[ Page 10583 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Tree-fruit industry. Mr. Harcourt –– 10583

Comptroller-general's report on member for Omineca. Mr. Miller –– 10584

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.

I 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.

I 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.

It 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

To 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.

In 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

My 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.

At 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.

I 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.

In 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.

It 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.

I 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.

To 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.

In 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 — if 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 ]

we all know, that is a very serious problem in our society and one that is either becoming a more open problem or a larger problem; I'm not sure which.

Violence against women is of huge and growing proportions in our society, with some obvious and horrible consequences. Some 97 women across the country died in so-called "domestic disputes" last year, and of course there were the 14 women in Montreal. Apart from that, enormous numbers of women are beaten and abused every day. I'm not sure exactly what the statistics are; I think It's something like 40. percent of women who will suffer from violence at some point in their lives, many in a very ongoing and debilitating way.

Of course, one of the ways to deal with that are women's safe houses or transitional houses. The government, as I said earlier, cut core funding for those houses in '76, 1 believe, and there appears to be no desire on the part of the government to continue to have core funding for those houses so they can focus on providing women with their needs on a long-range plan. I would suggest that that would be a most worthwhile investment, and I hope the government will reconsider it.

I have some concern for — and I hope that the minister is advocating for — things like counselling services for women. At the transition house in my community the need is double the supply of beds, and we're having a great deal of difficulty getting enough funding to even provide operating funds for the space available.

As well as those problems — which the minister will hear more on from me shortly — the entire mental health program in my constituency has been to all effects closed down. The day care psychiatry is gone; Contact House is gone; a lot of the counselling services are disappearing. What's left is fee-for-service counselling at the rate of $50 or $60 an hour. Obviously a women who has been beaten or abused doesn't have access to funds or to a secure job, in most cases, to pay that price.

I would like to ask the minister what plans her ministry has made to deal with the subject of violence against women, both in funding for transitional homes — there is obviously a huge need — and in lobbying for better mental health services for women, and also in terms of education, which I think is the key way to change — education in the public school system, public education. There are all sorts of ads on TV. I think some $26 million is spent on government advertising each year. I would hope that the minister has some plans or policies about allocating some of that money at least to the 54 percent of women in this province, many of whom are experiencing violence, and to provide counselling, as you suggested, for men who are abusers, which is a most worthwhile suggestion, and for public education, both in all of our formal educational systems and through popular media or brochures or whatever.

Would the minister please enlighten the House as to her plans on that.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I talked earlier about violence against women. It is one of the four major issues that have been identified by the women in this province. It's an issue that everyone needs to be very concerned about.

The member is quite right when she talks about attitudes. I talked about attitudes earlier today, and some members on the opposite side of the House laughed. But attitudes have a lot to do with violence against women — attitudes that start when they're very young, some of them adopted at home, in homes where there is a lot of violence, where the mother is not treated fairly and in fact is abused.

Government can do a lot in terms of leadership and education, but the responsibility for education and the changing of attitudes lies with all of us. It lies with all elected people and with educators in school. I'm afraid that we are still stereotyping boys and girls in schools, and slotting them into areas where we expect they should go because of their gender.

The violence aspect is interesting. Is there more violence now than there was before, or is it just being talked about more? I think the answer is yes to both: there is more, and we are talking about it more.

At one of my forums, the last forum I had, which happened to be in my own constituency.... Each forum had an interesting atmosphere and environment. In Langley two teenagers participated for the first time, a male and a female. The girl talked about date rape in the schools, and how there was not the help in the schools that they needed. The young girl that she was talking about was afraid to go to her parents or to the police, and she had gone to a counsellor, but the counsellor was not able to deal with that situation, and rightly so. The young man that stood up ended up crying when he talked about the violence that some of his friends directed toward their girlfriends, and later on told me that what he was talking about was one particular instance of date rape.

I don't know if we're talking about just attitudes that are adopted over the years, or if we're talking about the lifestyles that we live. Pornography, television — it doesn't matter where you go in our society, you see violence, and a lot of that violence is directed at women.

The sexual connotations are still there. Classy advertisements for cigarettes, booze and all kinds of things give the impression that women are sexual objects and that in some ways it's terrific to be macho if you're a man, and a woman is to be dominated.

I don't know if we have come very far in our society in recognizing that it is not appropriate to abuse a woman or a child. I think that women, when they talk about their own problems, have always to talk about the problems of children, because no one talks about children. They don't vote; they're not a power group. But if women do not bring children with them in their fight for equality and fair treatment, children will be left even more defenceless than they are today.

So I think when we talk about violence against women.... At the Status of Women conference we

[ Page 10605 ]

had quite a discussion about that. I brought up the aspect of children and how we had to include it in everything that we talked about. It's extremely important for us to do that.

I want to read for the member the declarations from that conference. I want to share also with you that it was the first time, since 1982 when the conferences began, that the majority of ministers were women. In the past the majority of ministers were men, and the discussions were very limited and very short.

The discussions were very deep and very meaningful, and at times very emotional. I'll share the declarations with you:

"Violence against women is a crime and punishable under the law. Women are entitled to live in a safe environment. Offenders must be held accountable for their behaviour. The elimination of violence against women requires a response including prevention, public education, services and enforcement of the law. Every individual, community and government in Canada must do everything possible to help the women, children and families affected by violence. We must all work together to achieve a society free from violence."

I'm proud of those declarations. They came after long discussions and have gone back with each minister to their provinces to be implemented. We will be embarking, in the very near future, on an education program to assist women with violence in their lives.

[5:00]

MS. PULLINGER: I appreciate the minister's talk on violence against women. I don't think there's much disagreement about the fact that it exists, the fact that it affects children, and the fact that we must also address the needs of children, such as the growing child poverty in this province, which I did address in a statement on child poverty last year.

The minister talked about attitude changes. She suggested at one point that she wasn't sure exactly what we were talking about when we were talking about violence against women. I would suggest that we are talking about deeply embedded systemic discrimination against women, and that's going to require enormous attitude changes. To do that effectively, we're going to have to structure the means of that attitude change.

What I was hoping the minister would tell me would be that she's actually taking some steps, for instance, to include women's issues in the education system. Right now you can go to school for 17 years in this province and have absolutely no understanding of women's issues when you emerge at the end. It's simply not addressed unless someone chooses to address it. As the minister herself suggested, there is still systemic discrimination in our education system

There's also systemic discrimination in our justice system. It's been very clear in the last year that there's a need for education of police, judges and those in the legal system as a whole. Many of the laws themselves are discriminatory towards women or don't address the needs of women.

1 was hoping we would hear from the minister that she has made some plans or undertaken a commitment to use our education system and use her power as a minister to address those very clear discrepancies in the way the system works between men and women and to undertake an education program. The government has undertaken a massive public education program against drug and alcohol abuse. I would suggest that government might think about undertaking a massive education program against violence against women and children.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I just said that.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister says she just said that. But I'm asking for what the minister has decided to do, and there is nothing coming back except a very interesting discussion of the issue of violence against women, which we all know is a problem.

I would like to address just two more issues. One is education for women. We know that not only is the education system a means of either promoting discrimination or promoting equality, but access to education in our society is becoming increasingly important as we move into an information age and a technological age. At the moment many women, because of their disadvantaged economic position and for other reasons, are unable to participate fully in our society because of a lack of education.

One of the problems I have identified in my riding and seen through my own experience as a mature student in the secondary education system is the fact that government loans, for instance, for secondary education don't consider women's dual role as homemakers and students. They don't consider the fact that a woman who goes to school full-time and has children is working two full jobs. There should be allowances for part-time attendance so you can deal with one and a half jobs instead of two jobs.

Many programs delivered in my community and in others, from what I understand.... Women have access to very limited post-secondary education programs — in fact, the kind of programs that increase women's participation in what is known as the pink-collar ghetto. They stream women into low-paying jobs. Nothing more than a two-year program is available for women, and choices are very limited.

So there's the issue of loans and the issue of limited choices for women. There's also the issue of children in women's lives and the structure of the post-secondary education system, which doesn't allow for them. It's essentially created and run for individuals, because it comes from a male history. It was a male institution, and now it's changing. Obviously there's a need for child care, for flexibility and for all sorts of structural changes, because it's a structural problem. I wonder if the minister can tell me what steps she has taken or decided to undertake to address those very serious issues facing women.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to make some brief comments, particularly when I hear that member say that nothing is being done in the education system

[ Page 10606 ]

about women's issues. I have a little difficulty accepting that, as the member has been in this House and recognizes that the new School Act was very carefully crafted to be gender-neutral. The very concept of the new directions in education focuses on consideration and respect for individuals, not only because of their differences but also because of their common characteristics.

The programs in the schools have changed dramatically in the last few years, so it is no longer just the purview of males to be in shop courses and females to be in home economics courses. It is a mix. It's no longer dependent'on sex as to whether they take any of the courses. There's still freedom of choice allowed.

Perhaps more can be done, but I think that what has to be appreciated is that it takes a bit of time to change those attitudes that people were talking about. They are changing, and a great deal is being done to change them in the "Learning for Living" curriculum. A great deal is happening about what should be done. The issues about consideration — I don't want to say tolerance, because I don't think that applies — for the role and the feelings of others....

Very briefly, I think the member said something about there being no consideration of access to education. Well, maybe I could accept it if that member said that it's not adequate, but in many of the schools now there are programs for young mothers, single mothers, pregnant girls. There are special programs to help them as well as to enable them to get their education.

I was at an awards ceremony last night where one young lady had a child. Accommodation had been provided for the child and the mother to attend school, There are now several of these programs in a variety of districts. They may not get the publicity that criticism gets, but there are many programs making it possible in many schools. In the school that I was at last night, they now have a classroom, with computers, math teachers and English teachers available, that runs from nine in the morning until nine at night to accommodate the flexible schedules that mothers need.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.)

I don't know whether that member is aware of it or not, but about two years ago we made the accommodation in the public education secondary school system that if a person of whatever age — it used to be strictly adult education — is taking a secondary school course, they are accommodated as a secondary full-time equivalent student, without having to pay fees for the course. So quite a bit has been done.

Certainly the flexible scheduling has made it possible for people to attend school on their schedule. In our distance education programs we are making it possible for people to complete courses and to upgrade themselves. Many of the people taking those courses are mothers who can't leave home, but the courses can come into their home through television, through the Knowledge Network and through regional correspondence courses. A lot of people are taking advantage of those courses.

I don't know when we will reach the ideal point of accommodating the needs of the women who can't just drop their families and come to the schools to accommodate the schools. A great deal is being done to have the schools adjust to the schedules that these people need. So I felt I had to at least point out that a great deal is happening and we are looking for more.

I think one of the questions was: what is that member doing? In spite of all of these laudable actions that have been taken, in my opinion, that minister is never off my back as to getting more done, and it's not enough, and can something more be done? I'll tell you, as an advocate for getting the program improved and increased, we have some very interesting discussions. I say we're going as fast as we can. She keeps telling me it's not fast enough — get moving. So there is a strong advocate for women's issues in this province.

MS. PULLINGER: I am pleased. I do in fact know about the few centres that are beginning, and I commend the minister for that. That's precisely what we need to do: integrate women's two roles so that they can be parents and can pursue an education or a career or whatever at the same time. That's a good beginning and I commend that.

I'm talking about two different issues. I would hope that that trend would continue right up through the education system. You said you don't know when it will be enough, and I would suggest that it will be enough when any woman who chooses to can freely go to any level of education whether or not she has children or a partner. Then it will be enough.

The other issue is a public education issue. We need to use the system to deal head on with the issues facing women. We need to acknowledge in our school system the fact that discrimination against women — and visible minorities, for that matter, but we're dealing with women here — does indeed exist. We need to start from that point. We need to identify the fact that it is there. It's systemic, it's widespread and it manifests itself in many ways. Then we need to directly take on the issue of systemic discrimination against women, and I am suggesting that the education system ought to be used to do that at all levels. What you've done is good, but there's an awful lot more that we could do.

The other thing would be an affirmative action program so that there are role models for younger women, for girls, in the form of women in positions of authority and responsibility in the system. For what they're worth, these are some suggestions.

I have one more set of questions that I would like to ask. You have $1 million allocated for public information, for consultation and for grants and contributions. I wonder if the minister could give me (a) a breakdown of how that is allocated for those things she has identified and (b) the amount she plans to spend on advertising brochures and medals programs — all those public relations exercises.

[ Page 10607 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll have to give you a rough estimate. We have $200,000 for communication in the budget, but I'm not too worried about that figure. If we need more, it will be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not enough.

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's right. It isn't enough, and particularly it isn't enough when we embark on the education program called "Violence Against Women." That one will be expensive, and it's now being developed. The grant allocation is $500,000, which has already been expended. We've given out just about all of that money to groups around the province.

[5:15]

As an example, there's a $140,000 grant to Horizon College. 1 don't know whether you're familiar with it or not. It's a college in Vancouver. That $140,000 will allow 40 women to get their grade 12 equivalent and also to gain the confidence they need to get on with their lives. We're talking mostly about women who have been abused. They are of all age groups. Most of them are on social assistance, and the majority of them have children and are the sole support of those children. I attended the graduation ceremonies for 20 of those women on Friday. It tugs at your heartstrings to know how difficult making that decision to go to that college was for those women. I think of one woman who cried — tears of happiness — through the entire ceremony. I found out later — and I would guess her age at around my age — that she read her first book after having gone to that college. For those of us who have been able to access even primary education, it's hard to understand how difficult life is for people who are illiterate. It's even more difficult for a woman who has been abused or is being abused and has no one to help her.

So the grant program goes for those kinds of purposes. It is money well spent. I wish I had $4 million or $5 million to spend — perhaps in the future.

MS. MARZARI: Why don't you?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Here's where I want to say to the members across the way that this ministry has existed in its present form for not quite eight months. I think you're being unfair; I think a lot has been accomplished in eight months. Each time you stand up and criticize what I'm not doing, I think to myself: I don't believe that I would act that way, were I on that side of the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: You'll never know.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I hope not.

For example, when I tabled the report, the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey couldn't bring herself to say how happy she was that the report came in on time or how much she appreciated the hard work of those members. Instead, she zeroed in and carped on the same subject again.

HON. MR. SMITH: Without seeing the report.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Without seeing the report, but she was demeaning the contribution of those women. I'm having difficulty answering a lot of the questions, because they're programs that are in the process of being worked out. You're going to see more announcements and more changes for women in the next few months than you will ever believe possible. I guarantee you that.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, did you recognize me? I couldn't hear in that din there. While I'm on my feet, perhaps I'll first of all deal with the new member on this side. Was his desk transferred along with him? The furniture really takes a beating. It's also hard on the eardrums. That kind of behaviour may be acceptable somewhere, but I can understand why he was moved across the hall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are on vote 34, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Put your glasses on; you'll hear better.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should discriminate against people, even if they wear glasses — even if they're men.

I was going to ask the minister.... I was just reading the Socred paper. What is it called? The Link, I think it is. I was quite fascinated by the two pages devoted to the women's auxiliary. We're not familiar with that in our party. We don't have those. Perhaps the minister has one in her riding. I'm not certain.

HON. MRS. GRAN: No.

MR. MILLER: Oh, she doesn't.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: We already know of the support for REAL Women.

I wanted to address the....

HON. MR. VEITCH: What's the subject of this address?

MR. MILLER: I'm trying to get to it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have the opportunity to stand in their place and debate vote 34. At the moment we have the honour and pleasure of the member for Prince Rupert, who has been recognized. Will the member please continue — or start — on vote 34.

[ Page 10608 ]

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's the second standing ovation, and I think the second one I've ever received for what I am about to say.

I wanted to deal with the inequality in wages. I have some ideas about that, and I want to canvass those with the minister. First of all, I've always had the view — and I think I reflect the view of the people I work with in many areas of the province — that there's a bit of an anti-union bias on the part of the government.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to advance a view here, and it will become clear. I think there is an anti-union bias. I suppose I could cite what I thought was fairly hypocritical, in that I believe the minister probably supported Bill 19, which said that we couldn't rely on union leaders, that they would manipulate their members and that we had to have a secret ballot when it came to voting on certain issues. Yet the Socred Party didn't accept that same principle when it came to voting on their leader. That seemed to strike a lot of working people as pretty hypocritical. I don't recall the minister taking part in any of those....

I want to talk about some of the things that I think could improve women's position with respect to their wages in this province. It's based on the belief that if working people have the opportunity to organize and have some collective strength, then their lot will improve. Certainly the statistics I'm going to cite bear that out.

I have worked primarily in industrial unions. One of the features of industrial unions is equality for the jobs performed. There is also a concerted effort by trade unions — not just the one I was a member of, but others — to make sure that job opportunities are just as available to women as they are to men. But one thing is clear. at least in the industrial sector, there is equal pay. There is no discrimination in jobs where there are unions. I agree that it is not the definition of equal pay for work of equal value, but it is non-discriminatory, and I think that's important.

I was in my office and heard some comments about the activities of some unions. I would note that it was the IWA that organized the homemakers in my constituency. I would also point out — and the minister is probably aware — that the homemakers are greatly underpaid and the program is greatly underfunded. I'm not going to blame her for that in its entirety, but it seems that you should examine the real facts before you start to get on, because in this case a trade union has organized the workers so that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, I've been waiting anxiously for you to discuss vote 34 The minister is responsible for women's programs and not for labour. When you're dealing with union legislation and equal pay, that is the Ministry of Labour.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm leading up to the question I wanted to deal with about the inequality in the wage sector between women.... The Ministry of Advanced Education and job Training put out a report in March 1989, "Women in the B.C. Labour Market, " and....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The ministry that the current minister has now inherited.

It shows that there has been a gradual increase in the percentage of women's earnings as a percentage of fully employed men's earnings. We start in the 1970s, where that percentage was about 56 or 57 percent, and move up to 1988, where it had increased to about 66.7 percent. Then we turn to page 16 of the report, which illustrates the difference, just in women's wages, between the union and the nonunion sector.

Just going through the list, we find that in the managerial and professional category, union average weekly earnings were $445 and non-union $315. In the clerical section, union workers $363; non-union $256. In the sales sector, $353 union; $193 non-union.

If we look at the differences, going down through these categories in the managerial and professional category, we see that where women have the opportunity to join collectively in a trade union they have average earnings of $130 more per week than the non-union sector. In the clerical sector, where they have a union they have wages of $107 more than the non-union sector, in sales, $160 per week; in service, $150 per week; in processing, $197 per week.

The figures illustrate that where women have the opportunity to form trade unions and have that collective strength, they have a much greater opportunity to advance their wage position and working conditions. That holds true whether we're talking about men or women, but the figures illustrate that it's true for women, who in the non-union sector are considerably below the average weekly earnings of men.

In fact, I think — although I don't have the numbers and I haven't worked it out — if you took the non-union sector out of this report, you would find that women's earnings as a percentage of fully employed men's earnings were probably higher. It gets to my point that the government has brought about a fundamental change in terms of women's ability to organize collectively. I'd like to hear the minister's views on that. She clearly has some views; I heard them earlier. The changes to legislation make it harder for women to organize into trade unions. It makes it harder for them to deal collectively with their employer.

[5:30]

We had the scenario not that long ago of a bank shutting down in Houston, British Columbia, because of unionization. The minister, I'm sure, in the time she's been in her portfolio, has had an opportunity to study this matter. I would like to see if she shares my opinion that women, given the opportunity to have a

[ Page 10609 ]

trade union, have a better chance of raising their standard of living and having more protection against the employer.

Following that, I'd like to know her views on the fundamental changes that were made in labour legislation which allowed employers a greater right to interfere in organizing drives and to use the kinds of intimidation tactics that make it very difficult. The minister must appreciate how difficult It is to organize in some sectors in this country.

Let's deal with real discrimination. Let's deal with real legislation that this government has an opportunity to table on the floor of this House and deal with, and give women the opportunity to organize collectively to improve their position.

The minister, who had all kinds of opinions a short while ago, obviously has absolutely no opinions on the position that women find themselves in — unable to organize collectively, to form trade unions and to bargain for working conditions and wages. It is a real shame that the minister will not rise and utter even one single word about this subject.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to yield to the minister if she wishes to rebut any of the suggestions.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The only comment I want to make is that I think the member has come in from wherever he was and doesn't understand how the union aspect got into this. I think we've gone way overboard and into someone else's ministry. How it started was just talking about where the unfairness exists and why, and the responsibility of all levels — including unions. It had nothing to do with legislation to protect anyone.

The one comment I want to make to the member for Prince Rupert is that when I went around the province, I went to all of the colleges and talked to a lot of women training in non-traditional roles, and in each and every case.... In particular, I remember an ironworker; there aren't many female ironworkers. She cannot get a job, because she can't get anywhere near the union hall; they won't let her in. Sure, she would earn the same money as a man if she could get into the union.

All we're saying is that this isn't a union versus the private sector. It's a matter of recognizing that discrimination exists everywhere, even in unions.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister agree that women have a greater opportunity to advance their position...? The minister seems to want to do that because she's talking — and even had television commercials — about pay equity. Would the minister not agree, based on the numbers prepared by her own ministry, that women have a far greater opportunity, and would be better off being represented by a trade union than not?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, we can talk about the ironworker if you want. I didn't want to talk about ironworkers; I wanted to talk about women having the opportunity to be represented by a trade union.

Does the minister not feel it's part of her mandate to try to advance the cause of women? Would she not agree that the figures I cited earlier are clearly discriminatory? That $130 difference....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Now the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) has decided that the minister can rise and respond. A moment ago the Attorney-General told the minister she couldn't rise and respond. Who's the real minister here? Who's the puppet? Who's pulling the string, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. As I stated earlier, all members will have the opportunity to stand in this debate if they remain silent until they are recognized. In the meantime, the member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. MILLER: I am trying to elicit the minister's views on this very important subject. Clearly the figures demonstrate that women are better off when they are represented by trade unions. Clearly the legislation that's in place in British Columbia makes it more difficult for women to organize into trade unions.

I would expect the minister to have an opinion on that. I would think the minister would want to see that kind of difficulty removed, to give them the opportunity to organize into trade unions. That's really what we're trying to get at. In these questions, we're trying to get at where the minister is at.

HON. MRS. GRAN: We can agree to disagree on whether or not it's best to belong to a union.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have an opinion: women are individuals. I don't know where that member's statistics came from....

MR. MILLER: They came from a report produced by your ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The statistics today show that where women are making their mark and being extremely successful is in small business, as entrepreneurs. They are doing a better job, having fewer bankruptcies and getting a lot further than men doing the same jobs have done in the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: You're attacking men.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I don't want to attack men. The first member for Vancouver East says I shouldn't

[ Page 10610 ]

attack men. Do you mean verbally? I would never, ever abuse a man.

Back to small business and women. I believe sincerely that women should have the same choices. If belonging to a union is what they want to do, then that's terrific. But I would never stand here and say that's the best way for a woman to go. That's a choice that they should be allowed to make, including that ironworker who has been shut out of all of the unions in this province and has not been allowed to practise the trade she worked so hard to obtain in the first place.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to recognize that there are inequities everywhere, including in unions. I haven't heard one person on that side of the House admit that there might even be a teeny, weeny little inequity in unions. Come on — get up and do it. Get your credibility back.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, I suppose, that the minister cites small business, because federal statistics indicate that the average income for women in small business is $6,000 a year. If she thinks that's doing great, then I tell you, she's got her priorities all mixed up.

The minister said that women should be able to make a choice. She must understand that most women — unorganized, in low-paying jobs — are subject to every vicious attack an employer can use to prevent them from forming a union. If she doesn't understand that, she doesn't understand anything Every vicious tactic that employers — male or female — can use to prevent unionization will be used, and they're aided and abetted by legislation that you voted for. You justify your position in those terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The need, or otherwise, of legislation is not subject for debate under the estimates of the minister. We're on vote 34.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the minister fails to understand and appreciate the enormity of the numbers I cited earlier, and that is very disappointing for women in this province, who I think are being led to believe that this minister is actually going to take up their cause. She shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the real issues and real discrimination that takes place in our society.

Let's talk again — because it's worth repeating — about the wage gap between union and non-union women in this province. The minister should reflect on why there is a $130-per-week difference between union and non-union women in managerial and professional occupations. Why is there a $107-per-week difference when a woman happens to be unionized in the clerical section versus non-unionized? Why is there a $160-a-week difference between union and non-union women working in sales? Does the minister not understand that working women and other people can advance their cause, given the opportunity to do so and the collective strength that your legislation seeks to break?

That legislation does more to undermine the position of women in this province than any other single piece of legislation. If you don't understand that, Madam Minister, you have been living somewhere with your head in the clouds.

MS. MARZARI: In the beginning of this debate, we asked the minister what her mandate was. Through the course of this debate, we have heard from the minister that on the matter of choice, she does not have a mandate. On education issues and interministerial coordination for job training, she has not heard of the four-corners agreement. On health issues, we have not heard anything about the minister's mandate. On day care and child care, we know that the minister is interested in new spaces and is interested in making announcements about new spaces, but we know that the basic power is still within Education, Health and Social Services. The minister is nowhere near being able to push day care policy around in this province.

But what steals the show — and the ultimate indignity — was that when asked about family violence and wife-battering and asked by the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) what she could possibly do in terms of bringing money and analyses to the fact that so many women are beaten in the native community and throughout our total community, her answer had to do with the fact that violence is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. The analysis that goes into that kind of statement makes me really think about the capacity of this minister to understand the nature of the job that she has and her capacity to understand that women in our society have a long way to go to deal with the violence, the inequities and the injustices that permeate everyday living in our society and that are most violently apparent when we hear about child sex abuse and about wife assault.

When I think of a response that suggests that violence is a natural component of a free society, my glib response is: is it any different in a non-free society? In a society that is centralist, communist, socialist or East European, do you think the statistics are any different, Madam Minister? I would doubt it. I would let the minister know that the business of beating and assaulting women is not confined to our society. It has nothing to do with freedom. It is not a price we must pay for freedom.

A letter I received on June 8 from Sandra Carey says the following:

"On September 7, 1989, in Surrey Provincial Court, I listened in horror to a man convicted on two counts of assaulting me and then handed a $500 fine. It was pointed out to me by Crown counsel that I was just a witness to them, not a victim. He further assured me that he had bent over backwards for me just to lay these charges. After the sentencing, a different Crown counsel advised me not to complain about the sentence: 'We were lucky to get a guilty verdict. We shouldn't be seen to be questioning the judge's decision.'

"The government spends what they perceive is an excessive amount on health and social services, for treatment and housing for victims of violence. The

[ Page 10611 ]

burden on the taxpayer is increasing steadily due to this slap-on-the-wrist policy followed by the courts.

"In a civilized society, one would assume that both sexes have the right to live a free and safe life. This no longer applies in Canada.... I object strenuously to this lenient sentencing that is employed all too frequently.

"Eagerly awaiting your response." The letter was also sent to the minister.

[5:45]

Madam Minister, your mandate is to coordinate service. We have investigated your ability and your mandate to coordinate services in the area of choice, which is a woman's major area, her foundation stone. To assert her freedom and to assert her sanctity of person - her personhood - a woman needs choice, not criminalization. You have opted out of that debate.

The pay equity discussion in this House turned into an attack by you on unions and on the women on this side of the House. That is what it turned into -not a mandate, not a series of goals and timetables, not an analysis of how we're going to proceed with pay equity, but an attack on trade unions, which have supported women. The statistics quoted in your own report show us that unionized women make one third more than they would in a non-unionized situation.

I'll now move to this last area of violence against women: women abused as children, one in four; raped before they turn 20, one in 17; left, very often deserted by their husbands, one in three, perhaps one in four; assaulted inside marriage, one in ten. These statistics have been developed by our own federal government and our provincial governments and are credible statistics. They've been with us over ten years.

Your mandate does not stretch very far in the other areas that you have carved out for yourself as minister for women. Where does your mandate take you in this crucial area of violence against women and children? How far does it carry you?

I ask this question because I have a package of press releases in front of me. These are press releases issued by government over the last few months.

One says: "Community Program to Reduce Wife Abuse" — $14,000 from Women's Programs for a program in the Victoria area. That's your ministry.

The second one, on June 6: "Social Services and Housing Minister...Announce $1.4 Million for Transition Houses" — in conjunction with you, but the money to be pushed through Social Services.

May 10: a $150,000 project to coordinate five projects. This was put out by the Attorney-General. Your name is not mentioned on it. A wife assault coordination program.

June 12: "Sexual Abuse Interventions Project Targets Vulnerable Groups. Victoria. A $3 million interministry sexual abuse interventions project is being launched to improve the standard of help...." Now there's the big money. There's a $3 million project. Heaven knows it's not enough; we could spend $300 million on sex abuse, on wife assault and on child abuse.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: I'd rather spend that kind of money on child care, actually, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

We're talking $3 million in this one. The ministers involved are Health, Social Services and Housing, Education, Attorney-General, Labour and Consumer Services, Solicitor-General and Native Affairs. The women's minister is not mentioned in this $3 million project at all.

In the last few months I've done a number of researches on child abuse, wife assault, sex and violence, sexual crimes and violence against women. There are questions that need to be asked. These are my questions to you. Are you asking these questions? Are you asking the Attorney-General: "Are you going to make a difference in terms of increasing the statute of limitations on when a child's testimony and disclosure is allowed? Will you make it longer than two years?" Are you asking the Attorney-General if he's going to push back the 1972 cutoff time when a woman is no longer allowed to remember that she was sexually abused and get compensation for it? Are you asking the Attorney-General to make the courts child-safe when it comes time for a child to disclose to the court?

Are you asking for an interministerial committee? Are you chairing that committee and taking a frontline, purpose role on that committee to make sure that the interministerial committee is actively preserving and protecting the interests of battered women and abused children? Are you in charge there? Are you taking the foremost coordinating role there?

Are you starting to build with the Health ministry the programs that have to be developed for the abuse of elders? Those are mostly women who are very often in nursing care and need special attention, special programs and maybe special legislation.

Are you working with Health around issues of child abuse in the Children's Hospital to make sure that proper disclosures are made?

Are you developing a database on how many children are hurt and how many women are assaulted? Or are we simply throwing more money at the problem with five or six uncoordinated programs, which seems to be the case here?

So, Madam Minister, as with everything else I've asked today, I'm asking you to comment on your ministry's role and your perceived mandate around this last, most crucial — along with choice and income security — question of violence. I'm asking you what your mandate is in that area, and what you intend to do with your budget in the area of violence against women.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, speaking to this vote, the member who just spoke referred to a whole range of questions in relationship to what has been done with the Attorney-General. I think I can answer that very well. Perhaps I can answer in a way that the minister, who quite frankly is....

[ Page 10612 ]

MR. MILLER: Point of order. I appreciate the desire of the Attorney to get up and speak in this House, but I didn't realize that the estimates of the minister we're dealing with allowed the Attorney-General to get up and start answering questions about the operation of his ministry. I think we should keep it in order here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has a valid point but, if I recall correctly, the member for Point Grey asked whether the minister had been talking to the Attorney-General. Possibly that opens up the floodgates, you might gay, to have an appropriate response from the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm frankly appalled that the member for Prince Rupert would try to stifle democratic debate and discussion in this House. It doesn't surprise me, coming from the socialist side, because I think control of thought, control of information, control of democracy and control of freedom of choice is part of their game plan.

MR. MILLER: Point of order. If the Attorney keeps spouting those platitudes, he's eventually going to start believing them himself. We're questioning the minister responsible for women's affairs, and a question was posed by my colleague from Point Grey. It would seem to me that the minister should respond to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think every member has an opportunity to stand and debate on a minister's estimates. All members of this House have the same right.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think the comment just made by the member for Prince Rupert — he referred to the minister responsible for women's affairs; it is, in fact, women's programs — disclosed better than anything that has been said this afternoon the ingrained attitude the member has towards the issue. It's better than anything I could say. Hung by the words that so quickly came from his mouth when he hasn't prepared them in his little yellow paper.

HON. MR. WITCH: Nineteenth-century rhetoric.

HON. MR. SMITH: Nineteenth-century rhetoric — that's being generous. In any event, it is the case that the question was put as to the work that is done between the minister and the office of the Attorney-General. I think that minister is an individual who doesn't spend all of her time seeking to take credit; she is, in fact, a person who lives and breathes the notion that you can achieve anything if you're not worried solely about where credit will rest. Mr Chairman, I want to tell you, this House and that member something. Most of the issues raised by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey have been raised by the minister with me. Indeed, in several of the instances, I am confident that she will see legislative redress this session.

In speaking to this issue, I want to say as well that we have had, and we continue to have, an excellent and outstanding working relationship in this ministry, which I believe is an indicator of what is going on in the other ministries as well. I can tell you that that has come about solely and exclusively as a result of the effort, work and direction put in by the minister whose estimates we are now debating. She will not say that, because she is too modest to say it. But I will stand and say it, because it is the fact and it is the case.

I can tell you something else. It would be much easier for all of us if there was less ingratitude disclosed in this House by members of the opposition and more gratitude — more of a tendency on their part not to always be ingrates but from time to time to give credit where it is due. It helps people to do their job, and I think that is something they should reflect upon.

I want to put on the record one thing before I ask the House to rise. It was asked out loud: why has no one over there said a thing today about the inherent, systemic discrimination against women within the union movement's internal hierarchy? Not a word has been said, and the question was asked: why would that be? Well, I'll tell you why. From this little headline, where the Leader of the Opposition promised to get rid.... He's committed to getting rid of Bill 19. He was speaking to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and in response, their spokesman said: "We should be voting in our interest in providing the political funds to ensure our interests are enshrined in legislation." And I further quote: "I believe every dollar spent getting the likes of Mike Harcourt elected will yield $10 in our treasury." Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you the answer. The answer is in these words. That's why you haven't heard anything. It's called payment of the bill, payment of the debt. Money talks. Money talks when it comes to selling future legislation on behalf of special interest groups and the NDP socialists. That's what it is: ten for one up front — not even a credit card. Money talks, my friend. That's the issue: money talks.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourn for this evening, I will remind all members that we will continue the estimates of the Minister of Government Management Services tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.