explain why, in

the case of at least one ministry, Women's Programs advised the women's

committee of that ministry not to do such a study within their ministry

until the government had finished doing some work of its own, and that

no study could be done within the ministry, despite the fact that a

number of other ministries over the years have done similar work?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I know that the member is new, but what I'm asking is for you just to

continue with all the things that you're saying and all the questions

that you have. You just asked a question that we know nothing of, so

hopefully somebody in the ministry will know it, if indeed it is a

reality. But please feel free to continue on.

MS. CULL :

Surely, Madam Minister, you or your staff would know whether your

ministry is doing an analysis of the barriers to women for advancement

in government service. That was my first question which I've asked now

six or seven times, and you still haven't answered. Are you telling me

that you don't know the answer to that?

[ Page 10588 ]

Well, I have to assume that you don't know the answer. It seems like a very straightforward question.

Another question that I asked this morning was: is your ministry

doing anything to ensure gender parity on selection panels? Let me ask

three questions in a row here, because they're all to do with

recruitment. Gender parity on selection panels: are you promoting a

search approach to finding suitable women candidates for particular

management positions and are you reviewing the results of panels — who

has applied, who was interviewed, who was short-listed and who was not

selected — to determine why women have not been securing those

positions so that we can become aware of what the barriers might be and

where to best direct our efforts to assist women? There are three

questions.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I guess I was assuming that the member had more to say — or something

to say. This is not a cross-examination. This is an opportunity for you

to put forward your ideas and for me to answer the questions. If you

want to ask very clipped questions with no point of view of your own,

that's fine.

Of course we're doing an analysis. That's part

of the responsibility of this ministry. Of course the answer is yes.

Gender parity is something we are working towards. You'll notice that

is one of the recommendations of the committee. We'll be working with

that recommendation and implementing it in the very near future.

Are we supplying names of women as candidates for boards and commissions? You bet we are.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before I recognize any member, I would just like to state that while

the member may have asked a question on several occasions, the minister

is under no obligation to answer any question.

MS. CULL : I appreciate that the minister doesn't have to answer the questions, but I do believe that I can continue to ask questions.

response to what the minister just said, I spent over 15 minutes this

morning right before we adjourned making comments, offering suggestions

and drawing conclusions on some research that I have done. What you're

hearing are the questions following 15 or 20 minutes of discussion that

the minister has asked for. I have organized what I am going to say

today by giving my remarks first and then asking questions. I did put

all these questions to the minister quite early on in my remarks this

morning — and we're now getting on to four hours ago. I would think

there may have been some time to do something on this.

[2:45]

I would like to pursue more questions. I'd like to know, with

respect to the study that's being done across the ministries on

barriers to women's advancement, when that study will be complete. When

might we see the results of it?

I'd also point out that the

answer the minister gave on gender parity on panels is something that's

been discussed for many years within the government service. Again, it

is recommended in this report of the advisory committee that we have

now. I'd like to know what the time-frame is. Is there a target that

the minister intends to meet?

My third question did not

relate to women appointed to boards and commissions, although that is

certainly a concern of mine. Is the minister working with the personnel

people in various ministries to ensure that women are sought for

positions in government service? We often hear the problem is that no

women apply. We know that in many cases, because of either the history

of the position or the way it's advertised or the culture of the

ministry, women don't apply. Something more proactive has to be done.

My question relates to whether that is an idea your ministry is

pursuing.

I'll toss a new question in here just to keep

things moving along. Again, it's a question I asked this morning. Does

the ministry have a target and a plan for improving the representation

of women in management levels in government? We can point to the slow

improvement over time. The council has recommended that women be

equally represented in government by 1993. 1 know it's a bit early for

the minister to have considered all of the recommendations and to make

a decision, but since the minister told us this morning that we do have

something concrete going on in Women's Programs, I'd like to know: is

there a target, is there a plan, and could she talk to us and tell us

what that is?

MR. REID : She's making notes of all

these questions in order, so maybe this is one she'll address when she

takes her place. Mr. Chairman, relative to recycling, I'd like to press

another question to the minister. Last year the question of source-sort

of products was brought forward, The Purchasing Commission seemed to

have a keen interest in developing a source-sort program. I know

they've implemented a program of paper recycling bins across

ministries. If I'm correct, I think they're utilizing some of those

seed bins. I know the number of seed bins they had certainly couldn't

be utilized. There aren't enough office spaces in the whole province of

British Columbia to accommodate the number of bins that were available,

but you'll get that, I think, as a matter of report.

The

ministry has continued to press, I think, environmentally friendly

projects and programs. It seemed that your ministry was taking the lead

to do source-sort. I thought that source-sort, which is a three-bin

system, would have been implemented at least within the Parliament

Buildings so we could have sorted the three kinds of paper that are

used daily in large volumes in this building. We could have given some

recognition towards that. It allows a reduction in manpower

requirements, but it also gives you a more cost-effective collection

because you sort the papers according to value and according to

recycling need.

[ Page

10589 ]

You also mentioned that there is a program within the ministry that

you give preferential treatment to B.C.-manufactured products. If I

recall, the previous minister had set a program with the four western

provinces, who would implement that kind of a program. It didn't go

beyond the borders of Manitoba, but I notice with concern that in most

recent times, the recycling bins — the blue boxes being provided to our

province on a continual basis — are made in Ontario. I know we

shouldn't look at Ontario as being a have-not province — it needs all

the help it can get — but we do have plastic-manufacturing firms in

British Columbia that are anxious to get into the business of providing

products across spectrums, across ministries and across provincial,

federal and municipal governments.

They need some

encouragement from an environment-friendly government that is

interested in doing that for the economy of the province, and that

meets the criteria of a standard or a program that you have established

within your ministry, which is that the four western provinces should

get first priority. I would see that there is a strong initiative on

behalf of your ministry to bring that about.

So I am

questioning the direction from you and your ministry on the ongoing

environment-friendly products manufactured preferably in British

Columbia, so these British Columbia employees and firms can get the

business. Secondly, if it isn't in British Columbia, at least you could

give consideration to the program you have in place, which is the four

western provinces and subsequently to the east. But I hope we can do it

in British Columbia and in the lower mainland if possible.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

While the minister is busily making notes of all these questions, I

have the odd question that I would like to put on her list.

am certainly very interested in the percentage of women employed by the

government who are working in supervision or management. I am wondering

if the minister would be good enough to do an analysis — a review — to

see what the percentages of women in supervisory and management

positions were in 1986 as compared to the current figures.

would also be interested — to change the subject — in knowing just

exactly what has happened in volume regarding the Project Paper Push

that was brought in, I believe, early in 1989. What has happened to the

volume? Have the targets been reached? I've heard of the figures, but I

haven't seen anything in the last two or three months as to just

exactly where that is going.

Also I have another question to be researched. The provincial

government, through the B.C. Systems Corporation, decided to purchase a

large number of telephones for ownership by the B.C. government, which

— if my figures are correct — I believe saves the provincial government

about $1 million a year. I am wondering if that has been expanded as

the percentage of ownership of telephones throughout the province has

been expanded. Is it greater now than it was a year ago, or it is about

the same? I'll just leave those questions with the minister.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I want to answer a couple of the questions asked by the last two members.

The

total number of tonnes of paper collected is 645 tonnes, which is

substantial. That pilot project has now moved right across government,

and it's going extremely well. I might also say that the Minister of

Environment, in keeping with his move in the environmental area....

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Excellent moves.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

"Excellent moves, " he says, and they are. He has done a tremendous

amount. He is now negotiating with the Speaker's office to bring the

Legislature into that sorting project, so I want to commend the

Minister of Environment on his moves.

I would like to

answer a question, which was also a question from the member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, on the number of women managers in government. If we

go back to 1986, the percentage was 17.3, and in 1990 in this

government it has gone up to 27.5 percent.

Women in senior

management levels 7 to 12 have increased from 6.4 percent — which is a

very low percentage — to 12.2 percent in the time of this government.

Although that's not where we want to be, it's certainly going in the

right direction. I believe that the Premier deserves accolades for

that, because this has happened in his term of government.

MS. CULL :

I'm very disappointed in the minister's answers to my questions, and

the fact that she has not answered many of them. I find it very

interesting that when she is asked questions about recycling, she knows

precisely how many tonnes of paper have been recycled. But she doesn't

know the answers that deal with women's lives in this province, women's

employment in our government and things that are far more important

than the recycling of tonnes of paper.

Earlier this morning

the minister made some comments about what I was saying about women's

advisers. Again, it's very interesting that when a member from this

side of the House stands up and criticizes a minister on the other

side, the minister immediately says: "You're criticizing my staff;

isn't that terrible." There's a confusion, it seems, with some of the

ministers in this House that leadership is performed at the ministerial

level, and staff just have to carry out whatever they are allowed to do

under that leadership. Quite frankly, when it comes to women's

programs, there hasn't been the kind of leadership.... And that's what

we've been talking about.

I want to quote from a letter I

received earlier this week from someone who was not aware that the MLAs

had already been given the report of the Advisory Council on

Community-Based Programs for Women. This comes from a women who is

still employed by government, is a government manager

[ Page 10590 ]

and

was a former women's adviser. She says that this report "trots out the

same issues identified when Women's Programs was first announced eight

years ago. I think the amount of inaction in these areas is a testament

to Socreds' lip-service-only approach. With" — the name here is the

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs — "the minister, the talk is

now only a little louder, what with an election in the air. From its

inception, Women's Programs/Secretariat — whatever — has had an

enormous mandate and yet no mandate, which is extremely frustrating for

women in...government, but which accurately reflects the realities of

Socred priorities."

That is what one of the former women's

advisers had to say about the role she was trying to play and the

mandate of the Ministry Responsible for Women's Programs. There is

immense frustration in that letter. The women who are in government are

incredibly frustrated by the lack of action and by the fact that there

seems to be all of this warm and fuzzy talk that we were going about

this morning, but nothing really happening.

It's an

interesting observation. If you talk to some of the women who took the

Taking Charge of Your Career course that Women's Programs offers and

has offered for a number of years — a terrific course, I might add —

it's interesting how many government women are going to take charge of

their careers by getting out of government service, because that's

where they see that there may actually be some hope and some progress.

think that the situation we're faced with here today is quite pathetic.

If you go back and look at the report of 1986 that I talked about this

morning, and you look at some of the other reports that have been put

out — the regular bulletins that Women's Programs puts out — and you

compare it to the advisory council report that we've just received, you

will see that there are many of the same kinds of recommendations and

the same analyses. In fact, if you mix up the pages from the '86 and

the '90 reports, I think it would be hard to sort them back out and

determine what was 1986 and what was 1990, because so little has

changed.

I think the comments the minister made this

morning — there are two ringing in my ears as I think about them — sum

up everything that this government has done for women in the government

to a question was: "My answer is not no." Well, not no isn't

yes; it's not no. What is it? We don't know what it is. It's a nothing.

It's the same kind of warm and fuzzy thinking — and that's the other

phrase the minister used this morning — which we have had in government

over the years. Women's Programs is making us all feel good with the

committees, the report and the glossy literature. But what women really

want is some progress, and that's what we don't see. That's what's not

happening, and that's why we have women who are as frustrated as this

woman who is a government manager. That's why we're not making any

progress.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI : Madam Minister,

being warm and fuzzy isn't all that, bad. There are thousands of women

in this province who are living on 60 percent of what men make for

equivalent jobs. There are 35,000 women in this province who are living

on welfare, many of whom are being coerced into training programs while

their kids are seeking day care that doesn't exist. There are tens of

thousands of women living in a working-poor situation, where what they

take home is much less than what they would get on welfare. But they

won't go on welfare because they're going to make it in the system.

Those working-poor women are perhaps the most frustrated, the most

angry and the most upset, but they're too tired to talk about it

because they're putting in their 15-hour day, coming home and then

tending kids.

No, being warm and fuzzy is not enough, Madam

Minister. It's time to start building the kinds of programs that women

need in this province, and that they have told you about as you have

gone around the province during your tour. I think it's time to be a

lot more specific.

My colleague asked you about your time-frame for developing a database. My colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The Minister of Environment rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the member to explain what warm and fuzzy means.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I don't think that's really a point of order.

The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, please carry on.

MS. MARZARI :

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good grief! We got dispensation from the Chair

not to define "warm and fuzzy." I'd like to suggest that it was the

minister herself who was the one to raise it this morning at ten

minutes to 12. To talk about being warm and fuzzy was her way of

avoiding the questions that we've been putting to her for the last six

months since she took her job.

The issue of pay equity has

been brought forward by this government in its throne and budget

speeches. The issue of pay equity we canvassed with the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) just a few weeks ago. In fact, five women

in this House and our critic on Finance spent some hours discussing pay

equity with the Minister of Finance, and I noticed throughout that

debate that our minister for women was in fact taking notes as it went.

job here, as critic for women's issues on this side of the House, is to

cross-tab some of the information that comes from the other ministers

with what the minister for women is saying. If we are to assess the

capacity and the ability of her ministry to deal with the issues that

are put in front of women every day and put in front of her every day,

our best

[ Page

10591 ]

bet is to take a look at what the other ministers

are saying. If she's effectively co-ordinating, there will be a similar

songsheet; in fact, you would be all singing from the same songsheet

and the Minister would in effect be doing her job.

I have a

question to the minister around the issue of pay equity, which is

definitely one of the most crucial issues facing women in our province

today and which the ministry is prepared to start dealing with in terms

of the government service. Who is in charge of pay equity? Is the

minister the first person involved, in charge and running the show in

terms of pay equity? What is her relationship to the committee that she

chairs? Who is reporting to her from other ministries on the pay equity

issue?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, the first thing

I have to clear up.... We have to make sure everything's correct. I did

not bring up the words "warm and fuzzy." The member for Oak Bay–Gordon

Head (Ms. Cull) did. I want to make sure that she gets credit for that.

Little Miss Nimby.

While I'm up, I want to answer her

questions, and I'm sure she's listening. She asked about the analysis

and the data being collected in the ministries. 1 answered that yes, we

were doing it, and she wanted to know when it would be done. I want to

tell her that my answer is soon, very soon.

I want her also

to know that we are working with all of the personnel in all of the

ministries. We are looking for women who want particularly to get into

the ministries which I guess I have to class as non-traditional:

Forests, Highways and those kinds of ministries. We are actively

seeking to put women in those positions.

One of the things

that I want to clarify — it's one of the most basic differences in

philosophy between the NDP and the Social Credit — is the word

"target." It keeps coming up. We don't set targets. It's not our

philosophy to set targets, because targets hurt women. Targets hurt any

group of people that you set out to force people to hire. It has been

proven over and over again.

Our philosophy differs. It's

our belief that you have to show, first of all, that there is a

problem. That's not too difficult. You then have to convince those

ministries and the deputy ministers and the personnel people that they

have a responsibility to make certain not only that they have as close

to an equal amount of women employed....

MS. PULLINGER : Isn't that a target?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes, it is a target. But you're talking about targets of 50 percent or

in numbers. All I'm saying to you is that that's not part of our

philosophy, to set targets that people have to reach. It is obvious

already....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'll sit down while the member for Nanaimo stands

up.

MS. MARZARI : I'm glad the minister went into that explanation.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI :

Well, I'd like to carry on a little bit on the basis of your answer,

because pay equity is the process of closing the wage gap. You've

admitted that the first thing you have to do to close the wage gap is

recognize that it exists. I think the minister has suggested that she

knows that it exists and that she is probably ready to accept 60 cents

on the dollar, or that continuum from 47 cents for women in trades all

the way up to 68 cents, I think it is, for women in the professions. I

think for British Columbia, on an average, it works out to 61.8 cents

on the dollar. I think the minister is ready to accept that there is a

measurable wage gap.

The question that then comes up, if

we're to address pay equity and the issues of targeting, goals and

timetables, is how do you know when you've made it if you don't set

yourself a goal and a timetable, if you don't give yourself some kind

of a parameter within which to work? How can you ever assess whether or

not you've in fact achieved your goal if you don't establish the goal?

Establishing the goal is to establish the numbers that you'd like to

see — the number of women, for example, and the numbers of dollars that

will close that gap, because that's pretty indigenous to the whole pay

equity concept. It's also a foundation for what my colleague for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head was talking about when she asked where your time-frame

was and where your goals were. If you're going to have women on boards

and commissions, how do you know when you've got enough?

I'd

like to read into the record some of Katie Cooke's comments at a speech

she gave a few weeks ago to the Learned Societies Conference. She had

just finished reading "Beneath the Veneer, " the federal document that

Pat Carney instigated in Ottawa a few years ago. The report was just

put out last month in four volumes called "Beneath the Veneer, " and it

basically talks about the glass ceiling in the Ottawa civil service. It

had always been there, but it was just discovered.

In my

question to you in the context of how do you know when you've made it,

Katie Cooke talks about the old boys' network. "It is difficult, " she

says, "for women to be members of the club or part of the gang, even if

invited." In other words, she's talking about women being invited to

join the civil service. She also says a third of the male managers

believed — this is through oral questioning through the federal civil

service — that women face an invisible barrier. Only one-third of male

managers believe that. Far more women than men believe that they have

to be better qualified than men to be promoted, so you've got the enemy

operating in the very minds of the women that you want to promote and

attract, because the women have started to believe and have

internalized the sense that they have to be better than they are. Men

don't necessarily have that feeling.

[ Page 10592 ]

"There

is also evidence of a double standard with respect to the weight given

to potential versus experience in competitions. Potential alone will be

more likely to get a man promoted than a woman.

"Stereotypes

continue to surround roles for women with children. The Barriers task

force notes that women's loyalty to their jobs may not be considered

serious because of their attitude towards their children. One female

job applicant told a selection board that her child's health came

before her work, and in consequence her application was dismissed. One

wonders what the question was which elicited this response. Would that

question have been asked if the applicant had been a man?'

It's an attitude.

Madam

Minister, I have set the context for your answer. If you do not set

goals and timetables, you don't know how well you've done. The male

society in which we all live establishes levels of comfort for itself,

and women are upsetting those levels of comfort. Pay equity does that.

Contract compliance with pay equity does that. Affirmative action

programs do that, and putting women on boards and commissions which

have been traditionally male domain do that. What is your comfort level

going to be? It's going to be a level of serious discomfort if in fact

you're doing your job properly, and that is where it is not enough to

be warm and fuzzy.

Madam Minister, would you care to talk

to pay equity, goals and timetables, gender parity on boards and

commissions, and who is in charge of the pay equity program in that

light?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, both the

Ministry of Finance and my ministry are involved in the pay equity

issue. My ministry will take the lead role in it. I can tell you that

the staff from both ministries are working very diligently. They are

looking at all of the pay equity initiatives across the country; in

fact, this very week they're in Prince Edward Island at a pay equity

conference learning about the mistakes and the successes, and I think

it's incumbent upon us to look at the mistakes that have been made and

to see what has been successful. There is no reason for British

Columbia to repeat things that haven't worked in other provinces.

the Status of Women conference in Lake Louise, the women ministers had

private conversations without staff about the pay equity issue, and it

was admitted in that room by people who are dedicated to the

advancement of women-and particularly to pay equity — that it's an

issue that's very difficult to deal with, that there hasn't been a

program so far that has been totally successful.

It's a

good idea for government to take the initiatives such as we have, to

take a leadership role which sends a message to the private sector also

that pay equity is something that they have to deal with, but that they

have an opportunity to deal with it on their agenda in their own way.

If not — we all know the writing is on the wall — government will have

to deal with it. They way we're doing it, I believe, is less intrusive

in the marketplace. No one wants to see the economy hurt, and that

includes women.

[3:15]

I think

it's really important when we talk about any of the issues that are

dealt with in women's programs that we get away from "us against men, "

because I don't think that works. I have talked to an awful lot of men

who are in positions of influence and power who recognize very clearly

the inequities that exist where women are concerned.

think now is the time to take advantage of an opportunity where

education is working and attitudes are ready to change. If we start to

polarize ourselves and again get into the shrill, strident views that

have been held in the past — and which I believe still exist in the

NDP, particularly — we're going to bring women back instead of taking

them forward, and pay equity is one of the issues that can do that. It

is our intention in this government to do it right, and the results of

the staff's work will go to both the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) and me. It will then go to cabinet and become public

knowledge.

All of the negotiations will take place with the

union involved; it's extremely important. This morning I talked about

the lack of union involvement. Unions have not done their jobs. They

have not looked after women, and certainly there isn't a union around

that can say they've done a better job than anybody else.

What

we're talking about is not Social Credit versus NDP, or unions versus

the private sector. It has to do with attitudes that permeate our

society — attitudes that for a long time have seen women in a role that

a lot of women don't want to fill, or they want the choice to be able

to fill one or the other or both. And most women do that very

effectively.

We all know that to do that we need more day

care in this province. It comes up over and over again. But again I go

back.... It's not just this province, but British Columbia probably

more than any other province, because we are a growing and prosperous

province with a lot of families who have two incomes and who need

quality day care.

We have 80,000 single mothers who will

not be able to provide a good living for their families if they don't

have good quality child care. This government recognizes that and

intends to do something about it. Pay equity is a very important issue,

but it's only one of the issues, and we've decided to do it at the

government level to bring fairness to the workplace for the employees

in this government.

MS. MARZARI : Madam Minister, you

advocate against polarization and against separating women from men and

pitting genders against each other as we progress along this miraculous

treadway towards pay equity. I would suggest, though, that what you

have done in your comments this morning and again this afternoon is

create a polarization between this government and unions. You have

attempted verbally to polarize and take the lives, jobs and wages of

men and women who work for this province and, in a pre-contract period

when you most want them to sit down and talk about pay equity,

basically badmouth and trash them.

[ Page

10593 ]

Let me suggest to you that the BCGEU has been for three years, in my

experience here, commenting, talking and holding seminars and workshops

on pay equity. CUPE has in fact developed for its workers across this

country a not perfect, but somewhat reasonable job evaluation plan.

BCGEU has been hiring people to look at job evaluation plans and see

whether or not they meet our requirements.

They happen to

be coming up with a notion that job evaluation is not a proper and

adequate way to deal with the wage gap that exists. In fact, this idea

was reinforced at a conference my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and I attended in Toronto a

month and a half ago.

In the last four months, BCGEU has

issued no less than eight or nine press releases, speaking to the

government through the press — which is seemingly their best way to go

right now — about the fact that women are suffering inside their union,

inside so-called professional jobs sometimes, from wage gap

disparities. This is a union which has laid its reputation on the line

and made pay equity a very high priority. I don't think that at this

point in time — just as you are advocating to me that I not be strident

and that I not alienate the men in this province — I would advocate to

you that you alienate the very parties with whom you are entering

negotiations to build the perfect program for the country.

One

further word on stridency and on anger. Sometimes its very difficult to

be a woman in this system — even a woman in this House — because our

voices are not the voices that have been heard in this House since this

House was built. We do have a double standard. Our voices are saying

that we live in desperation, that we live in hope, that we live in fear

that our goals won't be realized with the short time we have to give.

Our voices sound angry, and they indeed should be angry. Our voices

have to establish a presence in this House and in places of

decision-making, whether or not men feel comfortable with it. That

simply has to be a fact of life for us and for this House.

Madam

Minister, I commend you for thinking of pay equity, but I don't believe

you've really answered my question. Are you in charge of the program?

Is the Minister of Finance and his staff reporting to you on this

program? Do you have a veto on this program as it evolves? Can you

actually step into this program and, with the data you have collected

with your staff, say: "It's going the wrong way. The way the Minister

of Finance is structuring this program is taking us in the wrong

direction"? Do you have that capability, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, I answered the question and said that

my ministry had the lead role in it. Yes, if I felt that it was going in the

wrong direction, I certainly have that ability. In the end the decision will

go to cabinet, and a whole lot of other people will have a decision in it. I

don't know how much more I can say to convince the member that pay equity

is being dealt with by two ministries but that one ministry — which is mine — has the lead role in it.

MR. REID :

I have one more question for the minister. I understand there is a

policy within the Purchasing Commission that B.C. manufacturers and

B.C. products get preferential treatment from the Purchasing

Commission. Madam Minister, can you provide me with a copy of the

actual documentation that says B.C. products, either manufactured or

assembled, will get preferential treatment in the province of British

Columbia by the Purchasing Commission?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. GRAN : Our

policy is to give preference to B.C. companies, but we want to work

with those companies and not make it the kind of policy that, in the

end, ends up hurting the companies instead of helping them. Yes, I'd be

happy to provide that member with the policy.

MR. REID :

You say that it's a policy the Purchasing Commission has, but It's not

in written form. Is there not an available written policy, on behalf of

the Purchasing Commission, that they encourage both

environment-friendly products and B.C.-manufactured products? Is this

mandate of the Purchasing Commission in some kind of written form that

an MLA can refer to?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, there's the public sector purchasing policy, which is available.

MR. GUNO :

I'm glad to have the opportunity to take

part in this debate on the

estimates. I want to just focus on the minister's role and her

responsibility for women's programs. I was interested to hear her

characterize her role as similar to that of the Minister of Native

Affairs. I think she used the word "facilitator" — if not

"coordinator." I always have difficulty.... In fact, I resent the term

"facilitator." I can never figure out what that means. It is usually

the term used to describe someone who takes

part in some kind of

seminar on "How Many Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?" But I

think it does suggest the kind of secondary role that her ministry, as

well as the Ministry of Native Affairs, plays in this government. It is

one that describes very loudly the kind of priority that is placed on

these sectors in our society.

As in the Ministry of Native

Affairs, I would suggest that the program is largely to create the

illusion that this government is coming to grips with some of the

serious problems that women and aboriginal people face today. Even the

most cursory examination of your budget — like that of the Native

Affairs ministry — demonstrates that this government, dare I say, is

engaged in an elaborate PR campaign.

I want to focus on issues that concern northern women, who, I would suggest, suffer basically the

[ Page 10594 ]

same

problem that their southern sisters do, with one difference: resources,

limited as they might be in the south, are even more limited in the

north. As an example, I think it's far more challenging for a single

mother to bring up her children in the north, especially if they're

dealing with education and trying to fill the gaps that the inadequate

northern educational system has.

A single mother has a

particularly tough time. In terms of health, if you are not a status

Indian, if you require specialized care or if you are a single mother,

I think it is often a daunting challenge to get your child into

specialized care in the south. I know, because I have intervened in a

number of cases, trying to get the Ministry of Health to extend some

help to ensure that these mothers and children have some access to

specialized health care.

In Atlin the nearest transition

home for battered women is in Whitehorse. For people living in Deas

Lake, Telegraph Creek, Iskut and Cassiar, that's a good five-hour drive

in the most ideal conditions. As someone who practised law and dealt

with family cases, I know that often in these situations time is of the

essence. Even if they have some means of transportation to Whitehorse,

they simply face an impossible situation. That s commonplace in

the north. I have yet to hear of any genuine effort on the part of this

government to meet these gaps and to try and deal with some of the

problems our northern women face today.

[3:30]

1 speak generally, of course, of northern women. But when you focus

on northern native women, you're focusing on the most oppressed members

of our society. As a member of the aboriginal community, and knowing

the tremendous problems our people face in the community, I have to

take my hat off to my sisters who have to face even greater obstacles

in just trying to eke out a decent life today. And if those women have

children, it's even more challenging. If a native man has a tough time

finding acceptance in the workplace, then you can imagine the

difficulty a native woman faces in finding a job or art employer who

will take her seriously in terms of extending opportunities.

Finding

affordable housing, so that single women can provide decent homes in

the north, is almost impossible today. We face a very serious crisis

there in terms of affordable housing. The member for Skeena (Hon. Mr.

Parker) must be painfully aware of the problems that exist there, where

I think the vacancy rate is something like zero, if not worse — if it

ever could get worse.

A whole range of services that are

lacking or inadequate in the south are virtually nonexistent in the

north. I haven't read the report referred to, and I don't know how much

of that report addresses the particular problems of women in the north.

But I would like to hear what the minister has to say, and if she is

aware of some of the problems that our northern women face. If so, is

there any serious attempt on her part to go to bat for them and ensure

that this government is at least aware of the unique problems that

women in the north face?

HON. MRS. GRAN : First of

all, I want to address the first comment the member made regarding the

word "facilitator." Although the member may not have a personal liking

for the word, it means "to enable" or "to assist." Given what this

ministry is trying to do, I think it is a most appropriate word to use.

answer to the question about native women in the north, I can tell you

that in my tour around the province.... I went only as far north as

Fort St. John and hope to go further north when the session is over.

One

of the reasons that the committee was set up was not to assist the

women in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island. I recognized very

clearly as I went around the province that although there are gaps in

the service to women in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, the

rest of the province is even more needy in terms of programs. So that

committee dealt in large measure with women in the rural parts of

British Columbia. The northern women — be they native, immigrant or

whatever — all share common problems.

One of the other

aspects of my trip told me that women's groups are not working together

enough. Native women and immigrant women feel alienated not only from

the mainstream society, but even from women in the rest of the

province. Women's centres, for example, have not been able — probably

because of their resources — to reach out and bring in native and

immigrant women.

The women on our committee — and we had a

woman by the name of Ruth Williams from Kamloops, whom I'm sure the

member will know well and who represented the native women in British

Columbia — told us very clearly that they wanted to be part of all of

the solutions and programs that come forward.

I want the

member to be assured that when we start looking at the programs in

communities outside of the lower mainland, we will be looking

particularly at the northern part of British Columbia. There is a need,

no question.

I also want the member to know that the Status

of Women's meeting in Lake Louise dealt, for a large part, with the

subject of violence against women, and issued a very strong message to

all of the country about violence directed at women. Each province

talked about what they were or weren't doing about the issue of

violence against women.

Some provinces are way ahead of

others, and Manitoba and Ontario stand out in my mind as two model

provinces in terms of programs that assist in violence against women. I

believe our own Ministries of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General

have done a good job and initiated many programs that are helpful in

that area. There's just no question that there is more to be done and

that there is lots to be done.

[ Page

10595 ]

I have met with native women in Kamloops and Williams Lake. I

attended the annual meeting of the native businesswomen's association

in Vancouver. We have a lot to learn from our native people in this

province. The friendship centre in Kamloops, in particular: If there

was ever a model of how to do something, it is the model, in my mind.

The meeting that I attended there gathered together all of the people

who work in that friendship centre to help native people.

wasn't a women's centre; there were men and women working side by side

— staff members from outside the community and some working with

government. We sat and talked about all of the problems that the native

people have to deal with, but in particular, women.

One

person at that meeting struck me in a very real way. He was a policeman

in Kamloops and a native man. He talked to me about how women are

treated often by law enforcement people — but in particular native

women. The disregard and the lack of respect, in his mind, was very

evident and very painful for him to watch.

I want the

member to know that I haven't spent all of my time on the lower

mainland; that I've spent the majority of it in the rest of the

province. I care very deeply about the women that live in the rest of

the province.

I think sometimes that sitting here in

Victoria, where it's safe, secure and surrounded by water, there's a

tendency to forget there is a province beyond the town of Hope. But

there is, and there is a great need in that province. It's my

intention, as minister responsible for women, to fill those needs as

best I can.

MR. GUNO : I was tempted to reply by

saying: "Now really!" But maybe I should suggest that the minister

spend less time up there and more money in terms of providing the kind

of resources that the women need in the north.

In Terrace,

for instance, there's only one women's centre left. Right now they're

struggling to stay alive. They have to revert back to the old days of

having to nickel-and-dime their way into existence. For the minister to

suggest that the women's centre is not reaching out to native women and

immigrants is really not very accurate, because I know that in the

north, if those kinds of centres were to be established, they would be

well used by both non-native and native women.

For instance, just today I was talking to someone about a woman suffering from

post-partum depression. We have to understand that in the north sometimes the

population can be very transient. It is not as closely knit as we often think;

there is tremendous isolation for women. In Cassiar men work in shifts, and

women are left by themselves with nowhere to go in a small community like that

with limited social amenities. Someone suffering from post-partum depression

simply has nowhere to go. Those problems are very real, and I think that the

easy assurances we're getting from the minister are simply not adequate.

want to address just one other area. It's something I certainly had

experience with, practising family law. In incidents of wife-beating,

the usual scenario is that the wife goes to a transition home to escape

the violence, often with the children. She is at a double disadvantage:

she suffers the violence against her, and she has to leave the family

home. The person responsible for the battering enjoys the comforts of

home. I am wondering if the minister has ever addressed the inequities

in the system in that battered wives have the system stacked against

them in having to leave the family home. Has there been any thought to

requiring the man to leave? It would require a change in law, but can

you recognize the problem that battered wives face when violence occurs?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The member asks if I can imagine. Yes, I can imagine. I've lived

through it. I know what happens in a home where there is violence

against the wife or the mother.

The member suggests — and

it's been suggested by others — that the woman and children should be

allowed to stay in the home, and I agree. But what happens in almost 99

percent of the instances is that when the man is allowed out of jail,

he goes back home, and the same violence occurs again. I'm not sure how

the law would deal with that, except to keep him in jail forever or

until he changed his ways.

One of the difficulties we have

in our society is that we aren't treating the abuser. It goes on and

on. One of my hopes is that we will begin treatment in all our

communities for the abuser as well as counselling for the woman and

also the children. The damage done to children who live in violent

homes is substantial and long-lasting in their lives.

the member, yes, I am aware, and I have had discussions with the

Attorney-General. It's a very difficult problem to address in any

effective way. It's a bit like the problem of maintenance enforcement.

We live in a free country, so free that a man can leave his wife and

children and not support them, if that's what he chooses to do. He can

be violent and abuse them and get away with it, under many

circumstances, and it goes on on a daily basis in our society. It's the

freedom that we enjoy in this country that sometimes causes us those

problems.

[3:45]

MR. JONES : I'd like to change

the direction of the discussion a bit onto a different topic:

government pensions. Given the responses of the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) yesterday and the Minister of Government Management Services

today, maybe I should start with a very simple question to just clarify

this. Is this minister responsible for government pensions and the

Pension (Public Service) Act?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I didn't hear the question, but I assume the answer is yes.

[ Page 10596 ]

MR. JONES :

Since the minister didn't hear the question, perhaps I should repeat

it. We had some problem yesterday over family maintenance and some

problem today over pay equity. I want to be clear that I'm speaking to

the right minister. Is the Minister of Government Management Services

responsible for the administration of the Pension (Public Service) Act?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to ask the minister a question with respect to a particular

situation under the Pension (Public Service) Act that has to do with

the purchase of service that's matched by the province in a situation

that's not covered by the regulations. Inasmuch as it's not covered by

the regulations, then this purchase of service is handled through an

order-in-council. I wonder if the minister could clarify for me the

kinds of situations and the kinds of criteria that are used to grant

this purchase of pension service through order-in-council.

HON. MRS. GRAN : There are established guidelines that we follow.

MR. JONES : Could the minister clarify those guidelines, please.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

They are cabinet guidelines' so I'm not really sure what my position is

in terms of talking in here about the guidelines. Perhaps you could ask

the Premier during his estimates.

MR. JONES : Under

the regulations under the Pension (Public Service) Act, there are a

number of situations in which people covered by that act are allowed to

purchase pension service. For example, individuals are allowed to

purchase with their severance pay a certain period of time which would

be covered by that severance amount. Deputy ministers are allowed to

purchase, I think, up to five years of pensionable service. Individuals

are allowed to purchase war service. There are several other situations

under which individuals are allowed to purchase service and make

contributions. Those are matched by the government. People's pension

benefits, as a result, are extended. However, there are others,

governed by some criteria that the minister will not divulge at this

point, that are covered by order-incouncil.

The minister

has been in the portfolio some eight or nine months now. Has she signed

any of these orders-in-council governing the purchase of pension

service?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to get some idea of how common an occurrence this is. I wonder

if the minister has any idea how many of these purchase-of-service

orders-in-council she has signed.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I

think, it would be a good idea for the member to expand on what he is

looking for. I sign a fair number of orders-in-council. Some of the

orders-in-council you are referring to we have put through on behalf of

the opposition also. I'm not sure what you're.... If you'd like to

expand on what point you are getting to, then maybe I could understand

a little bit better what you really want from me.

MR. JONES :

The Minister of Government Management Services indicated that she deals

with a number of these orders-in-council and that some she approves are

at the request of the opposition. I'm really curious by what she meant

by that.

HON. MRS. GRAN : No.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. JONES :

I ask the minister what she meant by that and the answer is no? I'd

like to give the minister a chance to answer that question, and maybe

to reconsider. Given recent experience in this province with respect to

withholding information that really should be in the public domain,

maybe she would like to think further about the criteria governing the

purchase of pension service through order-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby North.

MR. JONES :

Again, as with the air flight logs, we see the minister being very

reticent. She is certainly not being forthcoming in terms of dealing

with information that affects the expenditure of public funds in this

province. The minister is also not forthcoming in terms of how many of

these orders-incouncil she has signed. I can tell her that it's very

rare — that she has not signed in the last eight or nine months very

many of these orders-in-council for purchase of service under the

Pension (Public Service) Act.

The reason I ask — the

minister will be interested in this part — is that there was an

order-in-council of June 15, 1988, No. 1180, signed by the minister

then in charge of Government Management Services and the Premier. It

allowed the current minister to purchase four months of pensionable

service. She reached back. . . .

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're on this minister's estimates for this year, not on something that goes back that far.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm confident that the member is well aware that we're looking at matters within the present minister's purview.

MR. JONES :

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and I very much appreciate the comments of

the Minister of Environment, the same minister who talks as much about

'72-75 as he does about the present day.

[ Page

10597 ]

I am discussing the Pension (Public Service) Act, the conditions

that operate under that act and the behaviour of this minister

currently — how she operates — and comparing it to a point in time

past. I'm Interested in the performance of this minister in her duties,

and it's my responsibility as a member of the opposition to question

the minister on the performance of those duties.

I was

about to say, before the Minister of Environment intervened, that the

now minister used an order-in-council to reach back 12 years to

purchase retroactively, under the public service superannuation fund,

an amount to cover that short period. Again I would like to ask the

minister: under what criteria? I assume the criteria haven't changed,

that the current criteria are the same criteria that were happening at

that time, on June 15, 1988.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order,

please. Are you suggesting that the minister did this while she was a

minister, or is this something that took place prior to her appointment

as a minister? If it took place prior to her appointment, it would not

be valid subject matter to discuss at this time.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the criteria under which these kinds of

order-in-council are approved. I assume that the minister understands

those criteria. She says she has signed such orders-in-council in her

term as minister. They would be the same that applied in the instance

when she purchased such service.

I'd like to ask the minister again: what criteria were used to approve order-in-council 1180, and do those criteria still apply?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, I didn't sign that order, obviously. I find it

distressing, to say the least, for that member to bring that issue into

these estimates. That is public knowledge, a public document. I suppose

what he's trying to do is.... I'm not sure what he's trying to do.

worked as an executive assistant to a minister for almost ten years.

What the government did — and I was a backbencher at the time — was

allow me, because I worked for the government before that also, to add

another four months so that I could have my ten years of pension. I'm

not sure whether the member is.... You're not saying that's a bad

thing, are you, for someone that toiled for a minister for ten years? I

don't know what your point is. It's irrelevant, I think, to the

estimates; but it's also, I think, irrelevant to your reputation.

MR. JONES : The point I'm trying to inquire about is this legislation

and the operation of this government and the kind of fairness and equity that

this government operates with in its process of granting pension service to

government employees. We have a lot of people employed in this province. They

are governed by

an act and regulations, and yet it seems clear that some individuals

are given special treatment and are allowed only through order-in-council —

only through a political act — to purchase pension service.

[4:00]

I take it from the minister's comments that she's not concerned

about the perception of impropriety, the perception of bending the

rules, the perception of not following the normal process but using

political channels. Very clearly this order-in-council was signed some

two years after the minister had been a constituency assistant and also

reached 12 years back retroactively. So I'd like to ask the minister,

who has already talked about this situation, who talked about ten years

ago, who talked about this exact order-in-council — and it's on the

record that the minister saw fit, under these estimates, to clarify....

I'd like to give her the opportunity to clarify further. Is she not

concerned about the perception of impropriety?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please, Mr. Member. It's not part of the estimates of this

ministry, in that it was an action that was taken by a former minister

of the Crown. The subject matter of debate here is vote 34 of the

estimates of the Minister of Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs for 1990-91. You're talking

about some action taken by some predecessor in a former year. Now if

your debate would be relevant to the estimates of the current

minister....

MR. JONES : Out of my great respect for

the Chair, and knowing that the Chair is always fair and evenhanded, I

know the Chair will give me an opportunity, as the minister had, to

talk about what resulted in this order-in-council and the events

leading up to that. I know the Chair will give me the same opportunity

to clarify concerns I had with respect to that. So I would like to ask

the minister if she was not concerned about the perception of

impropriety...

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. This is

an event that took place two years ago, as you yourself have brought

up. Your original line of questioning — as to whether the criteria are

still applicable — would be an acceptable matter. But the event

happening is not subject matter for a debate today.

MR. JONES :

All members have constituency assistants. We saw the situation where

constituency assistants were granted retroactively the opportunity to

purchase pension service. I'm wondering if the minister would feel it

appropriate for all 75 constituency assistants in the province to now

have that opportunity.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman,

I feel very strongly that the constituency assistants should have

opportunities like that and a lot of other benefits. I'm not on the

Board of Internal Economy any longer, but I would hope that they are

continuing to look at those issues on that board. I'm very supportive

of that.

[ Page 10598 ]

MR. JONES :

I'm very pleased to hear that. Then we won't have to have special

treatment for individuals going through order-in-council —

opportunities created with the benefit of political contact with the

government for people who have served as constituency assistants or

executive assistants and have been given favoured-treatment status

through order-in-council. Perhaps in future, if the minister's word is

to be believed — and I fully expect that, although I know there are

other exigencies that come into these kinds of decisions — we won't see

this kind of situation created, whereby constituency assistants'

service will be granted retroactively in purchasing pension service. It

will be freely available in an upfront, open and honest way. No longer

will we see the back-door approach of order-in-council, of constituency

assistants being able to purchase pensionable service through the

benefit of their contact with members of the government.

appreciate the response and look forward at some time.... I suppose if

it isn't done in the next few months, it can be done after the next

election by a different government.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long. Following up on the back-dooring of

orders-in-council, as I'm sure every member of this House knows and

this minister knows, these orders-in-council are public information.

Once they're published, the names and details are there. There's no

such thing as back doors. In fact, the incident he's talking about was

made available two years ago, and nobody else on his side brought it

up, because they knew the person and the work she had done.

MR. JONES : But what are the criteria?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would also suggest to the member over there that if he wants to know

what the criteria are, he should phone the former leader of his party,

Dave Barrett, and ask him how his government treated his secretary,

Joyce Thomas, who got some special treatment. This party looks at all

these....

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Don't they get upset, Mr Chairman, when somebody starts talking about them? They like to use their sleazy tactics.

MS. PULLINGER :-

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find it amazing that the Minister

of Environment, who has been leaping to his feet with great regularity,

protesting us discussing things outside the context of this debate or

referring to things in the past, is now doing the same thing. I think

he should be denied that privilege also.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

It is a valid point of order, but the member for Burnaby North was

talking about the event. He was told that if he was asking for a

comparison of criteria, that was quite valid. I think the Minister of

Environment is also talking about criteria of some years ago and not

necessarily the event. Minister of Environment, carry on, please.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Chairman, it certainly makes me smile when I think how upset they

get with something they think is out of order. But I was really coming

to a point. Sometimes you have to bring back information to get to the

point.

I just want to suggest to both sides of this House

that when it comes to employees, whether it's the opposition or the

government, I think the government of the day— whether Social Credit or

New Democrat — through the excellent staff, treats these situations

individually and fairly. They were made....

MR. JONES : Joyce Thomas was never an MLA and never a cabinet minister.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

This all happened before that happened, incidentally. The member likes

to make a difference of something that happened in the past. I'm just

telling him that the staff in these ministries are professional and the

information is made public in an order-in-council. Everyone has known

of that one and the other ones that have been made, and I'm sure there

are a few more. If you want time to start digging some up and you want

sleaze, we can find It, but I don't like that kind of politics, and I'm

very surprised that the member on that side would stoop to such a low

tactic during these estimates.

MS. PULLINGER : I

would like to ask one further question on this issue, Mr. Chairman. I

wonder if the minister will tell the House if it is government policy

under Government Management Services that all constituency assistants

are able to access the same privilege with respect to pension benefits

that she has had.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, I believe it's still the way it was

last year when I was on the Board of Internal Economy. It's my understanding

that there are no pension benefits available to constituency assistants. If

you were listening or in the room when I was asked by the member for Burnaby

North whether I supported that, I said: "Yes, I certainly do."

MS. PULLINGER :

The minister appears to be avoiding my question. I am pleased that you

support pensions for our constituency assistants. Of course, we do on

this side as well. That's great. Given that constituency assistants

don't have pensions right now and that this minister has had a special

privilege by her government and been granted the option as a

constituency assistant to buy into a pension, what I'm asking is: does

it mean that this government has a policy that will allow any present

constituency assistant in the same position to do the same thing, or

was it a special privilege for this member? That's the question.

[ Page

10599 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : We're talking about a different circumstance

than I think the second member for Nanaimo is understanding. You're

talking about an order-in-council for an individual who worked for nine

years and six months, paid into a pension plan and was four months

short of the ten years required. There is a great difference between

that and someone who has never paid into a pension plan.

personally would be more than happy to see the Board of Internal

Economy deal with pension benefits for constituency assistants. But

there is a difference, and I hope the member will understand that.

MS. PULLINGER :

I am surprised, because it says on the order-in-council that she was a

"constituency secretary," which is what we on this side of the House

call a "constituency assistant." However, there seems to be some reason

why the minister finds a difference in that.

In any case, I

would like to address a couple of issues that have come up as I have

been listening to the debate this morning. There are a couple of

comments which I would like to clarify from this side of the House. One

of them is the accusation that we are pitting — or want to pit — men

against women.

I would like to suggest that while the

minister is quoted as saying, "If feminist means caring about women,

then I'm a feminist," in fact feminism is a recognition that women are

disadvantaged in our society and is a desire to change that. That

obviously involves men and women. If there are lines to be drawn, they

are not between men and women; they are between those who are actively

pursuing change and those who are not. I would just like to have that

on the record. I would suggest that, given that definition of feminism,

all of us on this side of the House are indeed feminists.

The

other issue that keeps coming up is the attack on working people's

democratic organizations -in other words, trade unions. We have heard

all sorts of attacks on their existence in different debates, and more

specifically, we have heard the trade unions repeatedly held

accountable for the lack of pay-equity legislation in this province,

which I find quite amazing.

I think it's definitely the

case that many of the same problems that exist in the larger society

also exist in trade unions because of deeply ingrained attitudes. There

is no question that trade unions are not only an organization to

improve the workplace, but they are educational institutions also.

There is an enormous amount of education and activity that goes on in

them about the issue of pay equity. In fact, there have been some

significant gains for women in general salary increases — such as was

the case when the BCGEU was formed under our government — which

benefited all those women.

Similarly, orderlies were once

paid more than practical nurses for identical work; that was addressed

effectively through trade unions. Male teachers used to earn more than

female teachers; that was addressed through trade unions.

[4:15]

Trade

unions, since the beginning of their existence in the 1870s, have been

at the leading edge of change. Things like hospitals have come, in many

cases, through trade unions. The health care system has come with a lot

of effort from trade unions. Pension plans, unemployment insurance and

co-op housing have all benefited women. Those things have all come

through trade unions to a large degree. They have worked for years with

those on the political left, who they know represent working people.

think that it is patently unfair and incorrect to blame trade unions

for the lack of pay equity. I would suggest that if there is blame to

be laid, let's lay it at the feet of the people who have been in power

for the last four decades. If we don't have pay equity, that's why we

don't have it. As we have heard in so many cases, this government is

philosophically opposed to pay equity. In fact, we heard that in the

CUPE negotiations a year and a bit ago.

We also have been

told by the former Minister of Labour that he found it difficult to

deal with pay equity issues because it's a philosophy they have no

interest in. Obviously the problems are with the government and not

with the trade unions. I think that to dump them at the feet of the

trade unions is simply incorrect.

Let's not forget, too,

that trade unions have done an enormous amount for women. There's a

long way to go. But their activities have been impeded seriously by

this government through privatization and legislation such as Bill 19,

which is so bad that it has been labelled "unfair and oppressive" by

the ILO — an international body of the United Nations which is, I might

remind you, dominated by business and government and not by workers or

their organizations.

So I don't think that it's fair.

Perhaps before the minister attacks trade unions, she may want to take

a look at her own house. She's a member of a party where three out of

47 people elected are women. It still has a women's auxiliary, which is

an item from the 1950s. And this government cut $50 from single

mothers' incomes.

As well, her party is the political home

of groups like REAL Women, which is very anti-women. This is the

government that cut core funding for women's safe houses. In 1972-75 we

introduced the first core funding for safe houses in North America. The

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), in one of her

first tasks as Minister of Human Resources at that time, cut that core

funding. Obviously that minister is a woman, which reinforces my point

that the lines are between those who want change and those who don't,

rather than between men and women.

The minister has stated

on many occasions that her mandate as the Minister Responsible for

Women's Programs is to act as an advocate for women. She's talked about

freedom of choice — the freedom to abuse, for instance, in our society

— and has not indicated any desire to fight actively for legislation

that will stop that kind of thing; and she's talked about some other

freedoms. Yet one freedom for

[ Page 10600 ]

women

that the minister is not fighting for is freedom of choice, which is a

fundamental principle and tenet of a democracy or a democratic system.

She refuses to advocate for women on the very fundamental issue of

reproductive choice. She refuses to advocate for women's right to

control their own bodies.

I know that the minister is quoted in many places, including Kinesis

magazine, as agreeing with abortion services only in cases of rape and

incest. I assume that's her own moral or religious position. I respect

that; I have no problem with it. However, it is a politically

impossible position, because you obviously have to drag women through

the courts and go through that lengthy procedure to discover.... As we

all know, just a tiny percentage of rape and incest cases ever make it

to court. Of those, very few are successful, sadly, because of the

nature of the case and the biases of the system. I find that position

simply untenable.

The minister likes to say that she

advocates for all women on that issue. I would suggest that the

position of choice is in fact an advocacy position for all women,

because obviously, if you hold views like the minister does, then with

freedom of choice you have a right to exercise those views. However, if

women are denied access to safe services, then someone else's views are

being imposed. By either not advocating for women's choice or not

ensuring that women's legal rights are upheld, the minister is

supporting a position that would deny women choice and is not

advocating for women at all.

As we know, hospital boards

are now the means through which the so-called pro-life groups — REAL

Women, although I'm not sure how real they are — right now deny women

choice. Women are losing choice all over the province, according to the

Federation of Medical Women.

It's interesting that this

government fired a hospital board — I believe it was the Royal Inland

Hospital in the interior — because it was not functioning properly in

its financial and administrative running of the hospital. It's

interesting to note also that the Bill Bennett government, I believe,

fired a Richmond hospital board for improperly imposing its views on

women.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : On a point of order, this

member has wandered all over the lot with this rambling diatribe around

her ideological hang-ups The issue before us, Mr. Chairman, happens to

be the estimates of the minister. It has absolutely nothing to do with

the historical actions of her predecessors. If it did, and if she was

halfway close to the mark with her criticisms, it might not be so

objectionable. Clearly she's out of order and has been for the last ten

minutes of this rambling diatribe.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I think the minister's point is made. Will the member continue on vote 34.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the mandate of the Minister

Responsible for Women's Programs, as she has defined it: to act as an

advocate to women, as her ministry is supposed to do. Yet we find that

the most crucial, critical, fundamental issue for women is not being

dealt with at all. In fact, women are losing ground quickly.

Sadly,

women are also losing economic ground in British Columbia. I am very

pleased that the government is talking about pay equity. Obviously

that's long overdue. In provinces where it has been implemented, while

it's cumbersome, difficult and not perfect, it has made a significant

difference. I believe that women in Ontario are earning about 10

percent more on the dollar than women in British Columbia because there

has been a pay equity program there.

However, as I

mentioned earlier, the government is on record in many cases as being

philosophically opposed to pay equity, as having no interest in it and

as having no intention to introduce legislation. As I say, I'm very

pleased that that's come about. I hope that we would see more of the

same under this minister.

When I questioned the Minister of

Finance about pay equity in his estimates, he made it very clear that

pay equity was to be spearheaded by the women's ministry and the

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. I wonder if the minister

could answer some questions about your pay equity program. What is the

budget allocation for pay equity under your ministry? Where is that

found in the budget? What's the dollar amount, and what's that to be

spent on this year? What do you hope to accomplish? Obviously you have

a term and a year that you're planning for. What have you set up in

terms of goals for this year? Would you confirm that you are indeed

spearheading a pay equity program? How would that look?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

First I want to go back to the defensive comments that the member made

about unions. Again, I have to say I find it incredible that the female

members on that side of the House continue to defend organizations that

have been blatant in their discrimination against women, and that's not

to say that they're any better or any worse than anyone else. It's just

simply to point out that a number of areas need to be dealt with.

The

defence on the other side of the House tells us that the support of the

unions means more to them than the advancement of women, and I have

problems with that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Shame!

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes, shame. They owe. There's a debt, and these women are paying that

debt today by defending male-dominated organizations that over the

years have perpetuated unfairness to the women in their organizations.

I guess the most difficult problem that I have in understanding the

defence is what Jack Munro and Ken Georgetti have

[ Page

10601 ]

said about the women in the NDP caucus and how difficult....

MR. PETERSON : What did they say? I'd like to hear it.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Well, let's see. Jack Munro wonders aloud where the labour movement

fits into the party's newly discovered ideology, and as for the women's

committee to start dominating, that's not what it's all about. There

are more and more people saying they're losing direction and purpose in

the party.

Then we go to Mr. Georgetti, who said: "Others,

however, see the committee as playing power politics." He's concerned

about the influence the women's committee is wielding in nominations.

They're diminishing their credibility when they do that.

That

tells me that you've had your knuckles rapped for involving yourselves

in a nomination meeting where you tried to unseat a sitting member, the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). Whether you were right

or wrong in what you were doing, you have been told effectively by two

very powerful union leaders that you must be good little girls and

behave yourselves. So tell me why on earth you continue to defend

labour unions and make out that governments and business are worse in

terms of pay equity.

Let's just lay our cards on the table.

Unions have as much responsibility, which is what I said. I haven't

trashed them. I think they certainly do serve a purpose, but they play

a very big

part in the inequities that exist for women. And the

negotiations that will take place on the part of this government will

take place with the unions trying to convince those male-dominated

unions that they must look for fairness in their ranks for women.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

When

you defend the unions, my friends on the other side of the House who

say they're feminists and believe that they care more about women than

anybody on this side, that puts a lie to all of that. So I just want to

impress upon you that the union aspect that I'm talking about is simply

putting everything in perspective: we have government, we have business

and we have unions who have not recognized the inequities facing women

in our society. I'm not defending government. I'm not defending

business I'm trying to help women and I think if the members — the

female members particularly — on the NDP side really want to help

women, then say it like it is; don't be afraid. Don't be afraid of

those men in those unions. Don't let them intimidate you. Don't let

them put you down. You have to be strong, and you have to stand up to

them. I know that's not an easy task, but you must do that.

[4:30]

Now to the question of pay equity and whether we have a budget for pay equity:

yes, we do have a budget for pay equity. What that budget is will be determined

by the negotiations and by the way we choose to go on pay equity. The number

of years it will be spread over will make a difference in the amount of money.

But the money is there, and the Minister of Finance is the banker for all of

us. Again, I answer the question for about the fifteenth time today — I might

be exaggerating a little bit — yes, this ministry is the lead ministry in pay

equity.

MS. PULLINGER :

It's fascinating that the minister insists on treating the Legislature

as if it were an encounter group, and we get these moral ramblings from

the other side of the House about what we ought to say, about what we

ought not to say and about the tones of our voices. Quite frankly, I

think it's twaddle.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MS. PULLINGER : Thank you. I'm pleased that you got the government members to restrain themselves, Mr. Chairman.

any case it's unfortunate that the minister also doesn't understand

that trade unions have always been on the leading edge of change, and

history will show them to be on the leading edge of change on this

issue. They're always attacking trade unionists. They always seem to

need to assign blame. But I think we should note that in 1981 the CUPE

national convention enthusiastically passed a resolution supporting

across-the-board wage increases in the effort to close the wage gap

between men and women. That was the beginning. In 1985 the CUPE

national convention passed a policy paper entitled 'Women's Economic

Equality, " which deals with both internal and external politics.

The minister is leaving. Shall we just wait until she comes back?

MS. MARZARI : Talk about unions.

MS. PULLINGER : Okay, we'll do unions. What a great idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the hon. member please address the Chair.

MS. PULLINGER :

In any case, the minister's nonsensical argument that unions are to

blame is frankly just silly. I can hardly wait to circulate her

argument among trade union people, like the TWU for instance, CUPE, the

GEU and so on.

In any case, the minister has not answered

my questions, other than yes, she is the minister in charge. It would

be wonderful if she were here. She just simply walked out on her

estimates. It would be nice to know what the budget allocation is and

what kind of dollars are dedicated to this program. Given that we've

gone on at some length about this — I believe it was a whole morning for

the Minister of Finance, and it seems like we're going to go on for a

[ Page 10602 ]

while

in these estimates, asking questions, with no responses and vague

responses — it seems there really isn't any pay equity program, there is

no budget, and no one is going to do anything about it. So I can only

assume that the minister, by walking out, is showing her inability to

answer these questions. There isn't any money. I would be most

interested to know if that was the case.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER :

I have lots to say, but the minister isn't there to answer the

questions. We'll just sort of peddle a while here until the minister

comes back, so she can answer some questions about the pay equity

program.

MS. MARZARI : Sing a song.

MS. PULLINGER :

Do you want to sing a song? When she comes back, let's have it on the

record that we would still like to know about the budget allocation —

there is in fact a budget for pay equity, if there are people working

on pay equity and what the amount is for that and if there are any

goals for pay equity. Or is it, as we assume, going to be like the

national child care system, wherein it's simply a response to polling

in case we're ever scandal-free enough to have an election in this

province.

I'm pleased to see the minister back in the

Legislature. Now that she is back, I wonder if she would mind

responding to my previous question: what is the budget allocation for a

pay equity program, and what are the goals for this year for a pay

equity program? What have you determined?

MR. PETERSON :

I am very pleased to rise and take my place in this debate. I'm very

interested to hear some of the comments made by our Minister

Responsible for Women's Programs, particularly the quotes that she read

from the head of the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Ken Georgetti. I

find it unbelievable. It makes me wonder sometimes, because we have the

second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) saying that our minister said

the unions are to blame. She never said that at all. What she said was

that everybody should accept their share of the responsibility and

obviously, by quotes from Georgetti that we heard, he is not prepared

to do that.

That's what she said. Let me tell you that she

is right, because we men have not accepted our share of responsibility.

She's absolutely right, and I will take my share of the blame for that.

I know my fellow male members of the caucus will take their share of

the blame for that. And do you know what? We as a government want to do

something about it, because like this minister who really cares, the

rest of the members of this government and the Social Credit caucus

really care. We will not turn this into a political football as does

the caucus of the opposition members, and particularly their female

members. They don't really care. All they're interested in is making

political points.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but our minister

responsible for government programs in the province of British Columbia

would not lower herself to do that, because she really cares. The

members opposite really don't, and I'm surprised. You know, I've seen

little signs of it. I've watched them operating during question period.

Let me give you an example. One day I was seated here, and the first

member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) got up to ask a question.

Legitimate — but all of a sudden I saw the man from Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew wave her down. He wanted to get up and ask a question. He was

much more important than the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I saw that too.

MR. PETERSON : Did you see that?

I've

seen him do that more often. I mean, do you really dance to his tune

over there that much? Is that the regard that your caucus has for women

in this province? I find it unbelievable.

Let's get back to

Mr. Georgetti. Do you people owe him that much that you can't stand up

in this House and say what you really feel? We know what you feel, and

our minister knows, but unfortunately I guess political patronage to

some members of the union movement in this province is more important

to them than getting something done for the women of this province.

Let

me tell you, this government will never, ever lower itself to that sort

of action. Let me tell you that under this minister you're going to see

some amazing results. Look what she's accomplished in just a very short

period of time. She brought together women from all parts of this

province. The report that was just recently tabled is a plan of action,

and I'm proud of her. She's doing an exceedingly good job. She is a

Socred with heart.

MS. PULLINGER : I find it amazing

that the other side of the House seems to want to turn this into a

debate about who cares most. What I would like to do is talk about what

the government is actually doing, and I don't seem to be able to get

any answers. This is not a transactional analysis group; this is the

Legislature of British Columbia.

I would like to have some

answers to questions. For instance, what is the budget allocation for

your pay equity program? I would like to ask the minister: does she

have a budget; does she have staff; does she have goals for a pay

equity program? Would the minister please answer those questions.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The budget allocation

will depend on how we decide — after negotiation with everyone

involved, including the union — to do it and over what period of time.

Yes, there are goals. The goal — and there is only one goal — is to

provide fairness for the women in the public service where there is no

fairness. That is acknowledged by this government. That's why it's so

difficult for us on this side to

[ Page

10603 ]

understand the reluctance on the other side to acknowledge where

there is also unfairness. There is unfairness in the public service, in

public services across this country. The federal government's report

tells us that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Let there be light!

HON. MRS. GRAN : And there is light. And there will be more light.

But

I can't give you a figure, Madam Member, because we haven't decided how

we're going to go. That's something that's decided after negotiation; I

say that again. The staff of the Ministry of Finance and my staff are

working as a task force. I said earlier today that those staff members

are in Prince Edward Island at a pay equity conference, learning

everything there is to learn about what has already happened in this

country concerning pay equity.

I hope that answers the member's questions.

MS. PULLINGER :

It confirms that we don't as yet have any kind of a pay equity plan or

any goals set. Reading through Hansard last year and the year before,

the government side has repeatedly said they are studying pay equity,

studying the problems and watching other pay equity programs. Quite

frankly, I'm surprised that we're starting at zero at this point.

However,

I'd like to move to the question of child care. We all know, and the

minister has acknowledged, that women in our society have a dual role.

Looking after children and a family is not considered work in our

society, in that there is no monetary compensation for it. You can't

earn a living doing those kinds of things, unless you swap kids with

your neighbour, in which case it's called child care and you can earn

some money.

In any case, women are in this untenable

position where if they have children and are on their own they have to

be both at home and in the workforce. One of the obvious solutions is

to provide affordable, available child care that fits with women's

workplace needs, so they can earn some money. There are many problems

around that. One problem, as we have discussed in this House, is the

fact that women in British Columbia earn approximately 61 cents on the

dollar; therefore poverty has an increasingly female face in this

province, as elsewhere.

The role of child care, then, is

obviously very important. And as you also know, only one child in ten

that needs child care in this province has licensed child care, child

care that is known to be safe and effective through a licensing

program. There are some 60,000 children in this province under the

age of 12 who simply look after themselves because there is either no

child care available or the parents can't afford the cost of child

care, in spite of the fact that the wages for the givers of child care

are very low.

I understand you have identified this as a priority area. I wonder if you could

tell me what steps you have taken to implement a child care program in this

province, and what kind of budget allocations you have for people to work on

that strategy and what goals you've set yourself for this current fiscal

year for child care in B.C.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, child care is a pivotal issue for women advancing

themselves. Child care, as I said earlier today, has come up in every

discussion all around the province. Whether it's in Prince George,

Kelowna, Nelson or Vancouver, child care is an issue that has to be

dealt with.

This government is very close to announcing an

initiative on child care. It's our intention to work in partnership

with the private sector and with the communities. Child care is

something that each community has to deal with, because all communities

are different. In communities where there is a lot of shift work, it's

very important to have non-traditional child care. So we'll be working

very closely with the communities, in a partnership role, to provide a

very large number of quality child care spaces. I am unable to give you

the kind of details that you'd like to have, because the proposal has

yet to go to cabinet for approval.

MS. PULLINGER : Thank you for that response. I wonder if the minister would answer a couple more questions concerning a child care program.

Is it the ministry's policy that child care ought to be licensed and monitored, thereby meeting standards? That's one question.

The

other question is: is it the ministry's policy to support and encourage

child care for profit? Or is it a non-profit type of child care that

you're looking at?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The current

policies are being reviewed very carefully, and those policies exist in

the Ministry of Health and in Social Services. We also will be looking

at child care in non-profit societies versus the private sector. It is

our view, and it has been for some time, that there needs to be a

variety of child care, to gives parents a choice of the kind of child

care that they want to have.

I can't give you specific

answers to policy, because those policies will be established over the

next few months as we go along. You'll understand that better when the

announcement is finally made.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Education has asked for leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I would like the House to welcome three guests from Fort Nelson: Mayor

Frank Parker, regional director Dave Doman, and the administrator,

Colin Griffith, who have come down here to meet with several of the

ministers and me today. I would like to ask the House to make them

welcome for coming down here, some 800 miles away.

MS. PULLINGER : I would like to move the subject slightly, to the subject of violence against women. As

[ Page 10604 ]

all know, that is a very serious pr