[ Page 10569 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 51).

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10569

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Introduction and first reading –– 10569

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 –– 10569

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Cull

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Bill 51 amends three existing statutes. Sections of the Residential Tenancy Act are amended to deal with discrimination against families with children in rental accommodations, while protecting the rights of seniors and the disabled. It deals with rental leasing procedures, eviction practices in the case of demolition and change of use, and manufactured home purchase.

Procedural amendments are made to the Mobile Home Act, the Residential Tenancy Act and the Motor Dealer Act to replace the phrase "mobile home" with "manufactured home." Procedural amendments are made to the Motor Dealer Act to ensure that dealers selling manufactured homes make a fair disclosure of what is included in the selling price. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move the introduction of Bill 44, Pension Benefits Standards Act. This act will set minimum standards for benefits, funding, vesting and administration of pension plans in British Columbia. I am tabling this complex legislation in the form of an exposure bill so that British Columbians have a chance to review the proposal in detail and provide suggestions for improvements before new pension benefits standards are introduced.

The legislation provides for vesting of workers' pensionable services after five years' continuous service. It also requires pension plans to provide minimum benefit levels for spouses of deceased members. Some other significant provisions include locking in of vested pension contributions, pension portability options for terminating employees who are vested, provisions for interest of refund pension contributions, requirements for disclosure of pension plan information and eligibility rules for participation of part-time workers in pension plans. I hope to receive detailed comments from pension plan sponsors and current members of existing plans as well as suggestions for improvement from other interested groups. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton 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).

MR. ROSE: My contribution this morning will be lengthy or very brief, depending upon the answers I get. In any event, it will be followed hard on my heels by my colleague and seatmate from the far west Point Grey, who will be talking about women's programs and women's issues probably around 10:30.

I'd like to ask a few questions about the communications policy of the government. As you well know, there has been an application by Unitel — which is a combination of CNCP and Rogers Cable — for a second long-distance network in Canada. It will have a profound impact on British Columbia — or may have.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know part of it is — the CRTC is. The other parts are probably pertinent to this ministry. However, if I'm told that I'm wrong, then I'll just have to save my ammunition for another target, which would disappoint me. As the minister knows, the current situation through Telecom Canada is that those long-distance rates and Trans-Canada Telephone are a combination of all the telephone companies in Canada — some publicly owned and some privately owned. They use their long-distance rates, garnered mainly through business, to subsidize or cross-subsidize domestic fees or charges.

What is of concern to a number of people is the impact of a competing long-distance service and what that might do to domestic rates. When they broke up AT&T in the United States, the minister might recall that there was an increase in domestic rates because there was no longer a monopoly there. I would like to know on behalf of my party if the minister's department has made any studies to see whether B.C. consumers are going to be impacted if the CRTC does approve a second long-distance service by Rogers and CNCP, which is now called Unitel. Both sides are lobbying all of us very assiduously.

[ Page 10570 ]

B.C. Tel says that if you take away the natural monopoly, then local rates will go up as they did in the States. Unitel says that if they are allowed to compete, prices will go down. I'm quite sure that they'll go down for long-distance rates because they're getting a 20 percent advantage if CRTC approves this. This will not be passed along to local subscribers because Unitel doesn't have to provide any local subscribers.

My main questions are: what is the impact, and what is the government's position at the moment on this very important communications matter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the minister responds, the first member for Okanagan South asks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, it's a real pleasure to introduce three gentlemen from the municipality of Peachland who are with us here to further the aims, needs, expectations and ambitions of the very fine community of Peachland in the Okanagan: Cliff Bennewith, Nick Oystryk and Don Wilson. Would the House please welcome the three aldermen from Peachland.

HON. MRS. GRAN: As much as I'd like to respond to the member, the questions would be best put to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen) in his estimates. Although communication plays a very large part in my ministry, particularly under the B.C. Systems Corporation, your questions are questions of policy, which belong under regional development.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, minister. It may have a profound impact on the costs of government services, and that's squarely in your ballpark. I'd like to know what your assessment is of this proposal, should it be passed by the CRTC. I know it's anticipation, but obviously you can't come unprepared for this. It is an important concern of government in terms of the money we spend on communications: fax, telephones, long distance and all the fancy computer hookups. I think those sorts of considerations are important, and the House deserves an answer on these matters in your estimates.

[10:15]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, as much as the member would like me to answer the question for his convenience, I have to once again say that the policy for government in terms of communications falls under regional development. There is no question in my mind that the many experts in my own ministry will be working very closely with that minister's people on this question.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would mind telling the House exactly what her responsibility is.

Are you an administrator of communications? You have no voice in policy?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Certainly, as a minister in cabinet, I have a voice in policy when it comes to the cabinet table. But again, the responsibility for communications is with another ministry.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Minister, so begins the estimates procedure around women's programs.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The first time.

MS. MARZARI: The first time. Madam Minister, I think it's appropriate to comment on the last few months — since the ministry responsible for women's programs was created — and to make some comments on the women's report which was produced for you by your committee, about how it was established and how its terms of reference were developed in the first place, and to ask you some questions about the logical consequences of this report and what you foresee happening with it and what current policies need to be improved.

This report, which came forward through the Advisory Council on Community-Based Programs for Women, was a hastily put together, politically contrived committee at the beginning, which seemed to emerge out of the federal government's cutback in this year's budget to women's programs across this country. Mr. Chairman, 76 women's centres were put out of business by the federal government's Secretary of State funding cutback in April.

This province's response was not so much to question and challenge the federal cutback as to basically postpone any real decision-making by setting up a women's advisory committee. It is a committee that was not necessarily conceived with the purest of intents, since it had a six-week duration and was, I think, intended basically to carry the minister through a pre-election period.

What has happened, however, in my opinion, is that because there was no election and because the federal government ultimately came back with the $1.2 million it showed up with, we have before us in the form of this report a credible document. I think the report presents a very valid picture of the changes that need to be made and of the service deficiencies that exist in this province for women. Quite by accident, I think we have a good report in front of us.

The questions that grow out of it, however, Madam Minister, are going to be more of a challenge than your existing budget can possibly begin to meet. Therefore my questions to you are going to be around the implications of this report, the role you have carved out for yourself as an integrator and coordinator in your own cabinet, and women's issues as women have been feeling and perceiving them in this province for some years.

One of the reasons I feel this report is valid in many aspects is that very often its substance reflects ideas and concepts which have been coming out of

[ Page 10571 ]

the NDP experience for many years, as my party has developed and coordinated with women in many communities across this province its own stand and policies around women. This report says 15 years later what many of us have been saying for much longer than that.

Madam Minister, one area the report does not refer to to any great extent is the very thing which initiated the need for the report in the first place. Although it refers to service gaps and to massive problems which cannot be resolved simply by applying money, sexual assault, sexual violence, income security, housing and education all require an integrated, concerted, coordinated approach. But this report does not refer to core funding to women's centres, which right now are the front line of defence for women in their communities. They are the grassroots organizations in communities that do reflect the very needs, the very gaps, the very desperate situations that women experience in their communities now.

Although the minister came up with $250,000 and was embarrassed, I think, by the federal government when the feds came up and said that they would totally fund women's centres this year and work towards a contract next year, nowhere do women's centres feel that a commitment has been made— in this report or otherwise — that they are going to survive beyond next year. So my first question to the minister is: where is the core funding for women's centres, the very reason for this report in the first place?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I want to take just a moment to explain the budget in this ministry, again, to the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. My ministry is a facilitating ministry and works with all of the other ministries in government. The money allotted in our budget is mostly for staff, with a small budget for grants to women's groups that may fall between the cracks. When this ministry was the women's secretariat, it did a lot of good, very quietly funding groups throughout the province. So let it be understood that there is no core funding for anything in this ministry.

The member mentions the forming of the committee — and talks about it ad nauseam. A minister has the right and the privilege to choose the people that she or he wishes to sit on a minister's personal advisory committee. The women on that committee were chosen personally by me. Each and every one of them touched me in some way as I travelled this province speaking to women. Each and every one of them is qualified to sit on that committee. To make light of the report, which is probably one of the best reports ever put out by any group — not just in this province but in this country — and to say that it happened by accident is demeaning to the women who worked so hard on the report and care so deeply about the issues it identifies.

The member asks about core funding for women's centres and says that there is no mention of women's centres in the report. She is wrong. Women's centres are an integral part of the discussions that will go on throughout this province when we start dealing, community by community, with the delivery of women's programs. If there is to be provincial core funding, it will be dealt with through another ministry, and the negotiations will be, first of all, between the women's centres and the federal government.

I think the member would agree that we don't want the federal government to get off the hook, to be allowed to demonstrate how little they care about the women in this country. It's important for me as minister, and for the NDP, to see that the federal government continues to fund those centres in whatever capacity they continue to operate in. But we have not left them out, nor do we intend to.

MS. MARZARI: I heartily agree with the minister that we shouldn't let the feds off the line here, and whenever we are capable of bringing the federal government into compliance and into sympathy with our stated goals and objectives we should be doing that. When there is a federal government program that says the feds want to reduce poverty in this country, then we should be accessing that, which we have done under the Canada Assistance Plan, successfully fighting the cutbacks in the courts. I agree with that, and I heartily endorse the effort.

On the Secretary of State cutbacks, we did make our concerns known. I strongly comply, assert and agree that we have to ensure not only that the Secretary of State funding continues for women's centres but that the federal government develops comprehensive programs on child care, sexual abuse and violence towards women.

That's not the issue here. The issue here is this provincial government and its mandate and the dollars it has already decided it wants to direct towards women's programs. The minister did put $250,000 on the line in April, offering to keep the women's centres going — laudably — for the interim. I believe that, that $250,000 was out of the women's ministry budget. I am assuming, therefore, that there is $250,000 in the minister's budget which might be spent on bolstering and helping women's centres this year. In fact, I am told by certain women's centres that there is money being dribbled — that was the word used to me — into the community now, into different women's centres, for various kinds of programs.

I'm asking the minister: did she retain the $250,000 that she promised she would use in the interim? Is she saving that money to use next year when the feds ask for 50 percent cost-sharing? Or is she using it this year to support and bolster women's centres? If she is doing that, which centres are getting the money and under what criteria? Which ministry is going to ultimately make a decision on core funding for women's centres?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that although the member agrees with my contention that the federal government should not be allowed to shirk its responsibilities, I can tell you that the opposition tried in every way

[ Page 10572 ]

possible to put the onus on the provincial government when that funding was cut. Had they worked together with the minister in fighting for the funding, I think we would have had that money sooner. Instead, they saw a political opportunity to perhaps comer a minister or embarrass the government. I believe it created a lot of stress in women's centres that needn't have been there. I believe the NDP have a very big responsibility for the concerns surrounding women's centres by trying to turn the issue into their own political gain, and it backfired.

The member asks about the $250,000. Yes, I have one-time grant money in the ministry that will be used to assist communities in putting in place programs for women. There is more than $250,000, but the $250,000 was put forward when I came to the conclusion that fighting the federal government without the help of the NDP was not really worthwhile. I phoned Gerry Weiner, who is the Secretary of State, and asked, if they weren't going to fund wholly, if at least they would join us in a partnership. We all know what ensued from that. They then went to the rest of the provinces who said no, they're weren't interested in any cost-sharing. So they decided to treat British Columbia differently, which is not unusual for the federal government. We demanded that for this year they pay the full cost.

[10:30]

In terms of asking which ministry will fund women's centres, I think we're precluding the federal government funding them 100 percent. I haven't given up on that idea.

MS. MARZARI: So the minister has told me in the last two minutes that there is $250,000 — possibly more than that — on a one-time basis from her cabinet that was going to see her through the crisis in April. That money remains with her for the support of women's programs in this province.

The answer to my second question was that no ministry is going to be making decisions about core funding, except the federal government. The minister is saying she will not accept the responsibility of core funding to women's centres. Am I correct? She has defined her terms of reference, and her mandate is not to be the sustenance core-funder for the women's centres of this province. I assume that's the case from her answer. The federal government will be expected to be the major mover and the major funder here, and the provincial government will not — you, your ministry or your government — be taking on core funding for centres. Am I correct in that assumption? That's what I'm drawing from what you have just said to me.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say that we wouldn't be funding women's centres or core-funding. I didn't say no. I said that I believe that the responsibility should continue with the federal government. As we continue through the summer, we will be working with communities to do an inventory of the programs for women that they currently offer, and we'll go from there. My answer is not no.

MS. MARZARI: So the minister's answer on core funding for women's centres is not no, although other ministries.... The Ministry of Health has agencies, the Ministry of Social Services core-funds agencies and the Attorney-General's ministry core-funds services around women's issues and women's needs. At the present time the women's ministry itself is not going to take on core funding, but the answer is not no. It might potentially grow into a core funding arrangement.

What are the criteria the minister is using now for selecting agencies serving women's needs that she is spending the $250,000 on?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm not sure what the member means by criteria. The committee, if you'll read the report, decided that each community is so different and so diverse that to set up criteria or a model that would work all around the province was not the thing to do. Each community will make their own decisions on how programs for women are delivered. Many communities are already doing a very good job of it; my own is the very best example that I can think of.

We have all of the services in Langley through Langley Family Services. At least 90 percent of those services have to do with women and children. It would be my hope that every community in this province would have those same services. Knowing that some communities are much smaller, it's much more difficult to put in place the kind of organization that I'm lucky enough to have in my own community. Each one has to be dealt with separately, so there are no set criteria.

MS. MARZARI: The way that government generally gives out money — or perhaps should give out money in an accountable and reasonable way that's reflective and responsive to the needs of communities — is that government, from my experience, generally draws up a short list of values and from that short list of criteria, based on which communities will know how they're going to have access to public dollars, spends those dollars and is accountable back to the public sector for the dollars they've spent.

I appreciate the minister saying that she's going to go directly to communities for their assessment and their understanding of what's needed. But I'm asking the minister: has she developed criteria by which she will be measuring the community service provided by those agencies she gives the money to? For example, if the money is going to women's centres, you might want to look at how many women the centre has served. If the money is going to transition houses — like in Kamloops, where they have 50 women a month coming to their door but only 17 beds — you might want to look at the need, and you might want to look at the socioeconomic levels in a community to understand how many women live in poverty and might be wanting to access different services.

These are the kinds of numbers, these are the kinds of demographics, these are the kinds of vari-

[ Page 10573 ]

ables that make up criteria. Has the minister begun building a short list of criteria for this one-time funding or, more importantly, for the long-term funding that her ministry is spending on?

HON. MRS. GRAN: In the report, the committee has suggested criteria, and the ministry will be looking at those criteria. If you have your book, it's on pages 21 to 24. There are some excellent suggestions on what we might use as criteria, and we will be developing these in the next few weeks.

MS. MARZARI: Moving along from women's centres, I would like to talk to the minister about the report's comments on health services for women, most notably abortion, to be found on page 8, item (d). The committee is reporting "expansion of community health-related services which promote physical, mental and emotional well-being...." These services must provide information and education, counselling and access to all medical services, including abortion."

Under previous questioning the minister has constantly repeated that the women's ministry that she controls shan't have anything to do with the questions of choice and abortion for women. Yet we have a report in front of us, compiled by an advisory committee to the minister, which is stating quite unequivocally that health-related services to women must include access-to-abortion services.

I would ask the minister for her comments on this statement and whether it reflects her government's stand.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The committee has probably made the best recommendation that I've seen for a long time on an issue that is of concern to women. Sending the issue of access to abortion to the Royal Commission on Health Care makes eminent sense to me, and I look forward to that happening and to the outcome of the commission.

MS. MARZARI: My question to the minister goes on from this. Since the minister has an interest in the subject of access to abortion, and we on this side of the House sincerely believe that the issue of choice for women is the foundation stone and the rock bottom of what women's rights are all about.... In fact, we on this side of the House have been suggesting that the Attorney-General ought to be testing the constitutionality of Bill C-43 before the courts. We have been suggesting that the Minister of Health should be talking to doctors in this province about the potential withdrawal of their services because of fear of harassment under Bill C-43.

I would ask the Minister for Women, who obviously has personal feelings on this subject which may be reflected by her government, if she has approached the Attorney-General, her colleague, to talk to him about the constitutionality of Bill C-43, and if she has approached the Minister of Health to encourage him to initiate discussions with doctors across this province to try to guarantee and assure doctors and women that access to abortion will not be withheld and that doctors need not fear harassment that will force them to withdraw services.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member for Vancouver-Point Grey talks first of all about my personal opinions, which have no bearing on the job that I do as Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. It doesn't matter what my personal opinion os on any issue. It's what the women in this province want that interests me.

We're talking about a bill that has not yet been proclaimed by the federal government. I have said for the last eight months that the responsibility lies solely with the federal government. The questions that you're asking about the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health will be dealt with if that bill is proclaimed.

MS. MARZARI: I have yet to hear about a federal bill that is not considered to be a federal bill because it's not proclaimed. There is a lot of federal legislation which is not proclaimed, and yet we deal with it in this House, we budget on it and we count on the dollars flowing from financial legislation.

The proclamation of the bill is not the issue. The issue happens to be the third reading of that bill, as it very often is in this House. The proclamation — when the Lieutenant-Governor walks through the door, steps up to the Speaker's chair, accepts the bills and walks back out again — is not generally the high point of that bill.

We in this House know, as legislators, that the Lieutenant-Governor walking through the door is not the issue. The real issue is our debate in this House that brings a bill to third reading. For our purposes, though technically speaking the bill has not been proclaimed, Bill C-43 is, in the minds of the public and in the minds of women, now law.

In fact, while we're dancing on the head of a pin and counting ourselves as angels, a woman in Toronto has died — she bled to death — three weeks ago. Her name was Yvonne Jurewicz, she was 20 years old and was probably afraid to go to the doctor and afraid to go to the hospital after she tried to abort herself.

This is the sad fact of Bill C-43. While we debate the minor points of whether or not the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor-General of Canada has picked it up, we know that young women in this country are under the impression they will be considered criminals if they show up in an emergency ward door hemorrhaging. That is the sad truth.

The sad truth for us as politicians, Madam Minister, is that we find ourselves in a position where this issue has not become a major issue in British Columbia. I have this horrid, terrible feeling that I am waiting almost, in the most awful kind of limbo, for some poor young woman in British Columbia to die before this becomes a public issue.

It will have nothing to do with the proclamation of the bill, Madam Minister. It will have to do with a young woman in British Columbia dying and an

[ Page 10574 ]

investigation being conducted because the press will suddenly wake up. We will have been sitting here helpless because the message has not gone out. We will be sitting here debating the finer points of technicalities while doctors are not being spoken to, while hospitals are not being taken on to provide access, while the bill is not being tested or while the Attorney-General is not stating — as Ontario and Manitoba Attorneys-General have already stated — that private challenges by irate boyfriends or whatever will not be handled and will not be dealt with.

[10:45]

We are going to be dancing on the head of a pin while women die. I would ask the minister, before this bill is proclaimed, if she is willing to sit down with her colleagues and talk to them about the fact that women might die if they do not make abortion accessible, open up existing hospitals to the abortion services and ensure that Bill C-43 is taken by our Attorney-General to the courts.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I agree with the member when she talks about women requiring and needing choices in their lives. My ministry and my mandate is to deal with the economic independence of women, and that includes health care. I have deliberately chosen not to become embroiled in the divisive issue of abortion. The member knows well the controversy that surrounds that issue, and to say that it has not been an issue in British Columbia is a foolish statement indeed.

It has been the most controversial issue that I've ever faced as an elected member. I will work hard and have been working hard to ensure that women have choices in child care, in their careers and in health care. The questions that you ask concerning the federal bill would be best put to the Attorney-General, whose estimates I understand started yesterday.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I haven't had an opportunity to really study the report. I have looked at it. As I listened to the debate, the thing that really strikes me is the responsibility of this minister as it relates to the rest of her government. It's quite interesting, because it's like no other ministry.

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister, because I think the report and the material in it really reflects a considerable amount of courage. I'm not aware of any other ministry or minister that has put together an advisory committee which put together a report and then made it public when the report and the recommendations out of the report in some cases are contrary to the minister's own government policy and in some cases reflect a real condemnation of the government's own record and history. For that I think the minister representing the women in the province needs to be congratulated, because women's issues are difficult, regardless of political party. If there is any commitment at all to women's equality and to addressing some of the concerns in this report, it will take a major undertaking for any government to even begin to measure up to some of the problems spelled out in the report. So let me start by saying that, because I believe it quite sincerely.

Having said that, the problem I have with the women's ministry is that basically what you are — and I'd like to hear the minister's point of view on this — is an in-house lobbying agency. Basically the ministry has no power to do anything about the recommendations; your only power is to be able to sit at the table with your colleagues and lobby them on behalf of women. As I said, I'd like the minister to comment on that, and we'll see where we go with that.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Perhaps I could point out that there is another ministry quite like the Ministry for Women's Programs, and that's Native Affairs. We work in a similar fashion. I guess you could call both of those ministries lobbying agencies. Each minister, in any government, only has so much power. You have to take to cabinet those policies that you want to see implemented. The policies that I take to our cabinet table are no different than any of the policies taken by other ministers, and without the approval of that cabinet table, you cannot act. I would say that "lobbying" is not quite the correct term; the correct term would be "facilitator."

It's my job, first of all, to analyze the programs offered for women in all the various ministries, to have a good working relationship with the ministers and the staff of those ministries and to then set about putting together programs, with their assistance, that will work better for women. I don't believe that women would be well served by a ministry that encompassed all the programs affecting them, because each time you assist a woman, you normally assist a child and often a father. So you cannot eliminate the family from the job that I have to do. I would hope one day — and it is a sincere hope — to work my way out of this job. There should not be a ministry that sets out any gender as being more needy than the other. But the facts are that women do have problems and challenges that men don't have in their lives. This ministry exists because there is a need, and hopefully one day it won't exist in any part of Canada.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I agree with the minister that there is a need. The problem I have.... I think it's fitting that the minister points out that Native Affairs is a comparable ministry, which shares your powerlessness and finds itself in a position of lobbying those with power. It's interesting that women in our society would find themselves being compared with another group in British Columbia, in our society, that is victimized by the power structures that exist now. I guess that's my main objection: if a government is truly committed to changing the status of women — and indeed native people and those in our society who do not share power — then the structure of government should reflect that. Those given the mandate of addressing that inequality should have more clout, more power to change. They should not be going cap in hand with a report, begging at the

[ Page 10575 ]

cabinet table for those with the budgets, those with the power to make decisions, to affect the lives of the people they represent and are lobbying on behalf of. That is an important aspect.

Yes, the report is good. The question is: where is it going to go? Is this just another pre-election report, another pre-election media stunt? Is this just another reflection of, as the minister says, sensitive pre-election times? Is there a commitment from your government to do anything at all with it? Is the answer to wait and see? Will it be in your next term? Or can we expect some kind of ongoing work? Let's talk about the Ministry of Social Services. Let's talk about services to children and families. After all, your government and your party gutted services to women and children.

You talk about the responsibility of the federal government to women's centres. Why are women different? Why are we getting this different treatment? Why are the needs of women and native people in your government not mainstream? Why are we the other?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that the member asked a question, but I just want to clarify. Are you saying that we shouldn't have a ministry now? I'm confused by what you're saying. One minute you're saying it should be a major ministry, and then you're saying it should be mainstreamed. I'm really having difficulty understanding.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says she has difficulty understanding. Some may be prepared to give her that; I'm not prepared to give her that. I'm afraid the minister understands all too well. I believe the minister is caught in a very difficult position. The minister wants to sit at that cabinet table, and the minister wants to protect the government's imagery. They're building towards the next election. The minister understands all too well her powerless position at that table. The minister understands all too well her inability to fulfil the recommendations in this report. The minister understands all too well that she has no budget to deliver the needs of women in this province.

Unfortunately — and regrettably — the minister stands up and says: "I don't understand what you're trying to say." It might work for some of your colleagues. It might work at the table when you pull that kind of stuff, but it's not going to work for women in this province, because women know that women are not dumb. And we're not prepared to let you off the hook by your saying: "I don't understand what you're saying." The issue is equity. A ministry responsible for women should have equal status with all other ministries. It should not solely be an in-house lobbying tool. I completely and totally reject your stance of coordinator and facilitator of services That's an important role, but it's not good enough I'm really sorry that you'll settle for that.

[11:00]

MS. A. HAGEN: The ministry that we are examining today has a new mandate, and it is the mandate of women's programs. Like my colleagues, I haven't had an opportunity to review, except in a very quick way, the report of the minister's Advisory Council on Community-Based Programs for Women. However, I want to frame a few comments around that report and also around the minister's mandate, which is what we have been discussing and trying to get a handle on. In our pursuit of this line of questioning, we are also seeking to represent the women of the province — and, in fact, society. We want to understand the mandate of this minister and the commitment of this government.

I think it goes without saying that the appointment of a minister responsible for women's programs has certainly come late in the mandate of this government. There's speculation, which I believe may be fair, that the increased attention to this issue may be as much political as it is a sincere commitment by government to make significant change.

I believe, however, that this minister has begun, over the time that she has been in the House, to try to come to terms with power, mandate, accountability and policy around these issues. I sincerely believe too that this minister is still struggling with those issues and perhaps has not been helped very much by the task, the title, the resources and the mandate that she has been given. But I believe that this minister has a responsibility to articulate her mandate and her vision so that we have some idea of what she is attempting to do. So far I am not as clear as I would like to be about what the minister sees as her mandate and her vision. Most particularly, I am not at all clear about her operational style, if you like, and how, having made some statements about that, she intends to do something for women.

I am struck by a statement in the report. It might be worthwhile reading some of this statement into the record. As soon as the women whom the minister asked to give advice on community-based programs for women begin to address the issue, they make a vision statement. In that statement they say:

"The motivation behind this objective" — to recommend ways in which programs can be delivered to women in their communities — "was not simply one of efficiency and effectiveness. Rather it was an attempt to establish a means to assist society to create a different reality: a reality based on respect for the rights of women to security, personal safety and well-being..."

It's astounding, isn't it, that in this country we need to make that statement about women. We all know how valid and true that statement is.

"...a reality which recognizes and supports the dual role played by many women as caregivers and paid workers... "

Again, that's something that is not in government policy, whether it's in child care, equal pay for work of equal value, training opportunities, modifications of the workplace or pension and income support for women. None of that is reflected.

"...a reality in which women's social, economic and political contributions are encouraged and valued

[ Page 10576 ]

equally; and a reality in which women have an equal share in power and influence."

The very fact that that statement exists is an indictment of us all — men and women — in our society. Therefore I think it is extremely important for this minister to define for us what her role may be.

I want to pose two or three questions to the minister about specific issues. I have posed these questions to other ministers whom she works with in a coordinating and facilitating way. I have not had answers to those questions that encourage women that anything is going to change.

Let me take a very current issue. It's one we always deal with quite carefully in this House because it is a matter of a labour dispute at this time. That dispute involves psychiatric nurses, most of whom are women and most of whom work not in acute-care facilities but in long-term-care facilities like Woodlands in my riding; Riverview, where many people who are mentally ill live and are treated; and other facilities throughout the province.

Mr. Chairman, when I talk to women who work in those fields, the issue of pay equity has never been better defined. Let me just give you a verbal account of a discussion I had in my riding on the weekend with a head nurse who works at Woodlands. She has 20 or 25 years of service at that institution and is responsible for the supervision of 28 staff members — nursing staff and health support workers. She is responsible for the care of 35 severely handicapped people. She is responsible not only for basic care and supervision of that ward but also for developing programs for the residents under her care. After 25 years of service, that woman earns $800 a month less — $10,000 a year less — than a woman, in all likelihood, who is a head nurse in an acute-care hospital.

That issue of equal pay for what all of us would surely recognize as equal work is one of the issues that is being addressed by these workers on their lonely picket lines while the staff still, through the essential services act, provide care for those people.

Those women have been waiting a long time for a government to deal with pay equity issues. Those people are in the government service. Their salaries are paid by this government and are supported by the people of the province. I do not believe it is the value of the people of this province that those women should be paid such a significantly lower rate of pay for work of equal value than those who care for acute-care patients.

What does the minister have to say about that issue? What does she intend to do in her coordinative and facilitative role — since she has spoken about pay equity — to deal with that issue? Not five years down the road — this woman will have probably retired by that time — but now, so that that woman has some sense of justice and fairness to her for her work in the community.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Let me raise another issue to the minister. This is an issue that I have been pursuing with other ministries, particularly the Ministers of Advanced Education and Social Services and Housing, around training. Again I'm indebted to some work which has been done by a women's employment and training coalition and a proposal which I know they have made to the minister about bridging programs.

In that brief to the minister, this group of women have outlined very extensively the reality of women's access to the jobs of the future. There is no question at all that if women are to achieve even a modicum of improved economic status, we have to develop, provide and maintain a new kind of training program.

Bridging programs is the name that we often give to some of the basic core work that needs to go on in order for women to make up for deficiencies in their current educational status and, both in terms of education and life skills, to be able to move into more advanced levels of training.

I discussed this at some length with your colleague, the Minister of Advanced Education and T&T — as the Speaker is wont to call him. I think the most significant line in this brief — of many that define the issue — is that by 2000 A.D. over half of all new jobs will require at least four years of post-secondary education. Over 40 percent of the female population lack the education they will need to work in these jobs.

The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan) interestingly — and I appreciated this — provided some response to my questions about training. The response again was that this is what we are doing, and it was woefully inadequate. It was episodic and regional. There was no overall plan, no overall strategy, no commitment to funding and no focus for the attention to this issue. He gave me a shopping list, a smorgasbord of what the province is doing, and there have been some improvements around increase in access and so on.

But none of this really addresses this fundamental problem of women who cannot, by lack of economic resources, child care, available programs and flexibility — you can name the whole range of deficits — find and participate in the training programs that will enable them to be economically self-sufficient. We all know that that has to be one of our major goals.

Those are just two areas in the economic realm where we have, since I got into this legislature in 1986, been raising the issues and pounding the desks about the lack of action and policy. Quite honestly, until this minister and this government can give us some better answer than coordination, facilitation and a few moves, we are not going to get anywhere.

Community-based programs are what's there, in part because of what government is not doing. The missing foundation, even in this report, is a commitment of government to say what it will do and what its role and mandate and policy will be to knit and work with those community programs, education institutions and women who are putting that effort forward.

Until we hear that from this minister and from this government, we will know that again, regrettably, there isn't attention to the new reality and attention

[ Page 10577 ]

to the needs of half the population. We will continue to bumble along on the good will and the initiative of women and communities. This government will have some small part to play, but it will not take a leadership role. That is the real issue that confounds us as we look at this government and at its record in respect to women. I'd like an answer for that head nurse and for those nurses in my riding who are earning $8,000 to $10,000 less than their counterparts doing equal work. I'd like an answer for the many women in my riding who need good bridging and training programs, with ancillary services, so they can get on with participating fully in the economy. I want some hard answers from this government and this minister.

[11:15]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have an appreciation for the member for New Westminster. She works hard; she does her homework and makes very sensible comments. I'd like to give you an answer for your head nurse, but it would be inappropriate for me, given that it is a labour dispute. No one knows that better than the opposition.

I think it needs to be mentioned here that many of the women who are being paid low wages are represented by unions. Let's not kid ourselves about who's at fault. All of society is at fault, including labour unions.

When we get to the second question that the member for New Westminster asked, I have to say that we're not just talking about British Columbia when we talk about the problems facing women. We're talking about an entire country, about all of North America. We're talking about societal attitudes. Attitudes have to be changed in our society. Government cannot perform the miracles the opposition members seem to think should happen until society — and we're a large part of it — comes to grips with and has a clear understanding of why women are asking for equality and why now they are demanding services.

It's very much like the environment: nothing much will happen.... Until the public understands their actions and the consequences of those actions, it's difficult for politicians to deal with the issues. It's no different with women. I believe there is more understanding today of women and of the challenges we face in our lives than at any time in our history.

This ministry is one of working together. It's my job and responsibility to see that every program that comes to the cabinet table has its impact on women identified. I do that, and I do it well. I think the evidence of that lies in the very short time it took for the government to recognize the pay equity needs of its own employees — again, employees represented by unions. The B.C. pension plan recognizes that women often have no means of accessing a pension plan. That's a very real issue and problem that we have acknowledged and intend to do something about.

I heard a lot about the concerns about young girls in school. Are they being told the truth? Do they know how many years of their lives they are going to have to work? Or do they still believe that they are going to get married, be looked after and live happily ever after? There are truths and realities to be dealt with.

One government — ten governments — will not affect that. We can act in a way that helps society understand, but until society understands, very little progress will be made. I think society is listening and understanding more than it ever has before.

MS. A. HAGEN: There is something called leadership; there's something called policy; there's something called action. None of those are reflected in the minister's answer. It is a goody-goody answer, if I could put it that way.

On the issue of the head nurse and the other nurses who work at Woodlands and Riverview, I don't think, Madam Minister, that if you asked the union, they would be saying that they're against pay equity for these women. That's not the position they are taking. It's the position that government has entrenched, and government is going to have to be the leader in the issue of unbundling that unfairness.

For the minister, in her answer to my question about the head nurse, to suggest, to imply or to impugn unions as the source of that problem is really just a mind-boggling approach. We are dealing with a classic case of pay equity and the lack of it. The minister is perhaps doing her "not no" answer. But "not no" is not yes, and I think that's what we're really seeing in how the minister handles all of these issues.

Let me ask one other question, because I am looking for a minister who is not just telling us that she is ensuring that we're dealing with impacts and that we've put the issue on the table. I want to have a minister tell me something about what she is doing. Could the minister advise the House what role she plays in respect to the four-corners agreement between the federal and provincial governments?

From the minister's body language, I suspect she's never heard of it. The four-corners agreement involves the federal government, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Social Services and Housing. I think it's important to note that it is a coordinating, facilitating body. What role has the minister taken in finding out about and dealing with the impact of that committee's decisions on the lives of women? Let me perhaps just give the minister a bit of a hint: that particular group is very important in terms of the federal-provincial programs that may be available in the areas I'm speaking about — job training, for example, and opportunities for women to participate fully in the economy of the province.

I asked the minister if she was prepared to give me some indication of her role with the four-corners committee. She commented earlier that one of her responsibilities is to ensure that the impact of every program is examined in respect to how it deals with women. The four-corners agreement, which involves three ministries and the federal government, cer-

[ Page 10578 ]

tainly has an impact on women. I'm giving the minister an opportunity to demonstrate to us what she may be doing in respect to that particular group, which I think is one of the functioning groups that have an impact on the programs available to women.

What is her role? How has she dealt with it? How is she becoming informed? How is she monitoring, advising and participating in the work of that group of ministers, three of whom sit around her cabinet table?

That's my last question to the minister at this time. If she is not prepared to answer it, I know that there are other members on this side of the House who have some questions to put to her. I'll have some more questions later, but that was my final question in this section.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I can assure the member that when the policies or programs come to the cabinet table — and often before — our ministry gets involved and works very closely with all of the ministries you just talked about. All I can tell you is that we do work very closely with them all.

MS. CULL: The minister says that society must change; that we have to wait for society to make the adjustments; that government isn't going to do it. They're not going to lead; they're going to follow. If society is not changing — and it certainly is painfully slow — who is going to provide the leadership? Surely if the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs in this province isn't going to provide leadership, I don't know what her mandate is.

In terms of her ministry's mandate, the minister talked a lot about lobbying, facilitating, coordinating and doing things like that. It reminds me a bit of the discussions we've had over the years when talking about employment equity. For a long time we thought that we could work with businesses and organizations to persuade them, to influence them, to facilitate, to coordinate, to lobby — whatever words you want to use — and to somehow get them, through gentle means, to increase the number of women employed in all levels of the organization, in management and in various technical fields. We've learned that it's just not working. It's not going to work until something is done in a very concrete way, until a program is put in place, a target is set and something specific is required of that organization Judge Rosalie Abella said it quite clearly in her report on employment equity on Canadian women: "We've tried these other means, and now it's time for something concrete." I think that's what must happen with the ministry of women's programs in British Columbia. It's time to stop being a ministry that merely coordinates other ministries and start becoming a ministry that takes some specific action.

In response to a question from one of my colleagues with respect to reproductive choice, the minister said that the question really should be put to another minister, because the mandate for women's programs was essentially an economic mandate to improve women's economic position in the province. I don't have your current mandate, Madam Minister, but I do have a document which outlines the mandate of the women's programs group in 1986. It covers the wide range of issues that we've been canvassing here this morning.

It talks about women outside of public service and inside public service. Outside of public service, yes, it does deal with economic independence, economic development and employment training. But it also deals with family, health and education. It deals with all of these issues we have been talking about, and it makes it quite clear that one of the mandates of the women's programs section in 1986 was to: "...coordinate the development and implementation of government programs and policies.... That sounds to me like there was a mandate there to do something. "Within government, Women's Programs staff work closely with all ministries and agencies of government in identifying and analyzing issues, and developing policies, programs and legislation to benefit the women of British Columbia." That mandate sounds a lot broader than simply a coordinating mandate or just economics.

[11:30]

1 want to refer further to this report. It is entitled: "Women in British Columbia: A Plan for Progress." It was put out by the women's programs section of the ministry then. I've forgotten which ministry women's programs were tagged on to in those days. It's a March 1986 document.

I want to go back to the comment the minister made a few minutes ago about the report just released by the advisory council. She said that it was the best report ever — not just the best report put out in this province. She was quite glowing in terms of the report: one of the best women's reports she's ever seen.

I think that it's a wonderful report, in that it certainly does list and document very carefully the inadequacies of women's programs in this province. But what is really ironic, going back to 1986 and the report that was done then— it doesn't identify the authors, but obviously they are staff in Women's Programs — and looking at the things that they found needed addressing over four years ago, is that they're very similar. In fact, in many cases they're the same. There's not a lot of difference between the report that was done in 1986 itemizing the things that needed to be addressed to ensure that women become full and equal partners in our society and the things that our advisory council has just identified.

It says in this report that over the next five years Women's Programs is going to do a number of things, including examining all government programs and policies for their potential impact on women. Now that is one of the recommendations that's in the 1990 report: to have the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs ensure that all government programs and policies are analyzed for their impact on women. It was a suggestion that your staff made to you four years ago, and it's a suggestion that your advisory committee has made to you now in 1990. The sugges-

[ Page 10579 ]

tions are good suggestions, but when are we going to actually see some action on them?

One of the major things that they identify in the 1986 report is the need to increase accessible and improved child care arrangements. The number one issue that was identified in the 1990 report related to child care again as well. In 1986 it talks about providing equitable access to a wide variety of training, education and career options. What do we see in the 1990 report? The same recommendation. The 1986 reports talks about family violence and the need to work to put in place policies and programs to address family violence. Again, in the 1990 report, we see the same recommendation.

The issues go on, and I'm not going to read them all out from both reports, but the point that I am trying to make is that in 1986 staff of your ministry addressed the very same issues that we see in the 1990 advisory committee report. The recommendations are the same. The issues that were identified are very similar. What I want to know, Madam Minister, is: where is the progress? Where can we see that we're actually doing something besides writing reports every so many years documenting the problems that we all know women face, making recommendations which get stored in files somewhere? They certainly don't seem to be translated into any action on behalf of the government.

I want to turn to one particular area of both reports — women within government service. They don't have much of a voice most of the time, because if they speak up too loudly, they find themselves in an awkward situation with their employers.

But it's very clear that if the government is truly committed to advancing the cause of women in the province, there is no better place to start than with their own employees. The report in 1990 says this; the report in 1986 said this. Women's Programs and the women's secretariat prior to Women's Programs always had women in government as one of the target groups they were trying to assist.

Madam Minister, as you know and as the reports have documented, it is painfully slow what has been happening in government. This is something I would like to ask for clarification on: 26 or 27 percent of excluded employees are women. This is an improvement; it is up from 17 percent in 1986. But I would like the minister to confirm whether that 26 percent includes management employees or all excluded employees in all categories of exclusions.

We know, though, that if we do move to those positions that are generally considered to be management positions — ranked at level 7 and higher — only 10.5 percent of those positions are filled with women. If we move to the very top of the government management system and look at the top 77 rated positions — these are figures from 1989; perhaps it's improved somewhat in the last year — in levels 10, 11 and 12, only three of those positions were filled by women. The 1990 report of the advisory committee points out that at the rate we're going, it would take over 30 years for women to be equally represented in senior management. I'm not prepared to wait for 30 years. Women in government service aren't prepared to wait for 30 years. Our daughters aren't prepared to wait for 30 years. We need to do something to move us along a lot quicker than that.

I told this story to the minister when I appeared before her when she was doing her trips around the province and meeting with groups. But I think that it's indicative of the problems in government service, and I would like to put it on the record. A number of years ago women's programs decided to hold a workshop at Dunsmuir Lodge for senior women in government to spend a day — or perhaps it was more than that — doing some networking and talking about what they could do.

The ministry that I worked in at the time was Municipal Affairs. The criteria for attendance at the workshop was that you had to be a management employee at level 7 or higher. Well, we didn't have any women at that level. So women's programs decided that they would be somewhat more generous, and they reduced the level to level 5 or higher. We didn't have any women at that level either. What happened is that my ministry was not able to be represented at that. It was embarrassing. It should have been embarrassing to my ministry, and it certainly should have been embarrassing to the government. It was very frustrating to the women in that ministry who wanted to be represented, who wanted to put forward their needs and concerns, and who couldn't even get a voice at the table.

Within the BCGEU, women aren't faring much better. We know that 80 percent of the women in union positions are in the bottom 15 pay grades. There are 30 pay grades: 80 percent of women are in the bottom 15, and 60 percent of them are in the bottom four. So throughout government service we have a consistent pattern of women at lower positions. Whether they're union positions or government positions, women are not represented in decision-making positions.

The ministries have been asked to prepare action plans. They all have women's advisers who are supposed to be addressing these problems within their ministries. Over the years action plans have been prepared, and I will give credit to ministries who I think have prepared very good action plans. Those are the ministries of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. They both have proactive types of plans. But those are only two ministries, and I haven't counted up all the ministries. Most of the action plans that have been prepared — and are still being prepared — are full of nice, warm fuzzies about how we're going to get women more involved in the ministry. They involve having a women's committee that gets together, they may have a lecturer come in and talk about something that's deemed to be a women's issue, but they never get down to dealing with the cold, hard realities of what is keeping women from taking their rightful place in government service.

If we're going to have something concrete, something more than having somebody appointed, then the minister is going to have to start thinking about

[ Page 10580 ]

making sure that ministries have funding to have a women's adviser as a full-time or at least a half-time position so we don't have women trying to be coordinators within their ministries off the comers of their desk. I understand there are now four full-time coordinators in various ministries, but we still have a long way to go.

We have a long way to go particularly in changing the attitudes within those ministries. I would suspect that where we have the full-time coordinators, we've already won the attitude battle with senior male management in that ministry. Where we do not have the full-time coordinators is where we still have a lot of work to do. That's where simply coordinating or facilitating or lobbying or whatever is not going to be good enough, because it will come down to lip-service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, your time under standing orders has expired.

MS. MARZARI: I think the discussion around the administrative structure of the women's ministry is an important one. I'd like my colleague to continue her questioning.

MS. CULL: I have a number of specific questions that I'd like to put to the minister. I'd like to know specifically what the Women's Programs group is doing to change the situation that I've described. Are there now going to be requirements for gender parity on selection panels? Has there been consideration of doing a search for women candidates for management positions in all ministries, as opposed to simply allowing those who apply to be interviewed? Is there a comprehensive across-government review of all panels to determine whether women applied and whether they were interviewed and short-listed and then hired, and then perhaps some follow-up to determine why women were not selected, so that we can truly address the reasons why women are not advancing?

I'd like to know whether there is a target for women in government in terms of a goal that the minister is trying to achieve. I think the problem we have had over the years, which Rosalie Abella pointed out quite clearly, is that as long as we continue to talk about improving, without setting a number and a time-limit, we're not going to be able to even measure progress towards it. I would like to know about the minister's targets, time-limits and plans. I know that the advisory committee has recommended that.

I'd like to know why the BCGEU women have been barred from being women's advisers. Over the years, the most senior woman in some ministries was still a union employee. At the time, the question was put to the then deputy minister, Isabel Kelly, and a satisfactory answer was never received for why the women in the ministry could not select a woman who happened to be union as opposed to management to be their women's adviser.

I'd also like to know whether the ministry has done any analysis ministry-wide to determine what the barriers are to women's advancement. I'm aware that a number of ministries hired consultants in the past who did surveys of all staff in the ministry — not just women — and determined what the barriers were to women advancing within their ministries. But I'd like to know whether there has been any provincewide analysis yet of this matter. If not, are there plans to undertake one? I'll stop there with my questioning and give the minister a moment to answer.

[11:45]

HON. MRS. GRAN: There were some interesting comments. I guess I have to ask my own question. I'll just ask it and leave it open. Constantly, whenever the word "union" is mentioned with regard to the advancement of women, the opposition becomes very defensive, and that worries me. It worries me, because it shows an inherent unfairness in that party.

I think that we should be very careful about defending unions, especially when talking about the BCGEU. I haven't lived in British Columbia very long — only about 35 years. I don't remember a woman ever being the head of that union. I remember, not long after becoming the minister, getting a letter from the current head of the BCGEU — a very political letter; an incredible letter to come from someone who, I would think, has more problems to deal with in his own union than little, niggly political things. I would be very cautious in being defensive about unions on that side of the House — particularly the female members of the NDP. You must recognize that the same barriers exist in unions as in other places. So if you really care about and are committed to the advancement of women, then don't be afraid, don't be fearful, for your political careers. Be open and criticize the unions. It will be more helpful to women than anything else you could do.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You can be as critical of me as you like; I have very broad shoulders. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) wants to know if he can criticize me; certainly he can.

I want to answer the member's questions about the women's advisers. Yes, many of them are being funded and are full-time employees — in my own ministry, for example. But the member is wrong about the selection process. There is no rule or regulation that says you can't belong to a union, so the member is quite wrong about that. Some ministries have done a better job than others; that is a fact. There are lots of reasons for that. Some ministers and some deputies have taken a more active part in the advancement of women.

HON. MR. SMITH: Name names.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I won't name names. The Attorney-General says that because he knows he has

[ Page 10581 ]

done a good job. He's waiting for me to blow his horn, but I'm going to leave that up to him. Statistics are now being collected by the ministries on their action plans that have been implemented in getting more women into management in government.

I think it's fair to point out, though, that in this government's mandate the numbers of women in management have increased substantially. It's not where I would want to see it or where you would want to see it, but it has improved greatly. I think that the Premier deserves a lot of credit for that and for the attitude that he has toward equality in government — and in the private sector, but right now we're dealing with government. Although I'm not happy with the situation as it exists, it's certainly heartening to know that we have made some progress.

MS. CULL: That is precisely the kind of warm fuzzy answer that we've been getting in this province with respect to women's issues for the last six or eight years; I can't remember when Women's Programs was first started. All it's saying is that we're making progress, we should feel better, things are improving— "You've come a long way, baby" kinds of arguments.

The reason women have been increasing in the civil service is that once again society has been leading the government. It certainly isn't the other way around, that government has been leading society.

What we're talking about here is a very important minister in government who could have a very important mandate and have an incredible impact on our society by taking a leadership role and by using the government service as a model of what could be achieved in improving the lot of women in the province, instead of just talking about how we've come a long way and how there's been some improvements in numbers. We're not going to see an awful lot of progress until the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs starts insisting not just that we have some ministries and some senior management who do a good job but that all ministries and all senior management give the attention to this issue that both the 1986 report and the 1990 report requested.

We talk about some of the ministries that have done a good job. Yes, as I said earlier, the Attorney-General ministry is one of them. But that is primarily because the women's adviser at the time, Donna Levin, put her heart and soul into trying to achieve some progress in that ministry. If that's what we're going to have to rely on — individual women in ministries without any leadership from government — then I'm glad, because we've got a lot of good people out there, but it's still going to be painstakingly slow.

I want to come back to the comments that the minister made when she started her reply to me talking about the unions. It's interesting that over the last couple of months, as I've observed debate in the House, particularly when we talk about pay equity, the members on that side of the House go into an immediate attack on unions and start pointing their fingers at the unions as being responsible for the problems that women bear.

Madam Minister, I was a local chair, I was a component chair, a woman is secretary-treasurer of the ministry and a woman heads the Canadian Labour Congress. Women have an active role in trade unions. There are certainly a lot of problems, and they are part of the societal problems that women face, but it is simply not good enough to have the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs sitting over there laughing and attacking unions and saying: "Well, we can't do anything about it because the unions aren't onside." It's simply not true, Madam Minister. The responsibility of your ministry is to be proactive on behalf of women whether they are in unions or not.

When it comes to the progress that's been experienced by women in government service over the years, I don't think we've come very far. The minister didn't answer all of the questions that I asked, so I'd like to remind her of one question that I particularly would like to have an answer to. I would like to know whether the ministry has done any analysis to determine what barriers there are to women across the government service, not just in individual ministries, where I have seen some of the reports. Is there now a government-wide analysis of what barriers women face within the government?

HON. MRS. GRAN: A lot of time has been spent talking about women's advisers. I have had one meeting with all of the women's advisers in government and recognized a lot of very dedicated people who would not like to see their jobs demeaned as the member from Oak Bay has just done. She has essentially said that their work is meaningless, and they may as well not even bother with what they are doing. I think that's the kind of attitude that creates problems for women, rather than erasing the problems.

That member is so embroiled in the union concept of everything. She has told us now that she was involved in the union. I guess I have to ask this question. If the member for Oak Bay was involved in the BCGEU, perhaps she can tell me when the union last put on the table higher wages for women at the lower end. To my knowledge — and I've done some research on this — that was never...,

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: She asks the questions, and you're supposed to answer.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The first member for Vancouver East says I'm not allowed to ask questions, but the Speaker isn't in the House today, we have a Chairman who's easy to get along with, and I can ask all the questions I want. You don't have to answer them, but I can ask them. I have rights just like you do; not as many, but I certainly have some.

[ Page 10582 ]

I agree wholeheartedly that government needs to provide the leadership. There's no question. That's what this ministry is all about, and that's what government is all about. We've demonstrated that with the pay equity program which will be coming out. I know that you'll all be pleased to support and that you'll be so proud of me that you'll stand up in public and say: "Look what she did. That woman really did a lot of good things for the women in British Columbia." But no, you won't; you'll whine and snivel and say that I've done nothing.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, you will. I know you will, but I know inside your hearts you know what the truth is. You know that I'm having an impact. You also know that the women of this province are very supportive of this ministry and don't like very much the things that are being said by some of the female members of the NDP. They don't expect anything better from the male members, but they do expect something better from the female members. I would just simply say to you that being warm and fuzzy isn't all that bad. Being warm and fuzzy is good. It means that we can work together in harmony and love for the good of the people we all represent.

On that note, I'd like to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Veitch moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.