Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992

Volume 4, Number 11

[ Page 2431 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the honour of reaffirming that order-in-council No. 845 has proclaimed June 6 to 14 as Tennis Week in British Columbia. It is particularly appropriate that sitting in the gallery today is the president of the South Cowichan Lawn and Tennis Club, Mr. Greg Carter. You should be aware that this unique tennis club is nestled among the ancient oaks in the Cowichan Valley on some donated farmland, which has to be used in perpetuity for these grass courts. This is the oldest club in Canada, probably the second-oldest in the world, missing Wimbledon's establishment two or three years prior to that.

The current interest in this proclamation and the reason that I'm bringing up this splendid facility is that the South Cowichan club will be hosting the annual Press Gallery-Legislative Assembly Tennis Tournament on June 20. You should know that the contest is one between the fine, sportsmanlike players on the Legislative Assembly team and the press gallery, who are known affectionately as the "scrum of the earth." Modesty prevents me from mentioning who has won the Speaker's trophy, but it has been in the exclusive possession of one team since the inception of this tournament; but there are rumours around that the press gallery have been practising five hours a day to try and remedy that situation on June 20.

Would the members of the Legislature please extend a warm welcome to the host from South Cowichan, Mr. Carter.

Hon. T. Perry: I'd like to invite members of the House to welcome Mrs. Mary Potts of the great state of Nebraska in the neighbouring United States of America, who is accompanied today by her son, my ministerial assistant, Randall Garrison.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two people who represent local government in a remarkable way in British Columbia. I refer to Joyce Harder, who is the current president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and Richard Taylor, who is the executive director of the UBCM. They are here today having meetings with me -- in particular, referring to a piece of legislation that I will be introducing very soon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my pleasure today to welcome a good friend from Victoria, Mr. Phil Fawcett, who is hosting a group of 11 aboriginal students and five adults, who are visiting from Old Crow in the Yukon. I can't resist mentioning that Mr. Fawcett ran as a candidate in Victoria for the New Democratic Party back in 1969, before it was fashionable -- as it is today, of course -- to run in Victoria under that label. I'd ask everyone to make him welcome.

C. Serwa: Today I'd like to introduce to the House a group of 60 grade 7 students from Westbank Elementary School. They are accompanied by a group of adults and their teacher, Mr. George Waldo. On behalf of my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton and myself, who share Mr. Waldo -- myself in the case of Westbank and my colleague representing Peachland -- I would like to say that Mr. George Waldo is the colourful mayor of the most beauteous community of Peachland.

J. Pullinger: It's appropriate that on the heels of the Tourism and Culture estimates I introduce to the House someone who has contributed a great deal toward culture, particularly for children, in this province. He's also a good friend: Mr. Eric Wilson, who's a writer of children's books in B.C. He has written a large series and continues to do so, I'm happy to say. Will the House please make Eric welcome.

B. Copping: In the gallery and touring the precincts today is a very large contingent of grade 5 students from Forest Grove Elementary. They are accompanied by their teachers: Ms. Wong, Mr. Mundie and Mr. Cawston. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX
REFORM ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1992.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This legislation contains a number of provisions relating to assessments and property taxation in the province of British Columbia -- all issues that concern those who own property in this great province. One provision restores annual assessments, which will provide taxpayers with more gradual property tax changes. Another provides for municipal averaging and phasing options, which will allow local governments to level out year over year changes in property taxes, and thus dampen the fluctuations that have affected taxpayers; it will give local government the opportunity to take care of those, in terms of assessments that often affect taxes in many municipalities.

This legislation also eliminates municipal options for a general residential flat tax and for separate tax rates on residential land and improvements. In terms of the flat tax, those seven municipalities that are currently using it will be permitted to continue until they decide not to.

Another provision of this legislation moves assessment dates to three months later in the year, which makes more efficient use of existing assessment resources. The act also provides more consistency among the mandates of assessors, courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board.

[ Page 2432 ]

I believe this legislation will be welcomed by local government.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RACETRACK PROPOSAL

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Attorney General. We in the Liberal opposition note that the Racing Commission -- which we understand to be separate and independent from the Attorney General, but nevertheless under his ministerial jurisdiction -- has essentially offered an ultimatum to Western Delta Property with respect to the provision of a one-mile racing track. This would require that the racing on the lands that would be developed would be done in perpetuity, and the tenure of the property would be maintained, should they fail to be able to maintain that service. Could the minister tell us what kind of guarantee this government would look to with respect to the provision of racing in perpetuity, and whether or not that guarantee would be something that would be documented before this House?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're at a very early stage in this exercise. As members know, earlier this year I asked the Racing Commission to report back to me on two issues, so I could report to cabinet. One is the question of a site for a thoroughbred track in the lower mainland, whether or not to pick a new site or to refurbish Exhibition Park; and secondly, to report back on the question of teletheatre wagering. They have reported on the first of those questions.

The authorization from cabinet to the Racing Commission is to meet with the proponents from Western Delta, to talk to them about the possibility of racing on their site. The conditions include that there would be no subsidy from the taxpayer for such a site, and also that the racing site itself -- not the full property that's owned by the proponents -- would be dedicated in perpetuity for thoroughbred racetrack purposes. That's at a discussion stage with Western Delta now. This happened on Friday. I don't know if they have come back to the Racing Commission or not since then. I intend to keep the House fully informed as to the progress we make on this issue. That's all I can say at this stage.

G. Wilson: Supplementary to the minister. I think the minister would agree that for a private business, whether they're running a racetrack or any other business, to be required to provide land or a site in perpetuity for said purpose regardless of the profitability is a proposition that very few would be able to maintain. The minister must recognize that this decision is going to be intrinsically tied to the operation of the track and the future dedication of the PNE site. Can the minister assure this House that essentially this government has not given an ultimatum to Western Delta Property that they know full well they can't accept, so that this government can in fact get its long arms into the racing at the track, and use the profits off that to subsidize a new and increased Pacific National Exhibition on the PNE site?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The word "ultimatum" is simply wrong. We have indicated to Western Delta that, because of their expressed interest in operating a track and their willingness to do so, we're willing to talk to them. That's simply what's going on at this stage. We do not want, in British Columbia, to have a situation where a thoroughbred track is built and operating, and then a company like Boeing comes along and buys it, as happened at Longacres. That's unacceptable to this government.

G. Wilson: Final supplementary to the Attorney General. We note, however, that there is at least one other agency -- Colony Farm -- interested in running a one-mile track which does not seem to have been given the same kind of opportunity that has been given to Western Delta. We note also that even if an agreement happened this week, the possibility of running a one-mile track could not happen until 1995. Yet the track loses its tenure on the Exhibition Park site in 1994. Could the minister share with us his thoughts and ideas on who would pick up the hundreds of thousands of dollars required in severance payments to members of the B.C. Jockey Club? What are his ideas with respect to the literally millions of dollars that would be involved in a one-year lost racing season in B.C.?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I counted four or maybe five questions there. Let me say first of all, in respect of Colony Farm, that one of the instructions I gave to the Racing Commission was that there would be no track located on agricultural land -- period. Another question relates to the expiry of the current contract. The commission is well aware of those issues and has spent considerable time in the last few months dealing with that particular issue, and had the question well in hand long in advance of the member's suggestion that it's a problem.

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Minister of Finance. Lifting the freeze on senior public servants' salaries doesn't seem to make much sense given the size of the deficit tabled by your government this year. How can this government justify opening the issue of senior public civil servants' salaries, given the fact that taxpayers in the private sector are being asked to in fact freeze or reduce their salary demands? How do you manage to justify those two positions?

Hon. G. Clark: We believe in local autonomy and local accountability. What we have tried to do is make local decision-makers accountable for their actions, and lifting the Bill 82 wage controls on the bargaining unit employees has required school boards to make the necessary adjustments. If school boards entered into 

[ Page 2433 ]

agreements which they didn't have the ability to pay, then they have to deal with the consequences of their actions, and they're doing that now.

Similarly, if we repeal Bill 82 and allow local school boards to have to deal with their senior management employees, we fully anticipate that they will deal responsibly and within their ability to pay.

J. Weisgerber: We saw what the effect was with school boards. School boards, when you cancelled the last Compensation Fairness Act, increased teachers' salaries, and we're now seeing layoffs in schools as a direct result of that. Will the minister at least agree to continue this freeze until the Korbin commission has tabled its report?

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to remind the member that he was a part of a government that set up the structure which allowed school boards to negotiate collective agreements, and it's our view that if they negotiate the collective agreements then they deal with the consequences of it. That was a structure that we inherited from the previous administration which had some problems. We are reviewing those questions, but in the meantime, if we are to have local school boards at all, then they must be held accountable for their decisions to the taxpayers in their vicinity.

We anticipate that with the kind of open disclosure of information that comes out, there will be some moral suasion applied to school boards to deal responsibly with their senior management compensation. We expect them to do so.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General has stated that the wage and benefit demands of Crown prosecutors should be referred to the Korbin commission for a decision. Can he explain to this House why Crown prosecutors making $39,000 a year should expect their salaries to be dealt with by the Korbin commission when the government is abandoning the process as it applies to senior civil servants making twice as much?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At no time have I ever indicated that the salary portion of the discussions that are now being conducted with Crown counsel should be referred to the Korbin commission. Yesterday in the hallway, in an answer to questions, I suggested that some elements of the dispute could appropriately be dealt with by the Korbin commission. I would that the Crown Counsel Association would recognize that that might be an appropriate avenue for discussion and resolution. But that did not include salary issues.

EXHIBITION PARK RACETRACK

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and follows on from what was stated by my colleague the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Can the minister tell us who has ownership and jurisdiction over the racetrack? Is it the city of Vancouver, the province of British Columbia or the track itself?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will defer this to my colleague the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is a most interesting legal question, and you can get answers on just about every side of that question, depending on which lawyer you talk to.

A. Warnke: I'll try this question once again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but if any other minister over there wants to take it, that's fine too. Perhaps this should even go to the Premier.

Prior to and during the provincial election campaign, the New Democratic Party committed itself to a full and complete consultation on the future of Exhibition Park. Can any of those ministers tell us what the timetable is for the public input into the future use of Exhibition Park?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm the minister responsible for the Pacific National Exhibition, so I assume.... I was going to make a comment about the best legal opinions money can buy, but I won't do that.

We are engaging in a discussion about the future of the PNE. The PNE board has struck a futures committee at my request. They're engaging in intensive dialogue. There are civic representatives on the PNE board as well. Obviously the key decisions are the racetrack and the coliseum. They do impact dramatically on the future of the PNE. We're working as hard as we can. The Racing Commission is working hard under tight deadlines, instructed by government to try to make a decision on the racetrack question. It seems to me that the future of the PNE will become.... The discussions and debate and community input that we envision will be clearer after decisions are made on those two key facilities.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

A. Warnke: In light of the answer that the Minister of Finance has given, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance again. Does this government favour a renewed PNE, or does it prefer returning Hastings Park to the people of that area?

Hon. G. Clark: The member has set up a potentially false dichotomy in asking me to choose between the two. We are engaging in a dialogue with the community. We want to work with the community. It's my personal view that it is possible to have a revitalized and different style of PNE and a dramatic and exciting park in the east side of Vancouver. As someone who represented that area, who still represents east Vancouver and who grew up in that area, I am acutely aware of the interests of the community, as is my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I can assure you that the decisions we make will be appropriate for the people of Vancouver. My colleagues and I are particularly proud that we will do something that will be a lasting legacy for the people of east Vancouver.

[ Page 2434 ]

NORTH AMERICAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Yesterday, regarding the major shift on the North American free trade agreement, he said that the government had been passed secret document after secret document and had been told not to discuss it with anybody. Judging from his revelation of these secret documents, it would seem that the interests of British Columbia and Canada are in grave danger. Does the minister not feel that the people of our province have a right to be aware of what is taking place? Will he now commit to tabling those documents in the House rather than hiding behind innuendo?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't really know where to begin, except to say that the documents that are given to us, as you probably know, have a stamp on them saying that this is the property of the government of Canada. I'm not going to turn the property of the government of Canada over to you and violate any oath that I might have made in the exercise of my duties. If you're asking me to break the law, the answer is no.

Presenting Petitions

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I rise to table a petition. This petition parallels one that will be delivered today to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

"The petition of the undersigned concerned citizens of the province of British Columbia, states that we are concerned with the" -- pending removal -- "of free parking at the Langdale ferry terminus of B.C. Ferries. Your petitioner respectfully requests that the hon. House pass a resolution in support of the residents of the Sunshine Coast and encourage the B.C. ferry authority to give consideration to this matter."

Motion without Notice

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FORESTS, ENERGY, MINES AND
PETROLEUM RESOURCES

Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave of the House to move a motion of referral to the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Miller: I would move that this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to examine, inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the availability of lumber to remanufacturers, and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to consider (1) the lumber supply requirements of the remanufacturing sector, and (2) barriers or impediments to increasing the supply of lumber to the remanufacturing sector; and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment or at the next following session, as the case may be, to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment; and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House the Chairman shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said committee by the House, the committee shall have the following additional powers, namely: (a) to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (b) to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session, and during any sitting of the House; (c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and (d) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee.

On the motion.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to be able to make this motion, and I think that we will have agreement in the House on the intent of the motion and the work that the committee should undertake. The remanufacturing sector -- or value-added industry, as it's sometimes referred to -- is of vital importance to the well-being and evolution of the forest industry in this province. A recent survey indicates that there are some 150 such firms in British Columbia employing some 3,500 British Columbians. These firms produce in excess of three-quarters of a billion dollars in sales.

In B.C. we have a competitive advantage in lumber remanufacturing. Much of our lumber is strong, clear and fine-grained, ideally suited for remanufacturing. No other country has a comparable quantity or quality of such fibre. The remanufacturing sector has definite possibilities for growth and expansion. Many associations and firms have stated that constraints on lumber supply is their key obstacle. More importantly, the expansion of this sector will go a long way to mitigate the economic and employment displacement that is occurring in the dimension lumber sector. It is not the only solution or by any means a panacea for the complex difficulties facing the forest industry, but it is a vital step in the right direction.

Expanding this lumber supply will require effort by the large firms who control the vast majority of sawmills in B.C. The remanufacturing sector requires small volumes of lumber, often of a special size and grade. The large firms have not always been able or willing to respond to this need.

The expansion of this sector can only be a benefit to the province. It will mean more jobs, diversification in products, markets and sizes of firms and a reduction in B.C.'s dependence on commodity lumber markets. I urge all members of this House to support this motion.

W. Hurd: The opposition certainly expresses its unqualified support for the work of this particular standing committee. It is critically needed at this time in the history of the forest products industry in British Columbia. The minister will well know that it was the 

[ Page 2435 ]

last Select Standing Committee on Forest and Lands that looked at the Vancouver log market question and provided some excellent recommendations to this House on reforming the Vancouver log market and looking at other issues pertinent to the movement of logs in the province.

We also note that it has been a tough six months, particularly the last six months, for the value-added manufacturing industry in this province. I know the opposition has received many submissions from individual reman operators, who are facing some of the most difficult operating circumstances they have faced in the history of their involvement in the economics of this province.

I believe this committee is badly needed at this time. The opposition looks forward to participating in providing the recommendations we need to strengthen this important segment of our industry.

J. Weisgerber: The Socred caucus also supports the referral to the select standing committee. I think it is fair for us to say that we're a bit disappointed that there aren't more issues being referred to standing committees. We heard a great deal of talk over the last years about the importance of referring issues to committees. Unfortunately, in our first three months here we haven't seen much activity along that line. We are pleased that the forests committee will again be active.

As the previous members recognized, the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands in the previous administration dealt with a number of complex issues. I believe they brought back some good recommendations to government. We look forward to dealing with what is an important, albeit small, part of a very complex forest issue in this province. That's not to in any way downplay the importance of the issues that the committee is to resolve.

I think it's important to understand that there are a whole range of commissions and other organizations looking at forestry-related issues, and that the select standing committee will be dealing with a fairly narrow range of issues. I believe that it's a good process that would encourage the government to look at other issues which might be referred to select standing committees.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
(continued)

D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, it is with increasing pride that I take my place in this chamber to add my support to these long-overdue amendments to the Human Rights Act.

I am gladdened to see this government bring forward in this House a piece of legislation that will help to create a society based on equality and tolerance for all British Columbians. This is good news. This legislation is about respect and dignity, hon. members, and I look forward to the clause-by-clause examination of Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to add to the comments of the member for Mission-Kent by speaking in favour of this bill. I'd like to make a couple of brief comments about the intent of Bill 63, the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992.

We're speaking on second reading of this bill, and it's a very important piece of legislation that was introduced by the Deputy Premier last evening in the House -- not introduced, but her major comments on second reading were made last evening in this House. It was introduced to the House the day before, so we've been moving very quickly with this bill.

But last night, hon. Speaker, something very special and significant happened in this Legislature. It was an awkward time, but at the same time when we reflect upon the events of last night, in terms of the debate on second reading of this bill, I think we can say that the Legislature and the system that we have here actually works -- the parliamentary system of democracy.

A bill came forward, and I think there's a consensus among all members of the House that this is a good bill and an important bill. I would hope that it's going to be supported in principle unanimously by members of this House in the second reading stage.

There were a number of concerns raised last evening. There were concerns about process. I think the Deputy Premier should be proud of this piece of legislation. She should be proud of the fact that the Human Rights Act is being amended to broaden its scope, to expand the definition of age and to add sexual orientation and family status to the prohibited grounds for discrimination under the act. I think these are very progressive moves that we all applaud. But there is a problem with process.

We agree with the principle, but not the process by which the bill came into the House and the fact that it was introduced in the House for first reading on the day before yesterday. Very quickly, without any exposure to the community at large, the government wanted to call it for second reading with only one day's introduction. We've had a chance to look at the bill for only one day. It is an important piece of legislation, but surely the bill requires, warrants and deserves to be out in the world to receive comments from interested groups for longer than that. We're concerned about the process and the fact that it's come through so quickly.

It has been hasty, and what we're looking for from the Deputy Premier, when she closes debate on this bill in second reading, is her response to some of the concerns raised last evening in debate by a number of members. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bill that, as I said, can hopefully be supported not only by the majority but also by this House unanimously.

There were a number of valid concerns raised: concerns about education, whether or not some of the issues addressed in this bill can be handled in terms of educating the community at large about the important issues, about the statute of limitations provision, equality of distribution, about the administration of the 

[ Page 2436 ]

expanded terms under the Human Rights Act by the Council of Human Rights.

A number of concerns about discrimination were raised as well. These are valid concerns. They will be addressed in the committee stage of the bill, and I know that during the committee stage we look forward to having some good discussion. But again, committee stage should not be too hurried. We should take time. Good legislation is made by taking the time to make it fully considered, to make sure that the concerns of all elected representatives are heard, and to make sure that the concerns of the community at large which we all seek to represent in this House are heard as well.

Last night I think something very special happened here: a debate broke out. Every once in a while a debate does break out in this chamber, but it was a good debate and members from all sides spoke in the debate. They all made a contribution. We perhaps tended to get off track a little from time to time, but that's okay because the debate was broad-ranging.

I think the fact that second reading was not agreed to last night is actually a healthy thing, because it has given us overnight to think a little bit further about this bill. It has given the Deputy Premier a chance to think a little bit about some of the concerns raised last evening, and hopefully she will address those concerns as she closes debate on second reading.

With those few words I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill in the second reading stage.

S. Hammell: I rise in support of this bill, and want to speak on the section that prohibits discrimination based on family status in the area of tenancy. In particular I want to focus on the single-parent family.

The heads of the majority of single-family households are women. Only 7 percent of the women of B.C. make over $30,000, and I would dare to say that we would probably find even a smaller percentage of those women making over who $30,000 are women heading single-family households. This makes finding affordable accommodation critical to the welfare of this particular family unit. To be told one is not suitable for an apartment or a suite because one has children is unacceptable and often an unbearable burden.

Families in our society should be celebrated and supported whether they are headed by single parents, dual parents, foster parents or whatever. Raising children in this complex world with its technological dimension is difficult enough for parents. There should be no impediments or additional stresses placed on these families.

Therefore I welcome the amendment in Bill 63, and am delighted to stand here in support.

[2:45]

S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure for me also to stand here today and support this bill. Listening to the debate last night, I realized that I have led a charmed life. I have never faced discrimination because of race, colour or religion, and basically I think I was the June Cleaver who was mentioned last night by one of the members.

When I became a single parent after the death of my husband, I had my own home, so I didn't have to worry about finding shelter for my family and being told that we weren't welcome. So I can only imagine the loneliness and the fear that must be felt by some of those of different sexual orientation, or the frustration felt by single mothers as they try to find shelter for their families. I'm proud to support a bill that helps to create a more equal and tolerant society.

Another important aspect of this bill is the removal of the barriers to employment equity. Surely in this day and age we have to ensure that employment equity is not only easy for public sector employees but for private sector employers as well.

As legislators we have a duty to ensure that all the people of this province can live in freedom and dignity in an open and just society. I feel this bill goes a long way to ensuring that. Therefore I'm proud to speak in favour of it.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: I note that almost a third of the members of this Legislature have spoken on second reading of this important amending bill, the first significant human rights amendments in a long time in British Columbia.

First of all, I want to take the opportunity to say that the importance of the bill and the importance of the issues that are raised are amply testified to by the discussion that has occurred in this House.

These amendments have been a long time coming. I believe that the vigorous debate around the amendments is significant testament to the support that they hold in the House. Some members have talked about the fact that we've moved speedily into the debate on this legislation. We will have several days of debate on the bill, which is not something that has been characteristic of a number of the bills that have come before us. That signifies our attention to these important amendments, and our wish to go on record as being in support of them.

I also want to put the amendments in the context of our term as government. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the legislation was signalled in the throne speech more clearly than legislation sometimes is signalled. We spelled out quite a number of the amendments that were coming, and that elicited interest and anticipation from a broad community of British Columbians. I've had correspondence about the proposed changes. The B.C Council of Human Rights, members of our caucus and I'm sure members of the opposition caucuses have had the opportunity to explore these issues, because they knew that they were going to be a part of our discussion during this legislative session.

I look forward to the committee debate. It will allow us to expand on quite a number of the issues that have been raised by colleagues in the House. We want to ensure that not only have we set the framework for improvements in human rights legislation but that we also have the tools to do the job. I believe the opposition critic will remember that during our estimates debate in April -- the very first estimates debate that we entered into as a new government and a new House -- one of 

[ Page 2437 ]

the matters that we highlighted was that this government had provided additional resources both to the B.C. Council of Human Rights and to the employment standards branch for the processing of human rights complaints and questions. For people who may not be aware of the way in which this works: the issues come into the B.C. Council of Human Rights, and the investigation is put in the hands of the employment standards officers or the industrial relations officers, who are found in every part of the province. So access for the person bringing in a complaint is available near where they live.

We added to the staff of the employment standards branch. We also added to the staff of the Human Rights Council. The very nature of the legislative changes that are proposed are designed to make it possible for the Human Rights Council to deal with complaints in a more efficient manner. The class action part of the amendments, for example, will assist in clearing backlogs. Now each complaint has to be dealt with one by one, as an individual brings it forward or as someone brings it forward on their behalf. There are elements, in terms of both staffing and administration, that have been addressed by the budget and by the proposed amendments.

I take very seriously, too, the questions that have been raised about education. I want to commend the members who participated in the debate in a way that would allow anyone reading or watching the debate to become aware of the issues and the amendments. Speaking to the opposition spokesperson, we're aware, as are all members of the House, that we haven't covered everything in this set of amendments.

Over the course of the debate, we looked back on our human rights history. Sixty years ago I and my women colleagues were not recognized as persons in this country. Forty-five years ago aboriginal people did not have the right to vote. All of us know the stains on our history because of what we have done to Japanese people, East Indian people, Chinese people and people of Jewish extraction. We all know the concrete issues around human rights violations that are a part of our history and of the expiation that all of us live with as we recognize that those ills leave scars on people and their families; that it doesn't take just a couple of days or a few weeks but years and decades and generations to eradicate. It's timely for us as a House to move forward on these issues and deal in the broader arena with the kind of education that we, as people who support these changes, can provide. These changes recognize the right of every human being in our society to live in dignity, to have access to basic needs and have that accorded to each and every one of us without the expectation that we may be pilloried or questioned or subtly or overtly discriminated against. That's what this legislation is all about. That's what these amendments provide.

I want to assure the members of this House that we have looked very carefully at the range of amendments that we've brought forward. We believe that they fill some very major gaps in our human rights legislation. As I have signalled them to equity groups -- to people of colour and ethnicity, to people of disabilities, to people of sexual orientations that are recognized broadly in this legislation -- they have recognized that this province is opening up, which we needed to see. We need to see that with the support of every member of this House, because that brings us out into the sunshine, recognizing the rights of every person. That's part of education and the statement that we make as responsible legislators as we proceed with the legislation.

I just want to acknowledge and state again that this is a process that goes on. I don't anticipate that everything that we as a parliament might do or will need to do is encompassed in this legislation. It was our initiative as government to move forward on important, major statements that would provide for all of us the opportunity to affirm to our population, to all citizens, our belief in human rights as a fundamental value in this province. I can assure members that when you carry the word to your constituencies of what you, as members of this House, have helped to pass, you will, like I as the minister, feel a sense of pride and accomplishment at what we have done, and a recognition that we have worked together bringing this legislation to fruition.

When looking back over the history of this parliament, I think what we have accomplished will be a signal of our intent and demonstrable achievement in its own right. Members of this Legislature have a commitment to the rights of all of us men, women, people of disabilities, people of colour, people from our first nations, people of all kinds in terms of their values and their personal lifestyles; that every person has a right to live in our land with dignity, with freedom and with access to the fundamental needs of life that we believe are most important and valuable.

So I thank the members for their participation, and look forward to our ongoing discussion of how each of these amendments will serve us. With that, it's my pleasure to move second reading on this important piece of legislation.

[3:00]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 63, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A and B. Section A is Ministry of Women's Equality, and section B is the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 35: minister's office, $325,213 (continued).

F. Gingell: If there is a silence at any point, hon. Chair, you can assume that I'm on my feet for a little while.

[ Page 2438 ]

Yesterday we were speaking about government personnel services when we broke off. Perhaps we could just finish that particular subject. We had discussed the breakdown of the present makeup between men and women. I wondered if you had any statistics available on the average salaries paid to men and women.

Hon. G. Clark: For the sake of the committee, I'll list the number of employees by group and gender. There are a total of 16,443 male employees and 21,036 female employees. Of our employees 56.1 percent are female. If you would like a breakdown, I could certainly give it to you in terms of management. I'm not sure that's required.

By Group: within the BCGEU, 57.7 percent are female; within the Professional Employees' Association, which is mostly management, 14.7 percent are female; of the nurses who work directly for the government, 83.8 percent are female; in management staff, 31 percent are female; and with salaried physicians, 20.3 percent are female. Then there are sundry others as well.

In terms of the last question you just asked me, within the B.C. Government Employees' Union bargaining unit females make 84.1 percent of what males make; within the Professional Employees' Association it's 88.8 percent; and among nurses it's 101.7 percent -- for a total, within the bargaining unit, of 84.7 percent; in other words, that women earn as much as men.

In the management sector women earn 87.5 percent of the salaries made by males, and in the salaried physicians it's 90.9 percent -- for a total, in all of government, of 79.2 percent for female earnings as a percentage of male earnings.

If you'd like more detail, I can certainly provide it. As a matter of fact, I don't have any problem providing this to members across the way, if they're so interested.

F. Gingell: When I was listening to you, it was a little hard to.... I had problems. When you read down the lists of percentages -- 84, 88, 101, 85, 87, 90 and 80 -- you came up with averages that were below the lowest number. If you'll look at the last number, the average above is 69.7 percent; below it's 79.2 percent. Is there some form of weighting in there? I think that's almost a mathematical impossibility.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good point. When I first saw this table, I actually asked my staff to look at that. If it's okay, I'll certainly provide you with the detailed information to justify it. This is my information from my staff, and I have every reason to believe it's correct, of course. Generally speaking it is.

In terms of male versus female employees in general, in terms of the bargaining unit employees, obviously the gap is not as wide as in the private sector. The recent initiatives in pay equity have, very modestly of course, started to close that gap.

We do have problems with some male-dominated classes which are not competitive with the private sector. As a result, if there's any adjustment there, that increases the gap, which is very unfortunate. But that's certainly a possibility, so I don't want to pretend otherwise; it's part of collective bargaining.

Any exacerbation of the gap as a result of collective bargaining simply means that the 1 percent of payroll that's applied to pay equity goes on for a few more years, as you close the gap. But it's extremely difficult. As you know, in this new burgeoning debate around pay equity plans, this is a constant problem. Trying to deal with this in a regulatory way and the market moving in a different direction sometimes causes big challenges for a government that is committed to trying to deal with pay equity. We're dealing with that as best we can.

F. Gingell: I certainly don't want you to do any more with this. That's fine, thank you. If we need anything more we will contact you.

I have one last question on government personnel services. With your care in bringing down the cost in the majority of the divisions of your ministry, government personnel services is one that has increased by some $600,000 in '92-93 over '91-92, not in the form of salaries but in what I think was classified as operations. I was wondering if you could advise us what that is?

Hon. G. Clark: It is a collective bargaining year. That's the long and short of it. Collective bargaining puts an enormous burden on the personnel services division from arbitrators to mediators to costs of hotel rooms. That number you see is solely attributable to that. Frankly, it may be more, it may be less. We tried to budget realistically, but when you're in this kind of bargaining it would be difficult for government to say: "Oh, gee. We've reached our budget so we can't rent a room." These are challenging bargaining sessions and they do cost some money.

[3:15]

K. Jones: What affirmative action plans have been implemented by the ministry in the employment area? What do you plan this year?

Hon. G. Clark: Policy in this regard is the domain of the Minister of Women's Equality, who is sitting right now in her estimates. To answer your question specifically, no action has been taken.

K. Jones: I note that there is actually a female majority of workers in certain areas. A census probably wouldn't fall under the area of Women's Equality. Is there any plan to work at gender equity in those areas where there is actually a predominance of women? Is there any affirmative action plans to bring balance to those female-dominated areas?

Hon. G. Clark: Our ministry has a women's equality task force within the ministry. I'm not sure if you were here for the debate yesterday. The Ministry of Women's Equality is the lead ministry on employment equity and on the gender question. The government personnel services division ends up essentially implementing policy and does work for me, and I don't mind discussing that question. The lead ministry and minis-

[ Page 2439 ]

ter are taking this issue through government. It is simply under review at this point. Responsible for all of those questions is the Ministry of Women's Equality.

K. Jones: I'm not sure if the minister actually heard me. It was with reference to the female-dominated areas and as to whether there was going to be any equity -- to bring a balance by having more males employed in those areas.

Hon. G. Clark: To the best of my knowledge, no special or affirmative action is required for white middle-class males. I don't believe it is contemplated, certainly not by me. All of those questions are under review, but certainly not in my ministry.

F. Gingell: Perhaps now we could turn to B.C. Ferries, if we may, seeing that Mr. Rhodes is here. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if we could commence this section with your giving us a generalized mission statement for B.C. Ferries, and some general ideas as to their plans.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all I'd like to introduce Frank Rhodes, who's the general manager, and Glen Brown, who's the assistant general manager of finance. So we have staff here on the subject.

I'm delighted to talk about the Ferry Corporation. First of all, you will see a prepared mission statement, but I will just give you my views on the subject since you've asked for them. The Leader of the Opposition has some questions, so I will try to be as brief as possible, but it's hard to be brief because this is an exciting area, and with all due respect to my other staff here, one which I take great interest in and enjoy a great deal.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation has several policy goals, one of which is to provide the least costly form of transportation for people on the islands, both for economic development reasons and for transportation reasons, and secondly, and equally as important, be an instrument of public policy in British Columbia.

W.A.C. Bennett, of course, was the founder of the Ferry Corporation and he, like many leaders in the west in the fifties, sixties and seventies, I think could be characterized as a province-builder -- Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney, W.A.C. Bennett. They believed in something that I think Quebec also believes in, which they call maitres chez nous, which means being masters in our own house, and using the tools available for governments to develop this great province of ours.

The Ferry Corporation can be and has been an exciting instrument of public policy to promote economic development, to promote a shipbuilding industry, which in many respects there was a great deal of effort on by W.A.C. Bennett -- weakened somewhat, unfortunately, by the previous administration and by the Bill Bennett administration in terms of those linkages, in terms of making sure that ships for the Ferry Corporation were built in British Columbia with the highest possible British Columbia content, and that they were designed in British Columbia by naval architects. We have some very fine naval architects in British Columbia as a direct result of that public policy initiative who can now compete around the world.

We have a shipbuilding industry which is in difficulty, and in this regard the Ferry Corporation has again -- and I give credit to the previous administration -- come up with some innovative ways in which we can help the shipbuilding industry but remain cost-competitive. Integrated Ferry Constructors is a model, looked upon as such elsewhere, which allowed some work to be moved around between yards and maintained workforces in British Columbia. So it has an economic development component, because it is a big Crown corporation which requires big capital demands. We want to make sure that capital is working in British Columbia.

On the service side, we want to work to improve service to British Columbians generally and to tourists in British Columbia, which is why I am so pleased that the latest innovation of 24-hour sailings -- and some other changes -- improves the capacity from last year to this year by 57 percent on the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay route. That's service to Nanaimo, because you count the Mid-Island Express as well. That is a very positive change in British Columbia. It has improved service to people, and we believe it can be cost-effective. It is an experiment. We want to make sure that it's cost-competitive and cost-effective, and we want to make sure, in fact, that the local communities have input into how we can best mitigate some concerns that have arisen as a result of that policy initiative.

We do have some big challenges, I don't mind saying to members, and I guess they can be summarized as two. First of all, we have an operating subsidy which we cut by 15 percent this year. I'm pleased with that, but clearly we want to work to reduce that operating subsidy. Obviously the taxpayers of British Columbia have a limit to how much they can provide for subsidy in that area. Secondly, there are big capital decisions to be made, and those capital spending decisions are ones which we take very seriously. But we do have about 40 ships in the fleet that have an average lifespan of about 40 years, so it's quite fair to say that we should be replacing one ship a year just to deal with capital depreciation. As a province, we haven't been doing that in recent years. We have been building for increased capacity, but we need to look at reviewing both increased capacity and replacement of existing vessels. Traffic is now 8 million vehicles and 20.5 million passengers annually in British Columbia. This is a big corporation that does a good job in terms of cost recovery on the operating side.

We have some major capital projects now under way: two superferries, the largest of their kind, using a British Columbia workforce; two small ferries -- one which was just completed; and the question of major terminal development taking place on both sides of the water. As well, we have the question of a new terminal in the Nanaimo area under review, but we need to make some changes there.

We want to make sure these changes are cost-effective. We're now embarking upon -- for all the Crowns, actually -- the whole question of how we review capital to try and make sure that rational decisions are made. 

[ Page 2440 ]

There hasn't really been any way of dealing with capital in a general sense.

The Ferry Corporation is a dynamic one, employs hundreds of British Columbians, and has tremendous spinoff effects as an economic generator in its own right. In the past we have opened up parts of British Columbia to tourism -- and to service the people with the corporation. We look forward to continuing that and, in fact, to improving service.

On the fast-ferry side, we're looking at opportunities there as well, as new technologies become available. I'm very bullish, as they say, on the Ferry Corporation. We have an excellent staff there. We think it has great potential. But I'm also wary, I don't mind saying, about the cost implications for the government of British Columbia as we deal with a tough fiscal environment.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to address some questions to the minister with respect to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. For the edification of the minister, the opposition caucus has divided the Crown corporations, and I am, in fact, the critic for the B.C. Ferry Corporation, which will come as no surprise to some members opposite. This Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the close relationship that exists between the minister and the B.C. Ferry Corporation, especially with respect to ongoing matters of correspondence relating to particular riding associations. Having said that, my comments are going to be actually broken into four classes, just for the ease of following through the kind of line of thought that I've got.

The first is with respect to the proposition of ongoing service within the coastal communities that are outside of route 1, the main route, or routes 1 and 2. I'm really talking about service to the Gulf Islands, service to the Sunshine Coast and service in the northern route.

The second line of questioning is with respect to the priorities that have been given to the development of terminals, and what kind of general philosophy exists within the ministry with respect to integration of vehicular ferry service with passenger ferry service.

The third line that I'd like to discuss is with respect to the construction program and where it is going.

Lastly, I'd like to talk more specifically about some issues that are current with regard to ongoing construction projects within the B.C. Ferry Corporation. That is the general line of questioning. I think there are other members that will want to come in and talk about late-night sailing and all-night sailing and that kind of thing.

With respect to the first matter, it's the policy position of the Liberal opposition that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should be seen to be and considered to be a natural extension of the highway. If we recognize that as a general philosophy, we would also recognize that given that this is a natural extension of the highway, we are also going to have to be cognizant of the fact that there is a limited amount of capital that can be put in place to make sure that these highways -- if I can use that word -- are open at all times. But we have to, as our primary concern, meet the travel requirements of existing residential populations and commercial operations in the province, without giving overall consideration to the larger questions of cost recovery through enhancement of tourism programs and those kinds of things. That's the philosophical base from which we come.

I wonder if the minister could comment with respect to that: to what extent decisions are taken with respect to the potential for cost recovery, and to what extent the rates and fares that are structured are driven by the corporation's attempt at providing a cost-recoverable base on all routes, given that there is a fairly different demand between routes 1, 2, and 3 of the Gulf Islands and the northern route.

Hon. G. Clark: Obviously, if we were to look at simply cost recovery, we would have a radically different tariff schedule. I'm not sure if the member knows that route 1 has about a 30 percent return on capital, so we make money on the main route, where we carry the most passengers. The southern Gulf Islands loses a lot of money, and so do the Queen Charlottes. So in fact there's a lot of cross-subsidy between those routes. Frankly, there probably always will be, as we struggle with this balance of trying to be fiscally responsible and efficient for passengers and providing necessary service to people who live, in some cases, in isolated communities like islands. It's a bit of a balancing act that we try to undertake.

For members opposite, I'll give the cost recoveries for '91-92: on the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay route it is 130 percent; on the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo route it is 132 percent; on the Tsawwassen-Nanaimo route it is 90 percent. The Horseshoe Bay-Langdale route has over 100 percent cost recovery, so it actually pays for itself.

But then we get down to the Langdale, Gambier Island and Keats Island passenger-only service at 11 percent cost recovery. Powell River-Texada is 13 percent cost recovery, and Swartz Bay-Saltspring is about 50 percent. Many of the Gulf Islands look to be about 40 percent or 50 percent cost recovery. So there's a great deal of cross-subsidization in the service now, and that is always going to be there. We're never going to go to full cost recovery, it seems to me, in some of these isolated communities with small passenger loads. I think that would be too difficult.

So we have this balance between fiscal responsibility, trying to make sure that we don't have general taxpayers -- people from Prince George, essentially -- dramatically subsidizing ferry service to isolated communities.... We at least try to limit that amount, but at the same time I do agree with you that these are necessary services. The B.C. government, as a responsible government, is required to provide them and to make sure that they're available to people. That means we have to be very conscious of the tariff schedule. So we are conscious of that.

I guess that I can't give you a black-and-white answer, because we're not going to move to cost recovery in all routes. We'd like to try to move a bit closer to that if we could, but there are different ways of doing that -- some are more innovations to improve service. I like to think that the 24-hour sailing is one of those win-win situations. I say that carefully, because I 

[ Page 2441 ]

know that communities affected are concerned. We may -- I say may -- be in a position of improving service to people, of improving service to the communities affected on the Island, and in fact making money.

It doesn't necessarily mean, as we move to try to be more efficient, that we can in fact improve service. So I can't give you a black-and-white answer. It's a balancing act there. We want to try to reduce the Ferry Corporation subsidy generally over time, if we can do that reasonably without great rate shocks. I am conscious of the cost-recovery factor, because there is a lot of cross-subsidization within the ferry service. But I'm also conscious of the very great public need of ensuring service at reasonable cost to people in isolated communities.

[3:30]

G. Wilson: Coming back to the question of this general philosophy and how one approaches it, the B.C. Ferry Corporation, in history.... I hope that the minister will correct me if my information is not 100 percent. It seems, from my reading, that essentially the marine routes from the Island, or islands, to the mainland were originally under B.C. Ferries, whereas mainland ferries were originally under the B.C. Highways ministry. It was fairly recently that there had been some switching of some of the routes that were formerly Highways, even though, I think, Campbell River was a Highways route.

Can the minister tell us how one can justify -- and it's a question that comes to me all the time from constituents -- that interior ferries and ferries across rivers maintained and run by the Ministry of Highways are free, when on the coast you have communities that are isolated and stranded without ferries and are essentially subject to the whim of government and the rates of ferries going up annually? What's the philosophical justification for those differences?

Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a good question. I understand the concerns. There is an enormous subsidy to those routes now -- enormous. As you can see, some of those routes are only 10 percent cost recovery. So we're maintaining that historic difference. In 1985, I gather they shifted only the northern Gulf Islands route into the ferry service. The ferry services run by the Highways ministry are very few now -- one less, as you know, fairly recently -- and the subsidy is very modest, because they are fairly modest routes. I think it's fair to say that there is a great deal of cross-subsidization now. I understand the concerns. As a practising politician, I'm sympathetic to people who have to deal with these and rely upon the ferry service.

I can assure you that we have no intention of moving radically to cost recovery in some of those areas. This would require massive rate increases because of the equity considerations that we have. Nevertheless, balancing them in the interest of the broader public, making sure that the corporation is as efficient as possible, and providing that balance that we struggle with all the time on the tariff schedule. That degree of cross-subsidy that exists now is likely to continue indefinitely, because we're conscious of the concerns of people in those isolated communities.

I recognize the inequity. I think it's partly a historical question that has developed. We obviously have to review all of those things. It's my view that some of those interior communities would be better served by bridges and roads, and that's obviously one area which I know the Minister of Highways is looking at, certainly in the one major community that has been the subject of a little bit of debate in this House, because people in those communities are concerned about it. It is, in many respects, a highway, and there is a great deal of subsidy that goes to highways as well, I might remind members. We do provide some subsidy.

G. Wilson: Actually, the last point that the minister made is a point I'd like to come back to and restate now. If one can accept the proposition that the ferries are a natural extension of the highways, if one can accept that communities dependent upon the ferries are equally dependent upon them as communities dependent upon efficient highways to transport people and goods and services and commodities and so on, would it not make more sense for government to look at the proposition that the maintenance and operation of all capital infrastructure on B.C. Ferries would in fact be financed through the Ministry of Highways, and that only operational costs and the functional part of operational costs would be picked up by the Ferry Corporation? Would that not be an easier way to amortize the cost provincially, and be able to provide for greater flexibility in the financing of services that are needed on board and the types of ferries with respect to the community served?

Hon. G. Clark: I need some further explanation as to what you're getting at, because all borrowing now for the Ferry Corporation and for Highways is done by the Ministry of Finance, so there's absolutely no difference. We could move the borrowing to the Ministry of Highways, but it would have absolutely no material impact on anybody -- except for a book question. Unless you're suggesting we expense it -- as opposed to capitalize it -- and borrow against it, I don't see any advantage to that.

To be candid, knowing how government works from my limited time here, I think that a Crown corporation is a better vehicle for maintaining a service, in some respects, than a line ministry, which is subject to people like me and Treasury Board who have to deal with tough fiscal environments. I'm not sure that moving anything to the Ministry of Highways would be advantageous to individuals. We have a Crown corporation that's working very well. It is borrowing lots of money through Ministry of Finance at very low rates and is providing a highly subsidized service, which will continue for some time.

G. Wilson: I was referring to both capitalizing and expensing of those services. Let me give you an example. It becomes difficult, if you look at a proposition of the B.C. Ferry Corporation that takes a decision, as was taken although reversed later, to spend -- you 

[ Page 2442 ]

can correct me on the figure -- upwards of $30 million on the expansion and improvement of parking and loading facilities at the Horseshoe Bay terminal, even though that did not come about as an expenditure.... When people who are being serviced out of that terminal are told that there is no money to put on an additional sailing, and therefore the road closes at 9:15 and nobody can get home, the question that is asked of me and other members on this side of the House is: if the corporation essentially is going to finance a $30 million project, why would you not look at the construction of highways and the maintenance, expansion, construction and development of ferry terminals as a functional part of the Highways ministry? Why would you not simply allow whatever dollars are generated in revenue that can be accrued to the Crown corporation to go directly into the service provided to the people who are in need?

Hon. G. Clark: I understand the point you're making. Let me make two points. First of all, in some respects we're going in the opposite direction. We want to make sure that operating decisions and capital decisions are made in an integrated way. That really hasn't been the case in the past. Capital has been largely free. If it's capitalized and isn't given the scrutiny.... I'm not sure my staff here would agree with me, but I think historically the capital budget hasn't been scrutinized that well, because it's not part of your current account deficit.

We have these huge capital demands by Crowns, which they generally get. We're trying to make sure that the operational decisions and capital decisions are put on an equal footing, so that we can decide, as government, what makes the most economic sense: hiring more staff and running the ferry longer or building bigger holding tanks for people to park in. That integration is a big part of what we've been doing over the last six months.

I agree with you, though, that there needs to be better integration between the Ferry Corporation and Transportation and Highways. I might say that, surprisingly, when we took office and I was given responsibility for the Ferry Corporation, I asked my then-deputy to secure for me the staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to scrutinize the spending and policy decisions governing B.C. Ferries. Much to my surprise, there wasn't a single person identified in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways who was responsible for B.C. Ferries. There was nothing happening in that regard. We will be doing a better job of integrating the decisions.

Some of the discussion around Duke Point took place. When you look at the capital cost of that or the Horseshoe Bay one, you find out the Ministry of Highways hasn't got anything in their budget to hook up to these new facilities. That's a big, hidden cost driver for government. We're just trying to get on top of that right now. I think it's an excellent point. We're working to try to ensure a better continuity between ministries. It may well be that your suggestion may make some sense in terms of moving it there after we do this review, but I doubt it, because we're really trying to get a handle on reviewing operating and capital costs within the Crown corporations, at least at first, so that we can make what I think are more rational decisions like the 24-hour sailing initiative. If it works, that may in fact forestall tens of millions of dollars in capital spending, which would otherwise be required to have bigger ships on a shorter schedule.

G. Wilson: When the minister opposite took office and was given the Crown corporation, for a minute I wasn't sure if he was surprised that he took office or surprised that he was given the Crown corporation, or perhaps both.

Nevertheless, we're pleased to see that there is some review being given, because from our point of view not only would there be a great cost saving, but we can develop a much more efficient process for making decisions on what kind of service can be developed that will provide maximum service to an area with minimal impact to the infrastructure construction that has to go in place to service those areas.

That brings me to the next question, which is with respect to the berthing of ferries and the development of terminals. It won't come as any surprise when I ask the minister when Powell River can expect to have the Powell River-Comox ferry berth there as was promised and is yet to be delivered.

Hon. G. Clark: I guess I could say when the financial resources of the corporation allow, but that may be some ways hence. As you know, that was a difficult decision, which we took early on. I must say that I was somewhat sympathetic to some of the problems that both communities had, and I'm really uncomfortable with the way it became a political football with the previous administration. Obviously it has been part of politics in the last few years. That's unfortunate, because no one wins in that regard. We've saved about $10 million by leaving the ferry in the Comox area. We want to engage in a process of involving the communities to make the best, most rational decision.

I'm hopeful that over time, at least, it may well be the most rational decision to have two smaller ferries berthed on both sides. It depends on what happens with load patterns. The loads are growing quite dramatically. I think there's great potential for the Sunshine Coast-Powell River, which causes other problems in terms of some of the letters I'm getting from residents in your constituency who are concerned about improving ferry service to that community because of the growth pressures that will inevitably arise. That presents other challenges.

Not to open up a whole other can of worms, but if we were to provide fast-ferry service to the Gibsons area, that could be a dramatic improvement of service and dramatic in terms of what it does to stimulus in that region. If that happened, you would have growth. If that were desirable -- we could work with local communities on that -- you might find a dramatic increase in traffic as well at the north end through Powell River and across, as we start to develop other linkages in the region. So that has a certain impact.

[ Page 2443 ]

At the moment, we decided to leave it in the Courtenay area. That was the best, most rational decision, frankly, in terms of the cost to the government, even though I'm conscious of the concerns that people have in politics. We are actively reviewing it. We want to work with the communities on both sides to make sure that the decision is not a political one but one which makes the most economic sense for British Columbia generally, and makes most economic sense for the government in terms of efficient service.

G. Wilson: With respect to the proposition of moving the ferry from the Island over to Powell River, I ask this question without trying to open another political can of worms. I recognize that it did become very much a part of the last election campaign, and promises were made in the heat of that campaign that haven't been delivered on. What I'm really more interested in looking at is getting specifically at what the....

Hon. G. Clark: Your promises or ours?

G. Wilson: No, not our promises. We deliver upon our promises. The trouble is we didn't get quite enough members to do it effectively here; otherwise we would have been in government. Nevertheless we're prepared to wait the few years that it'll take for us to get over there and sort it out.

[3:45]

With respect to the policy of the corporation and the development of ferry terminals, my question is a political one. Let's be quite clear that they are a purchasing agent and an employment base. Most isolated communities in British Columbia have directly benefited from a terminal in the community because there are people hired directly out of the community, it stimulates economic growth and development, and the fact that you have the terminal there is useful for the community.

Powell River is an anomaly in British Columbia in that it is one of the few isolated communities that does not have the ferry terminal in the community, but rather has the ferry terminal over on the Island. I believe it was a political decision many years ago that was made at that time. It becomes difficult now simply to rob Peter to pay Paul, and I understand all of that argument. But in the Powell River question itself, the difficulty is that the waterfront development project underway is dependent upon that terminal, and with the significant downsizing of the Powell River pulp mill and the reduction of employees in that area, any expansion of the base is something that is going to be looked at as a potential economic stimulus for the region.

I wonder if the minister has some thoughts on one of those ideas as to whether or not as a policy of his government there's a recognition that decentralization of services and the location of these services in isolated communities is a benefit to the community, as well as a potential cost-saver to the corporation.

Hon. G. Clark: I think that those comments were well made and well taken by myself, Mr. Chairman. The Powell River side would lose about $3.5 million a year -- I'll just get the numbers here. The cost of the new terminal would be $10 million to $14 million, in money from the taxpayer, and the employee relocation cost would have been $1 million. So I appreciate that some of those.... You're absolutely right. It is one of the few isolated communities that hasn't benefited by a ferry terminal.

It can be an economic development tool. It has been elsewhere. Even if you could argue they're a subsidy or money that isn't required, you can see by these dollars that if you pump that kind of money directly into a community and they are hard-pressed, it has some positive spinoff benefits. I'm advised that the Powell River council, which we've been meeting with, hasn't made a final determination. Obviously they'd like the terminal there, but that's not in the cards at the moment because of the decision we made. But we are working with them and reviewing with them how the ferry which does arrive there would be integrated. Obviously it would be desirable from Powell River's point of view to have that kind of economic development initiative, looking at it as an economic development tool.

But it's not the only thing that Powell River has to exploit to have development in a harbour. I think Powell River has been undersold. It's been viewed as a kind of a mill town. This is just rhetoric, which I don't anticipate many people there would be very happy with; they'd like some concrete money and some action. But I think Powell River has real positive potential, including that harbour facility, even if there is no major terminal expansion or payroll located in the community. We're trying to work with them to see what we can do, but again we have to make the rational decision at this time.

G. Wilson: Indeed Powell River does have great potential, and the citizens there are quite excited about it. As a matter of fact, they celebrate it every summer with a festival and parade, which I think the minister might know something about.

But with respect to the decision on the financing of these terminals and the policies around it, I would move, with respect, to the question of commuter passes and the book fares you can buy. You probably have a term -- and I wouldn't know what that would be -- for buying a book of tickets at a reduced fare. Can the minister tell us what criteria are in place for communities to benefit by that, given that there are a number of communities that don't have it and would like to have it? Also there is the question of the fare that is charged and whether or not there is a specific formula for the establishment of a tariff based on distance or time. What is the structure for the tariff that is in place?

Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent question. It is a historical anomaly. There is absolutely no formula that dictates when a community can take advantage of those books. It is one of the things that came to light in my briefing book when we took office. We haven't really had the chance to get a handle on it yet. We do have to look at that whole question of subsidies to commuters and, I think, probably narrowing that subsidy. I know 

[ Page 2444 ]

that isn't particularly popular, but we have to look at it. Assured loading was originally lower rates and ended up becoming so popular that they filled the boats with assured loading tickets. Assured loading tickets were discounted to try and get people to buy them. There are now, I think, thousands of them out there. It's like airline points. We have a big liability which we've sold and spent, and there are all those discount tickets out there. We got to the stage where some ferries were completely filled with assured loading tickets. What do you do?

The answer, frankly, was that we had to do a little demand management: we had to eliminate the subsidy for assured loading and, in fact, charge a premium for the advantage of assured loading. I know that's not very easy to do, and I didn't like doing it, but in terms of any rational analysis, people were prepared to pay at least a small premium in order to get access to the boat and not have to wait in the large lineups. It became -- and still is -- a fairly big problem for the corporation. We have this sort of liability hanging out there that we have to get a handle on.

Before we expand the commuter question, we're reviewing the whole pricing structure, because it does make certain logic to try to deal with a bit of demand management in terms of pricing. If we could provide -- as we have -- half-price for the 1 a.m. sailing, then the next thing would be to try to do the opposite in very high peak periods and maybe charge a small premium. We don't want to have a disincentive for commuters or people who rely on the service. We're trying to grapple with how we might deal with that question.

At this point -- and again, another small surprise for me -- there is absolutely no formula. It's completely driven by some historical accident.

G. Wilson: Were these rates politically driven or were they decided by management?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that it has been going on for 15 years, and they are approved, as all rates are, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by cabinet. Management recommended this earlier. The Ferry Corporation has gone through an evolution, where in fact they were trying to get more passengers because they overbuilt -- we could argue that, anyway -- and then they provided discounts for everything to try and get people to take the ferry. We have the opposite problem now, where we have a big demand on the service. We have a difficult time financing it, and we're trying to deal with it as best we can in a rationale way. It doesn't appear to be anything too nefarious, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some political direction. I'm advised that Highways had one policy and B.C. Ferries had a different policy.

G. Wilson: I take it that there is an active and ongoing review, and we certainly welcome that. We hope that the review doesn't simply bring all the fares up to the highest common denominator but rather that it takes into account the impact of increased fares on both residential and commercial operations in the communities that are dependent upon them.

If I could draw one matter to the minister's attention that I think should be included in such a review, which would not only be a cost benefit to the residents but would make the pricing structure on ferries consistent, it is the circle tour. If a circle tour is promoted -- as it has been with respect to the lower mainland-Vancouver Island-Powell River-Sunshine Coast region -- but isn't provided with a consistent rate, it detracts from what is being promoted, with some considerable sum of money, with respect to tourism potential in the circle route. That's one point.

The other point is with respect to the fact that there is no tariff rate structure. Because of the scheduled service available, we could end up with a person who wishes to travel from point A to point C possibly having to travel past point C to point B and then paying an additional fee to go halfway back to get to point B. The actual distance travelled is required because there is no direct service. There are a number of examples where that exists.

I wonder if it isn't possible to have a destination fare that can be charged so that you're not charged a double tariff because of the distance that you're forced to travel simply because there isn't a ferry that takes you there.

Hon. G. Clark: That's another good question. It's nice to have an informed spokesperson on the issue. That is precisely under review as part of the general tariff review that I've asked for.

Another issue which is interesting.... To be candid, I don't know whether these are possible yet. I don't want to give any sense that we're actually going to do it; we are just reviewing it. One option would be, for example, to have a circular tour rate -- one ticket that you could buy for a circle. That's exactly the kind of thing we're reviewing and the kind of innovation that we're trying. We have to really think through the ramifications of it. We don't want to give a circle-tour rate to a tourist that, at the same time, appears to be less than the rate for a British Columbian trying to make a living or to get across the way. So we have to look at these, and they are interrelated issues.

There is an issue that you've talked about. You might be alluding to Comox-Powell River-Texada Island, where you have to go back again. The precise question of having a ticket that would give you a destination price is under review.

G. Wilson: Since we're on a bit of a roll here, I wonder if we could get something else under review and implemented. It would appear to me that it's a very simple matter. Maybe there's a bookkeeping problem, or whatever. It's with respect whether or not the book of tickets that can be purchased in advance could be made available for commuters to purchase on the ferry -- either in the book shop or from the purser -- so that they don't have to go down to the terminus and find that they're not available. It would seem to me to be a service that would be quite acceptable.

Hon. G. Clark: Some small ferries don't have a purser, which might make that difficult. But that's an 

[ Page 2445 ]

excellent suggestion. It's not one that I had thought of, but we'll certainly look at it.

That's a good example of the kind of service-quality initiatives we're trying to look at. You may know, for example, that there will be cappuccino on every ferry this summer. I know it's a small thing, but it's the kind of initiative.... Part of the reason why I like having this responsibility is that you can see little concrete things that are improvements for people. That's another example, and we're certainly looking at it.

G. Wilson: I can tell you that there were rounds of cheers of delight for the improved service when French fries finally hit the Langdale run after 20 years of trying to get them served. Things are really looking up on the B.C. Ferries; there's no doubt about that.

With respect to the routing now, I wonder if we could talk just a little bit about what the priorities are concerning ridership and the extension of service. Is there generally a formula that is followed for the provision of additional service? We're looking at the potential for one additional service in the day or expanded service at midday. It would seem that there is some kind of a formula that is used. Could the minister tell us what the trigger is that would allow the Ferry Corporation to recognize the need for additional service?

[4:00]

Hon. G. Clark: There is some pressure to improve the sailings on the route that you allude to. We are driven by that kind of demand. We want to make sure that it's cost effective. We're in an overtime situation if we try to do that right now. That's part of the economic problem. We can and do provide service when demand requires it. We have discretionary sailings on that route when there is a demand, and we try to accommodate it. We look at the economics of accommodating it. It's close to being there. There is pressure on us to provide increased sailings. I would be delighted to do that. We're just reviewing it to see if we can do it in a cost-effective way.

At this point I'm not optimistic that we can do that, at least in the next few weeks. We have to see how the load develops and how we can best accommodate it. We do have some staffing problems that result in overtime at the moment. As you can imagine, we have a certain number of ships and crew. In order to make that extra step, the marginal cost jumps up dramatically at a certain point. We're almost there on that route. That's giving us a bit of a problem in improving the service, which we'd all like to see.

G. Wilson: With the provisions of these additional sailings in mind, my understanding is that it's usually at the discretion of the captain or management either on board or at the terminal. It's dependent on an overload situation. What I'm talking about is the implementation of a scheduled service. One could argue that the economy of running a hit-and-miss operation really is not.... You can't compare it to the potential of scheduled service, where people know that they have the opportunity or the potential to pick up an additional sailing at a particular time. Even if it isn't done seven days a week, there could be an obvious Thursday-through-Sunday demand that could be scheduled and offer staffing assistance.

If I'm getting into an area of collective bargaining that you think I shouldn't get into, then just advise me. There seems to be general support throughout the system for five days on, five days off, which would allow the opportunity to have longer working hours and therefore greater flexibility in the scheduling of vessels. That would provide exactly the kind of service that I'm talking about. It would seem that the union is in support of that. I understand that most management people are in support of that. Certainly the residents are in support of that. If the government was in support of that, maybe we could do it.

Hon. G. Clark: We have to be careful of this sort of Field of Dreams approach: put on the route and they will come; build the stadium and they will come. In some respects that's been the history of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It hasn't been particularly rational. There is a certain chicken and egg thing. If we put on more sailings, and people know it with some certainty, then we will increase demand by that. What we're trying to do with that route.... I don't mind saying that there is clearly some pressure on it. We're really monitoring that very carefully.

The terminal manager is the one who determines discretionary sailings. As part of the next year's service plan, we review discretionary sailings, load factors, traffic and all these questions to see whether the economics start to change and if we can justify improving service in an efficient way. That is precisely what we're doing. The particular route that you're concerned about is under review for a 1993-94 service plan. We're getting close to being economically justified.

Again, it's not that it has to be fully cost-recovered either. We're losing money on a lot of routes. We're not being absolutely ruthless in that we wait until the lineups are huge and then we put on the service. At the same time, we're really trying to be more sophisticated than in the past and make sure that these things make some economic sense. That is one of the areas -- and there are several others -- where we are getting close to having it making sense to put on the improved service.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I would agree that the Field of Dreams approach is not the best way to plan for things. There is a fair bit of somewhat sophisticated transport modelling that one could look at that indicates that in most areas where you develop the potential for capacity in an area of regional economic growth, that capacity is soon insufficient. One only needs to look at the lower mainland bridges as a case in point. Not only did we build it so they will come; they came in such numbers that you can't even get across there between six and nine in the morning.

The member for Okanagan East said there are exceptions. Possibly the Coquihalla is one of them. That was a different field of dreams with a different approach by a different government. If we could come back to this question of five days on and five days off,

[ Page 2446 ]

which the minister didn't comment on, I wonder if there is some active review of that. What I hear from the grass roots and in my discussions with members of the union is that there would be tremendous benefit to both the workers and management in terms of flexibility. If that isn't correct, I'd like the minister to say so.

Hon. G. Clark: We do have five on and five off for the mid-island express. It's a labour issue. I wouldn't say it's a labour problem, but it is one we have to work out. I'm not opposed to looking at it on that route, but that may not necessarily be the answer required. Maybe we could do bigger ships. It depends on the number of ships in the fleet and the way in which we can manage that service. I know that in some respects it's beneficial to most people to extend the hours of sailing, because there are other reasons that are attractive to people.

I asked the Ferry Corporation about a couple months ago to do a major review of commuter service to your community, the Sunshine Coast, with particular reference to fast ferries and some other alternatives. We have to integrate the review we're doing of loads and improving service with what may transpire in terms of the opportunities for other technologies and other service. That is an ongoing study. It's a fairly major initiative.

At this point I would say that I have asked the Ferry Corporation in the past to discuss these questions with the member. I hope and expect that they're almost getting to the stage where that might make sense. We wanted to get the study up and running. I'm actually making an announcement here that is not widely known, but it is something I asked the Ferry Corporation to do a couple of months ago. There is a lot of opportunity there for improving service.

It may be a secret, and I may have just announced it. But I can sense from letters I'm getting the concern of residents in the Sunshine Coast about "too much development" and "please don't improve service to our community." That is a bit of surprise to me, to be candid. Maybe it's because I'm from the city, but I'm having a bit of trouble grasping some of the concerns. We want to make sure that we are working with the community affected. I remember that the previous administration announced some private deal, and there was absolutely no consultation. There were some hard feelings around that, so we are very conscious of that.

G. Wilson: The minister's comments actually lead directly into the next line of questions that I have, and that is in the ongoing development of specific areas with respect to either vehicular or fast-ferry service. I welcome the fact that the study is underway, and I also welcome the fact that the minister has indicated there will be some open communication. I hope that that will happen. In fact, I would be prepared to host the minister and any other officials who would like to travel through that area, and to set up necessary meetings if I can facilitate that with local industry, business and municipal representatives, who were not consulted in the last round. As a result, it did create considerable concern.

With respect to the fast-ferry proposition generally, is it the minister's feeling or is it the policy of government -- if, in fact, a policy has been taken -- that should fast-ferry passenger-only service be implemented it would be run by the B.C. Ferry Corporation, by the private sector, by a combination or by B.C. Transit? Who would have the authority over that jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. Let me say this: the previous government had given instructions to the Ferry Corporation that they were not allowed to pursue fast-ferry service, that it was the domain of the private sector. They were simply not allowed. When we took office it was a bit of a surprise that little work had been done in this area. Again another surprise; practically every day there's a surprise.

That rule no longer applies, and the Ferry Corporation is actively looking at the question of fast ferries. In my view, that does not preclude the private sector from taking a risk and getting involved in fast-ferry services. As the minister responsible for both transit and ferries, I did nothing to stop the Sealink fast-ferry service. To be candid, I'm delighted that the private sector has filled the void that the public sector was not allowed to fill.

It might have been filled by the public sector had it been given the opportunity to review that question. I think there are some advantages to the Ferry Corporation now that there is a private sector model we can review. We can see how they're doing and what's happening in that regard, what their costs are and how they're performing. They are a very aggressive corporation looking at other routes. I have no intention at this time of saying that they shouldn't do that, but I want you to know that we are actively looking at the Ferry Corporation getting involved in the fast-ferry technology. One possible option for that, should it transpire, is the Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: It does come as a bit of a surprise that B.C. Ferry Corporation was not permitted, insofar as B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries paid for the study that was done to look at the viability of it. Given that they financed the viability study, it's strange that they would then be told they couldn't involve themselves, unless, of course, the study demonstrated -- as it did -- that there's only a marginal level of profit without some kind of subsidy.

This does raise an interesting question, though. If the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to get involved in passenger-only fast-ferry service, the question will inevitably be raised that there is a taxpayer-subsidized service that will make it impossible for the private sector to compete. I wonder what the minister's thinking is on that question and also.... Well, maybe answer that first.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me first elaborate a little more, because this is an interesting area. In 1991, before the election, the Ferry Corporation sent a technical team to Europe and actually took an option on a fast ferry, and then were told they weren't allowed to exercise that option. So they did do some work and pursued it. That's 

[ Page 2447 ]

why there were some studies done and paid for by the taxpayers, and then they were ordered not to proceed, and they lost the option. Because of some good staff work, frankly, there wasn't a big bill attached to that option expiring -- just to give you a bit more background on it.

We're just reviewing it. I don't think a subsidy is required for a fast-ferry fleet. I think we have to look very carefully at whether we are to proceed with a subsidy. I agree with you that we have to be conscious of private-sector competition in this regard, and we are. So we'll move cautiously. In other words, we have no intention at this time of putting on a fast ferry, nor are we even looking at putting on a fast ferry between Victoria and Vancouver to compete with the Sealink private sector model. That's out of the cards. We're looking at other options: Bowen Island and Sunshine Coast, what kind of technology makes sense, and how they are doing in the private sector. This is not done simply in-house. We also have consultants reviewing this question. We're actively pursuing it. The work that was done prior to the order not to get involved.... The staff had some familiarity with it, and we're pursuing it.

[4:15]

G. Wilson: This is interesting news. I wonder if the minister could tell us the extent to which the service that is being examined is being looked at with respect to an integration with rapid transit or B.C. Transit, because a passenger-only service obviously means that your car has to be left somewhere if you're to be able to drive to it. And if you're not driving to it, then you have to have some other means of transportation to get to it. One of the difficulties we had with respect to the former proposition on the Bowen Island and Sunshine Coast run -- and I think a similar thing has been proposed in the Gulf Islands -- is that if there is no means to get to the ferry without taking the car, you end up with massive parking lots and a park-and-ride proposition, which creates a lot of difficulty in communities that have to deal with that problem. That's where the municipal elected officials are going to want to have some input. Is this going to be integrated with Transit, or is that a part of the study?

Hon. G. Clark: Another good question. Yes, obviously there has to be public transportation on both connections, and that's another reason why we're starting to begin to review it with municipal politicians and people. Certainly we'll be doing that. It's early in the study and the evaluation process, so we're not there yet. You're absolutely right, we want to make sure that there are good public transit connections, and that's why we need the cooperation and support of both communities.

G. Wilson: With respect to this, I think there is a proposition, some would argue, that the existing ferry service could be seen as passenger-only. Certainly there are a number of communities -- Bowen Island is one, Sunshine Coast is another, some of the Gulf Islands -- where you have a substantial number of people who actually commute to work as walk-on passengers. And what they end up having to do is leave their vehicle, often in an area that is under the jurisdiction of B.C. Ferry Corporation.

The petition that I tabled today in the House that parallels the one that was given to the B.C. Ferry Corporation has specifically to do with the introduction of a new parking facility and an agreement with B.C. Highways to remove free parking in the vicinity of the terminal. That will cause, I understand, residents on the Sunshine Coast to pay $4.50 a day to park their vehicle. This puts the cost of commuting up substantially for those people because there is no early morning transit. We're working on it. We're trying to get there. Once these estimates are done, maybe we might convince you, as the Minister responsible for Transit, that the additional bus for the early transit would be useful. That puts the cost up substantially. Recognizing that there is a cost to construction and that we're in a tight financial situation, realizing that government can't be irresponsible and not wanting to walk into the trap that is only occasionally laid by the minister opposite to suggest that we're trying to increase the cost of government.... "There the Liberals go again, trying to give away the farm."

If we could recognize that this is a significant burden to a number of people who commute daily and are going to find that their cost of commuting is much higher, would the minister consider and possibly take under consideration a possible solution to that question? That is that the $4.50 would be assessed after 6:30 p.m., so that you essentially could park during the day, but vehicles left over the long term would have to pay that cost. There would simply be an assessment of a rate at that hour by somebody coming along and stamping any vehicle in the parking lot at that particular time with a ticket that would therefore have to be paid in order to redeem your vehicle.

Hon. G. Clark: It has been such a polite debate, Mr. Chairman, and I won't rise to the temptation to make another speech about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Liberal Party or the fact that they've been demanding more and more services. I haven't had that from the Leader of the Opposition on this debate, so I won't engage in that.

Obviously I take no pleasure in assessing any kind of parking fees. That $4.50 is consistent with all the terminals. We have to be in the position of trying to deal with the costs of building those facilities. It's going directly into paying for the costs of land and service. The construction is not complete yet. I do agree with you that there needs to be better public transit, and that's the trade-off. I think that's a fair comment and one that we have to look at.

There are some other interesting questions that I face on transit to the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. I don't want to segue into something completely different, but we have a private sector bus line that goes from downtown to downtown. There's great demand on B.C. Transit to provide regular bus service to each end. The appeal of that is that then you won't have big buses on the ship the whole time. At the same time, we're conscious of the concerns of the private sector. 

[ Page 2448 ]

Subsidized service would completely eliminate their use. We're trying to grapple with these questions.

I'm afraid that pay parking is here to stay in that regard. I know that $4.50 is onerous for some people, and I take the equity considerations. For environmental reasons, for efficiency reasons and for cost-recovery reasons we've chosen to try to do that. I'm prepared to accept the fair comments. We're working on improving public transit as a trade-off to that.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

G. Wilson: With respect to that particular problem, the situation is not unlike what exists on the Sunshine Coast, where the Gibsons bus is a private bus company, and there is B.C. Transit. As someone who was formerly the chair of the transit committee for the regional district and for the Sunshine Coast, I can tell you that we would welcome the expansion of transit service to be able to deal with this question. This is going to be a very difficult problem for a number of people who commute on a daily basis. It will be a disincentive for people on the Sunshine Coast who are forced to commute.

Without getting too parochial with respect to the riding, let me address another question which I know has been raised in a number of townhall meetings I've been at for various coastal communities. I've brought it to the attention of the management, and I'd like the minister to comment it. It has to do with trying to remove vehicles from ferries, where possible, to encourage people to either ride, cycle or walk onto the ferry and also to take into account people who wish to commute into Vancouver by park-and-ride, basically, on the B.C. Ferry. They can pick up a transit bus on the opposite end of their journey from where they're travelling.

The design of the B.C. Ferry terminals squarely puts the cart in front of the horse. The design is such that it provides for those people who are sitting in their car waiting to drive on to be right next to the ferry, and those people who are parking their car to walk on to be as far away as the B.C. Ferries owns property. As a result, people who are senior citizens or who have physical disabilities.... We often have inclement weather, which I realize is infrequent in the province, but nevertheless it's there. We find the design of the ferry terminals discourages people from parking and walking on, which is an environmental consideration, and provides the benefit to those who are sitting in their car waiting to drive on. Given that you've got the same land mass or surface, would it not make sense for B.C. Ferries to provide parking for those walking on close to the ferry? It really makes no difference to those sitting in a car, whether they're sitting within walking proximity of the ferry or sitting a quarter of a mile away.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and the concerns you have are shared. This was an initiative of the management of the Ferry Corporation that I inherited. There is a major rebuilding of the Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen terminals. One of the main motivations is to make sure that passengers are closer to the ships. I see the member for Saanich and the Islands here. I might take this opportunity to make sure that he's invited by the Ferry Corporation to tour that facility in his constituency, because it incorporates some interesting changes precisely along the lines you've suggested.

In keeping with the first part of your question regarding passengers and bikes and the like, I should say that as part of the tariff review that I've asked for, I've asked them to look at the possibility of treating high-occupancy vehicles differently. I don't know the results of that review. Nothing may happen. It may simply not be economical. But we want to try and look at those kinds of questions to see whether we can't be innovative in terms of ensuring that again we reward, if we can, or don't penalize vehicles that have more than a couple of passengers in them.

G. Wilson: I have one more with respect to the question of the tariff, and it has to do with over height regulations. What's the rationale for over height penalty? Given that most ferries have ample headroom, certainly on the larger class vessels -- it doesn't take up any more space; you can't park a car up on it -- what is the rationale for that? I can understand width; if you're over wide or over length, you're taking up space that could otherwise generate revenue, but what is the rationale?

Hon. G. Clark: The rationale is that in half of the ferries we actually have platforms that we can't use with overheight vehicles; secondly, overheight invariably means oversized, and there's a direct correlation. So it's not perfect, but we do try to design the tariff system to maximize the use of the space, and we want to minimize the cross-subsidy which still exists. It is cheaper in some respects for trucks than for cars, on a per-square-foot basis. So that's the rationale; half the ferries do have platforms which can't be used.

G. Wilson: I am down now to number four in my list of four, and so I'm almost complete.

If I could turn my questions now to the construction program -- I'm talking now more specifically about the building of ferries. The minister in his opening statements said how beneficial it was to have a shipbuilding industry, and that we were involved in the construction.

I can tell you that the Liberal opposition opposed in its initial stages the proposition of the construction of the superferry. We do not believe that that was the way to go. However, we recognize that since you had one in the fleet, it made absolutely no sense, given that you had to build the infrastructure to service one, to not have a second one that could counter the first one. It was a bit of a question of being into the pot, and once you were there, it didn't really matter if you were just scalded or boiled, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, what is the overall policy with respect to the construction of superferries? What are the costs associated with the building of these new terminals? What kind of coordination is happening with Highways to deal with what effectively is going to be rush hour every time these things dock?

[ Page 2449 ]

Hon. G. Clark: That's essentially the rationale that I use as well. I think the S-class ferries, had we looked at it rationally, probably wouldn't be required at the time; but once decisions were made, there was a logic to building two.

The whole question of the capital construction is now under review, and my sense is that.... Well, I don't want to preclude any options, but the original plan was for four superferries. My inclination is that we won't build the other two, but I don't want to be hard and fast about that. It depends what happens to load factors and a whole variety of things. These are in some respects much more efficient ships; very impressive ships. The second one's price is coming down somewhat, or at least it's the same, so in real terms it has come down.

They only carry 70 to 90 vehicles more than the larger ships now, so I don't want to overstate the significance of the rush-hour question. We'll also have to see, in some respects, how they perform. I guess what's happened is that there's been a quite dramatic building program for increased capacity. My concern at the moment with the capital construction is that we're not doing enough replacement construction. I think I said in my opening statement on the subject that we have -- this is very crude -- about 40 ships, and the life of the ship is 40 years.

[4:30]

So we should be building one ship a year just to replace the existing capital. We haven't been doing that, and they are getting older collectively. We need a capital construction project just to maintain the existing capital stock. What's been happening is that most of the direction for new activity has been geared towards incremental demand. I don't want this to be a copout, and it sounds like it. It would be more efficient to try to reduce it if we can; but recognizing that, even if we reduce it in terms of the incremental capacity, either by some demand management or some 24-hour sailing initiatives and the like, we're still going to require a significant capital spending program in the ferry fleet.

I might say also that it's my view that the shipbuilding industry generally would be better served if we had a rational, ongoing capital replacement project, rather than a sort of feast or famine with lots of big ships, which I fear is coming down the pike if we don't get on top of it. So by and large, we're probably in agreement on that. A lot of expenditure has been sunk into those terminuses. There have been some really positive answers to that in terms of innovation, which we talked about a minute ago, but they're big and in some respects underutilized facilities. We also can be creative about what might be used at those terminals. We now have two major superferries underway and two small ferries being constructed. We've slowed down the pace a little bit while we review it.

Some big expenditures are coming down which we're still reviewing, such as the Duke Point terminal. My Ferry Corporation staff are persuaded of the merits of this, and, to be candid, I'm not yet. It's a big expense and is not incorporated with highway planning. On the other hand, I don't think Departure Bay is acceptable in the long run. We're reviewing that question. I may well be persuaded of the Duke Point option. I don't want to preclude that by my remarks, but my biases are showing.

We're very concerned about the cost implications of the capital requirements of all the Crowns. I guess it's fair to say, from my perspective, that I'm most concerned about Ferries and Transit, because they are subsidized Crowns. They can have an explosive effect over time if we don't get on top of it. We are just now doing that. There will continue to be -- will always be -- a major capital program on ferry corporations, but it may well be redirected somewhat to more replacement efficiency gains, rather than bigger and bigger ships and bigger and bigger terminals.

G. Wilson: I think the minister might take a chapter out of the aviation industry, where jumbo jets were all the rage until they found that it took you as long to get off and collect your bags as it did to get to your destination. We're likely to have a similar kind of problem with these superferries. Of course, in the aviation industry they went to smaller, mid-size aircraft and more frequent service, which is exactly what we need in the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- more mid-size vessels sailing more frequently.

This brings me to my final set of questions. Then I'm going to turn it over to my hon. colleagues here, who are going to get tough with the minister. I've not been that way, of course. It has to do with the construction of the Queen of Capilano and the Queen of Cumberland. The minister will know that I requested he provide information some months ago with respect to the Capilano. We know that the Capilano seems to have spent more time in drydock for repair, refitting and reworking than it has in service. I'm just speculating on the number of days; I don't have that information. I'm well aware of the technical-mechanical problem -- I understand what's wrong with the vessel -- but could the minister tell us who's paying for trying to get it correct, and is it under warranty? If it is under warranty, is there currently a dispute with respect to the warranty, or are we going to have smooth sailing -- no pun intended?

My second question is, given that the legs which were put into the Capilano were put into the Cumberland with some modification.... I understand the Cumberland now faces similar problems, and I wonder if the minister can comment on that. This seems to be a kind of cost nightmare in terms of trying to get these two vessels into service.

C. Serwa: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

C. Serwa: In the gallery this afternoon are 28 grade 6 students, accompanied by parents and their teacher Ms. C. Ireson, from St. Joseph's Elementary School in Kelowna. Would the House please make them welcome.

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

The Chair: Could you please return to your seat, hon. member.

[ Page 2450 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, the member can't speak from someone else's chair.

In answer to your question, it is under warranty, absolutely no cost to the taxpayer, and the Queen of Cumberland is performing fine. There haven't been any problems yet; however, it is under warranty and it will not be costing anything to the taxpayer. There is a dispute, and it's a result of the management of the Ferry Corporation withholding final payment to Ulstein Maritime. I guess it's maybe a way of enforcing the warranty to make sure that there's no cost to the taxpayer. In spite of the warranty, they haven't been completely paid. One of the things we've done in the Ferry Corporation historically is to ensure Canadian content -- British Columbia content -- and this is a local supplier we were trying to work with to deal with this question. And while there are problems, they are working hard to solve them, and it isn't costing us anything.

G. Wilson: Could the minister give us a figure as to how much the cost of the repair and the service work and all of that kind of thing has been with respect to the Queen of Capilano; and how long has the Cumberland been in service without problems?

Hon. G. Clark: We don't know how much it's costing because we're not paying and we haven't asked. I suspect it's quite a bit. There's a fair amount of retrofitting. No, we're not paying. They're the ones dealing with it entirely. The Queen of Cumberland hasn't been, it's true, in service very long. The legs were modified, which is part of the problem. They're in trials, and it's performing fine as we speak. So it's true that it hasn't had months and months of service yet to test it, but it was modified. They have been modified again in keeping with concerns that have been raised, and because that other corporation is paying the bills, you can be sure that they took extra care in the way in which they were designed for the Cumberland. There have been some design modifications, but it does appear at the moment to be performing well.

G. Wilson: Surely, though, the corporation must be billing Ulstein Maritime for the costs incurred of having to take the ferry up in service and take it back out of service when it ran aground. I know there was welding or some service work and repair work done on it. There was a tug required to stand by and to essentially escort it in and out of its dock for a number of days, which would have cost money. Are all of those costs to the B.C. Ferry Corporation going to be handed off to this company with respect to the warranty?

Hon. G. Clark: Those are some of the issues we're negotiating with the company now. In fact, Frank Rhodes advises me that they met yesterday on some of these very questions. I don't know the answer to how much in fact we've paid out, which we're dealing with. I don't know the answer. I can provide the answer if the member wants, but I don't know precisely.

G. Wilson: I'm receiving notes that I have to terminate my part of this. I realize I would just as soon carry on; however, other pressing matters are before us. I would like to thank the minister for the responses that were made. I look forward to receiving the information that he said he would make available to me, and I would turn this back over to the critic.

F. Gingell: I wonder if we could just get a quick snapshot of the current operating results. Without worrying about the subsidies or about the fact that you leased three ferries for $4.8 million and passed them on to the Ferry Corporation for $1, the ferries had an operating loss of $31 million in 1990. In '91 that came down to $26 million. I wonder if you could tell us what you anticipate the number will be for 1992, the year just finished, and what the projections are for this current year.

Hon. G. Clark: The operating loss expected for '92 will be about $30 million, and for '93 we're anticipating that we'll get it to about $20 million.

F. Gingell: These are the amounts of the operating losses before any operating subsidies and after depreciation. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

F. Gingell: The financial statements of B.C. Ferry Corporation talk about a commitment made some years ago for a ten-year subsidy of $51 million a year. I note that in 1991 they cunningly paid very early and deducted some amount to present-value it. Is that $51 million still the policy of this government?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is no. We are reducing it. We're more efficient, and we have a better tariff policy. But you're right that there was a ten-year plan that was predicated on a $51 million subsidy forever. I said that wasn't acceptable.

F. Gingell: Earlier in this debate we canvassed certain sailings and hours. I wonder whether the Ferry Corporation has any plans at the moment for any additional routes.

Hon. G. Clark: Routes are approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in the annual service plan. There are no additional routes this year. We're not anticipating any next year, but that's always under revision.

F. Gingell: Just going back to the matter of the Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay and Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo runs being profitable and the other ones losing money, roughly what kinds of numbers do you have?

Hon. G. Clark: The profit on those three routes, 1, 2 and 30, which are Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay, Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo and Tsawwassen-Nanaimo, is about $30 million.

[ Page 2451 ]

F. Gingell: Do I assume from that, then, that the amount you lose on the other routes is roughly $60 million? In arriving at the $30 million, you have allocated overhead.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

F. Gingell: That is correct, okay. You were talking during your opening statement about the question of usage occupancy. I was wondering if you could briefly give us a picture of the way occupancy has been going. Is it on the rise?

Hon. G. Clark: The capacity utilization hasn't changed generally. It's about 64 percent for vehicles and 27 percent for passengers. The utilization of the major, profitable routes you described is running at about 90 percent, as anybody, like the member, who takes it knows.

[4:45]

F. Gingell: Can you please advise us of the current status of the completion date for superferry 1 and when you think superferry 2 might come into service?

Hon. G. Clark: March 1993 and February 1994, in that order.

F. Gingell: I was interested in the minister's opening remarks when he talked about the fact that the construction of these ferries was very good for the B.C. economy. My first few weeks as an MLA were spent in telephone calls to Mr. Rhodes about IFC; this really was a serious problem. I don't know that there is any ability to deal with it now.

British Columbia manufacturers and contractors were not allowed to get into the bid on the second ferry, if the relationship between the contractor and IFC was a satisfactory one on the first ferry. I appreciate that IFC is an independent body and independent of government. Could we get a commitment now from the minister that construction projects in the future will be handled in a manner so that British Columbia manufacturers and subcontractors believe they have open access to them? Due to the circumstances of whatever happened last time, that isn't the opinion out there. There were a great number of complaints. I had a lot of correspondence with your president. I really didn't finish up feeling satisfied about it. I did recognize that IFC is an independent body, so one has to be restricted by that. I would appreciate your comments on this whole subject.

Hon. G. Clark: While my bias clearly is for open competition at all levels of procurement on this question, I don't think I want to go that far in the House today, to be candid. We may want, for regional considerations, to try to have a bias toward a British Columbia firm, first of all. Secondly, we may want to have a bias for certain suppliers doing business with the Ferry Corporation. As I said at the outset, that is how the Ferry Corporation has started. That's one of the motivations.

I want to allay the member's concern, because clearly we want competition in all these areas for British Columbia suppliers. I have no intention of interfering in that in a general sense. I just don't want to give you an absolute carte blanche answer, because the Ferry Corporation never worked that way. It has always tried to have a bias to promote nascent industries in British Columbia. I want to ensure that we retain that flexibility. I don't want to give you my word in the House today, which I can't fulfil totally.

F. Gingell: We've got a little off the track, because all these contracts went to Danish and British companies, and it was the local manufacturers who were concerned. The focus of their concern was that the specifications were unclear, and they believed that foreign manufacturers manufacture to specifications that in the normal set of circumstances are not satisfactory for B.C. Ferries standards. That was really where the question was. Of course, one listens to the phone calls, and they're not necessarily always seeing it from the same viewpoint, but it was the opposite subject.

Coming back to the question of capital assets, there is a note in the financial statements of the B.C. Ferry Corp. that indicates you are leasing three vessels for $4.8 million and then leasing them back to B.C. Ferry Corp. for $1. It seems to me that this is an inappropriate method of accounting for both the Ferry Corp. and for the Ministry of Finance. Seeing that you do have financial officials from B.C. Ferry Corp. here, I wonder if you would comment on whether you plan on changing that.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a financial transaction. It's essentially a tax-structured deal that significantly reduced our cost of financing transactions. You may know that it's more difficult at the current time than it has been in the past, but corporations can take advantage of certain tax benefits by buying and leasing back the ferry to the government of British Columbia. For all intents and purposes, they're still Ferry Corp. vessels in the sense that they return to the Crown for $1 at the end of the transaction, but it reduces our borrowing costs quite dramatically. The previous governments have been very aggressive in this regard. My creative Finance ministry staff have been aggressive as well in working with private companies to structure financing transactions at the lowest cost to the B.C. taxpayers.

F. Gingell: I have a feeling that I've got the wrong end of the stick. If I may, I'll go through it again. I wasn't referring at this point to the Queen of Oak Bay, the Queen of Surrey or the Quinsam, which I believe are leased by B.C. Ferries under normal long-term capital leases. I was under the impression that there were three additional vessels besides those which are leased by the government of British Columbia for $4.82 million a year and then leased back to B.C. Ferries for $1.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't think you're right. There are three vessels that the Ferry Corp. leases from the government for $1, and the government pays the lease cost of $4.8 million. It's part of that subsidy.

[ Page 2452 ]

F. Gingell: I appreciate that that is part of the $51 million. There's a subsidy planned for 1992-93 of just a shade under $45 million in cash and $4.8 million in lease payments. Is that particular arrangement the one that covers the Queen of Oak Bay, the Queen of Surrey and the Quinsam

Hon. G. Clark: You're absolutely right. The other three that you're describing are done through the corporation, essentially as a tax-structurerd financing transaction.

F. Gingell: Does the B.C. Ferry Corporation have an option to purchase those vessels at the end of their lease term?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes.

F. Gingell: I take it that that is also true for the other three vessels, which is the $4.8 million.

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct.

F. Gingell: Note 10 to the balance sheet talks about minimum lease payments. Are there any great amounts that can be paid related to usage, revenues or some other factor?

Hon. G. Clark: No, they're a fixed term.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister could advise us what leases within this cause the word "minimum" to be there.

Hon. G. Clark: Generally accepted accounting principles, I'm advised. But I don't want to debate those questions with an accountant.

F. Gingell: I'd like to turn to the question of grants in lieu of taxes. Seeing as I'm a taxpayer in Delta, I'm quite concerned about that particular subject. First of all, I wonder if you could explain what your policy is on this matter.

Hon. G. Clark: B.C. Ferries' current policy is to pay grants in lieu of taxes, and the total amount paid is about $800,000. It's divided according to the size of community, and the four large communities served receive about $150,000 each.

F. Gingell: Do you use the services of the B.C. Assessment Authority to tell you how much the taxes would be if you were a private commercial operation?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes.

F. Gingell: Does the B.C. Assessment Authority give you the answer that you are paying the same amount that you would be paying if you were a private landowner?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is no.

F. Gingell: As I'm the MLA for Delta South and Tsawwassen, could you tell me approximately what percentage it is?

Hon. G. Clark: About 50 to 60 percent.

F. Gingell: Do you plan on changing that and treating the municipalities in a fair and proper manner, or do you intend to continue to browbeat and take from the poor, hard-done-by taxpayers of the municipalities?

Hon. G. Clark: I just want to remind the member that there is only one taxpayer, so I'm not sure that I buy that argument.

C. Tanner: Some of them are bigger than others.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, some are bigger than others. I know that the member for Saanich North and the Islands has deep pockets.

I would say at this point that we are reviewing that question for all of the Crowns.

[5:00]

F. Gingell: On your balance sheet for B.C. Ferry Corporation, there's an item of a debenture for some $38 million that's due in the year 2006. It's a little bit of a mystery to me as to why it would be there. I wonder if you could tell us what it's about.

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is that we did a sale-leaseback. The Ferry Corporation didn't need all of the money, so they lent it to the province in return.

I gather that committee A will be finishing and will come in at about 5:40, so that leaves about 40 minutes of debate. I'm delighted to continue for 40 minutes on ferries. I do have staff here from Transit and from the Crown corporations secretariat. If that's basically where we are, then I'll just have my staff leave, and we'll deal with them another day, probably tomorrow.

F. Gingell: We will just stick with ferries, so by all means let others go. In dealing with the schedule and in trying to work in the needs of the leader of the third party, I'm wondering what plans there are to bring Finance back on or whether we could give him a commitment that we won't finalize it until he gets back.

Hon. G. Clark: This is not really a subject of these estimates debates, but let me say that I'm in Hull, Quebec, for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week at a federal joint finance and health ministers' conference. I hope that we can complete my estimates before I leave -- in some respects it's your call -- which means sometime in the next couple of days or Monday. I hope that can accommodate all members. That seems to me to be a reasonable time-frame.

F. Gingell: I have two last questions. You were talking about the need for planning with the municipalities. You can appreciate the particular situation of Highway 17 on the mainland side. Highway 10 is becoming more and more complicated with B.C. Fer-

[ Page 2453 ]

ries, cross-border shopping and the proposals to build a container terminal at Roberts Bank. There was a suggestion -- and it was serious -- that B.C. Ferries might consider an additional toll being placed on fares that would be payable to the municipality of Delta to help with the maintenance of these road systems. At the moment, Highways isn't in the position to spend the kinds of funds that are needed to upgrade Highway 17. Do you have any reaction to that?

Hon. G. Clark: Let me say that it's not under active consideration.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, is there any occasion or time, for any reason whatsoever, that a free pass is given out on B.C. Ferries?

Hon. G. Clark: MLAs all receive a free pass on B.C. Ferries, and so do ex-MLAs who qualify for the pension, as well as former Premiers. There are a few. It's on a scale, as you know.... What is it? Out of 20-odd million passengers we carry annually, it's obviously infinitesimally small.

F. Gingell: I didn't think they were free. I thought the provincial government actually paid B.C. Ferries for those fares.

Hon. G. Clark: No, they're free.

F. Gingell: B.C. Ferries does not bill the provincial government?

Hon. G. Clark: Don't give them any ideas.

F. Gingell: No. Perhaps recognizing that these things happen, maybe they should bill them, so they know how much that is costing them in lost revenue. Could the minster advise me how much that lost revenue is?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that. I think that philosophically I tend to agree that it probably makes more sense, but I don't know the answer. I'll get you the answer; it's no problem. We can track it. I can assure you it would be very, very small. This is a terrible admission, as the minister responsible for ferries, but I haven't used the ferry system frequently since coming into office. I did when I was in opposition; I travelled on it, as I know other members do. Anyway, we will certainly provide that for you. I'll get the research done.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister about some of the environmental initiatives in B.C. Ferries. I'm sure he'd like to hear some questions on that. I know the budget was around $300,000. First of all, I'd like to get a very broad response from the minister as to what the current budget is and some of the main objectives there. I have a number of them listed here.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure we can actually break out a budget on that, but we're spending millions of dollars this year on environmental initiatives. In 1990 there was an environmental initiative called the New Wave program, which tried to deal with containers and food services, and we're still looking at that. In addition, we're spending money on oil-spill equipment. We have a full-time environmental coordinator looking at these questions. So it's part of our corporate ethic that was begun, to be candid, when Frank Rhodes became the CEO, which precedes the change in government. It's one which I have been driving fairly hard on. There are a lot of initiatives.

I would be delighted to prepare -- and perhaps I should do this for all members on this subject -- a list of the initiatives we're taking on in the Ferry Corporation, because I think you've made a good point. I can't answer very succinctly on all of the initiatives -- and there are many -- so I will undertake to do that for you, but also maybe make it available to other members.

I do have some material in this briefing book. We have a full-time environmental coordinator. We have made significant progress. There's no smoking inside the vessels, which was a Rita Johnston initiative, actually, but supported by all members of the House. We've decreased the use of disposable products and packaged goods. Foam products have been eliminated on the ferries. These are all in the last two years. The recycling of all paper, cardboard, cans and bottles is now under way. We have shifted to environmentally friendly cleaning supplies compatible with on-board sewage treatment plants. Again, that's a new initiative. We switched the fire retardant to water-based and to emulsion paints instead of oil-based paints in the passenger areas to eliminate the release of solvents.

Hon. Speaker, 90 percent of the people carried by B.C. Ferries are carried on vessels with sewage treatment facilities on board, which again is new, and all new ships have sewage treatment. Obviously some of the older ships did not have that, and the new S-class vessels -- the two superferries -- have state-of-the-art environmentally friendly systems. We have new sewage treatment facilities, and a sophisticated oil-bilge water separator keeping all waste oil on board, which is novel. As you know, oil discharge is an environmental problem. We have an innovative garbage treatment system, Power Smart fluorescent lighting and new use of electricity on the S-class vessels. Heating systems utilize waste heat from the engines, another innovation on the S-class vessels. We have an engine-health monitoring system, a computerized system which helps us to reduce fuel consumption and maintenance costs.

Those are some of the initiatives that we are embarking on. I think there have been great strides just in the last couple of years.

J. Tyabji: I have information that the corporation has an environmental department, which had a budget of $300,000 in the last fiscal year. That obviously had three separate areas, where some of the annual savings were estimated to be about $36,000 a year. It also says that for the year '92-93, $6.5 million is budgeted for 

[ Page 2454 ]

sewage treatment, and that there was half a million from last year.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: Yes, it is our friends Peat Marwick once again.

I know that you have said that you don't have a lot of the details with you, but I guess in addition to whatever report you might be willing to provide afterwards, if you could also say to me that.... It mentions $36,000 a year in savings. I would assume that it's more than that. If they already have on-board sewage treatment, then the $6.5 million budgeted for this year won't be necessary if 90 percent of them have sewage treatment. If that's not the case, is there still a budget for that? What is the budget for the environmental programs? If the $6.5 million isn't going to sewage treatment, is it still included in the environmental budget? If it is, where is it going now? If you are saving money, where is the money going to go? Are you reallocating? Or how has the budget changed? How have you restructured your internal budget?

I am assuming also that there has been a great savings in terms of recycling and keeping your waste oil on board. If you're keeping the waste internally, then you're saving money on landfill tipping fees. I would really like to congratulate B.C. Ferries for taking these initiatives, but it would be nice to know some of the fiscal details.

How much money was spent? How much money is going to be spent? If there's money saved, where is it going to be reallocated?

Hon. G. Clark: It's part of our ongoing capital plan. We divide the capital plan into five components. The highest priority -- and it may be even higher as a result of some recent initiatives -- is safety; the second-highest priority of those five is environmental initiatives. That information is better than what I have right here from the Peat Marwick report. I'm advised that we may be taking as many as 100 initiatives on the environmental side. The $300,000 is the budget of the environmental coordinator, who is looking at prioritizing within that. I think you're correct that the $36,000 savings is understated. I think that's just in the packaging side. It would be a good idea for us to do an audit on that. We anticipate that, frankly, this will continue for sometime. Even though there have been dramatic improvements in the last couple of years, as you know, there are always ways we can improve things in this area. As we continue to retrofit the ships and build new ships with new technology, we're also looking at ways in which we can improve efficiency and be environmentally friendly. You're right -- they've done a good job, but there's more to do. That commitment is even higher now than it's been in the past.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, as well. He won't be surprised to know that I'd like to talk to him about a particular topic -- all-night ferry sailings. He referred to this earlier in the context of a service quality initiative, which I think is interesting jargon. I think underlying that concept is something that we all support. We support the notion that the B.C. Ferry Corporation should be implementing innovations to improve the service of B.C. Ferries.

The minister is also aware that the president and chief executive officer of B.C. Ferries has had significant contact and representation on this issue, and has very bravely attended a public meeting in Horseshoe Bay on this matter. He attended, to his credit and courage, I think, under difficult circumstances, a meeting where he experienced some of the frustration that exists within that one community -- which happens to be in my constituency -- over what I would regard as the lack of consultation with respect to the decision to go ahead, I understand, on a experimental basis with all-night ferry sailings.

I'd like to just elaborate on this a bit, so I can get the minister's response to this. I'd like him to understand that we are not opposed to all-night ferry sailings. We're absolutely not opposed. We believe that the ferries are an extension of the highway system. You don't roll up the highways at nighttime. The ferry system service should be improved to people travelling between the mainland, Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, the Sunshine Coast and Bowen Island. We take a look at how that is done. How can we achieve that end? How can we best serve not only the people of British Columbia but the tourist trade as well? All-night ferry sailings, I think, are an important consideration. I think we do have to support that.

[5:15]

I would question whether or not the terminal at Horseshoe Bay is an appropriate place to take a look at all-night ferry sailings. That terminal is right in the centre of a community. Horseshoe Bay itself is not a ferry terminal; it's a community. The people of Horseshoe Bay have some legitimate grievances with respect to whether or not their community should be tolerating all-night ferry traffic. I wonder if the minister might agree that over the long term -- and indeed, over the short term as well -- it might be more appropriate to take a look at all-night ferry sailings from Tsawwassen, whether or not Tsawwassen might be the best location to be looking at all-night ferry sailings, given the fact that Tsawwassen is designated as a ferry terminal. It's a discrete operation. It's designed as a ferry terminal. It's not in the heart, so to speak, of a community. Should all-night ferry sailings to Vancouver Island be more appropriately directed from Tsawwassen as opposed to Horseshoe Bay?

In that context, could the minister could indicate what the future of the terminal at Horseshoe Bay might be, given the fact that there is a community there? It is a community, not a ferry terminal. One proposition that I might make to him -- and I'd be interested in a response -- is that perhaps Horseshoe Bay should continue to Bowen Island, the Sunshine Coast...and if it services Vancouver Island with a passenger-only fast ferry, to reduce the vehicular traffic over the long period of time, whether or not all-night ferry sailings might much more appropriately be directed from Tsawwassen to Vancouver Island. Could the minister 

[ Page 2455 ]

indicate whether or not B.C. Ferries has any plans with respect to this, and whether or not that fits into the long-range planning of the corporation?

Hon. G. Clark: We had some typical Liberal newspeak, where the member said they're in favour of 24-hour sailings, but then has gone on at great length to say that they have real concerns about 24-hour sailings.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Horseshoe Bay. I wonder whether the member for Delta South is in favour of his colleagues suggesting that we do 24-hour sailings at Tsawwassen. I think that....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, or the member for Saanich....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: He's in favour of it. Good stuff. So next summer we'll keep it on record that the member for Saanich North and the Islands wants 24-hour sailings in his community. I think that's admirable, and we'd certainly like to consider that over time.

Let me give a couple of answers to a couple of questions. First of all, it's difficult to do a 24-hour sailing with the Mid-Island Express from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo, because it's a longer run and the two shifts currently are ten-hour shifts. On the Horseshoe Bay-Nanaimo route, they currently have two eight-hour shifts, so we can add a third shift. Technically it is not possible at the moment -- we haven't figured out a way -- to expand the day to allow another shift from Tsawwassen.

Secondly, I would just say that the Horseshoe Bay terminal is here for some time yet.

D. Mitchell: Certainly we've had these kinds of discussions before, and the minister and I have exchanged views. In fact, I've talked with the president as well. The future of Horseshoe Bay as a ferry terminal is something that the minister hasn't explicitly addressed. I'm wondering, in terms of the accountability of the corporation to the residents of a community in which it operates, if the minister can indicate whether or not the Horseshoe Bay terminal is going to be phased down over the course of time, whether or not it could be phased out eventually, or whether or not there are other plans afoot. There are certainly lots of rumours in the community, and it would be useful to clarify this.

Hon. G. Clark: At this point there's no decision to phase down the Horseshoe Bay terminal. Obviously the previous government was planning a massive parkade there, which would have dwarfed Horseshoe Bay, and we have stopped that. We're now reviewing all of these questions with a new board. I've always had a predilection for a ferry terminal at the University Endowment Lands in Point Grey, but some of my colleagues are not particularly happy with that option, and some colleagues across the way aren't very happy with that. There's some real logic to the Iona question, but at the same time, we have existing facilities and a lot of capital is sunk into those facilities. We're providing some innovation to try to make better use of them and not to sink enormous amounts of capital that we think could be better used elsewhere. We're reviewing the whole question.

It is true that the Premier is very interested in a Georgia basin strategy and initiative, and transportation and environmental protection are integral parts of that. I guess it's fair to say that in the context of that kind of regional planning initiative and working with local people and locally elected people, we want to ensure that all options are explored, including the kinds of questions that the member has stated. I don't want to say to you that we're inflexible on the question of Horseshoe Bay forever and ever. We have to look down that road, at the years to come, at the decades to come, on that question. If you look at the decades to come, then other options have to be considered as well. But I want to be clear that Horseshoe Bay terminal is here for some time yet.

D. Mitchell: Horseshoe Bay as a community is also here, and the needs of that community should be considered, and I hope that they would be factored in. Can the minister indicate whether or not the decision with respect to experimenting with all-night sailings from Horseshoe Bay included any kind of environmental impact assessment on how all-night ferry sailings might impact on the community of Horseshoe Bay?

Hon. G. Clark: We are actually doing environmental studies. I guess we're doing acoustical engineering studies and environmental studies. My staff has met with city officials in Horseshoe Bay as recently as yesterday. Already there are some innovations. For example, they are putting rubber on the fingers that load the ships to try to mitigate the sound as ships load. We're looking at trying to deal with the requirement of blowing the vessel's horn as it moves out of the Horseshoe Bay, which is a great irritant, I can imagine, for people living there. We think we may have found a way of dealing with that. So we are working with the communities to mitigate both the Nanaimo and the Horseshoe Bay end. I'm actually impressed by some of the innovations that our staff are coming up with to try to deal with any and all concerns raised by members. Members should know that even without the 24-hour sailings, vehicles are lining up at 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning. Even if we were not doing the 24-hour sailings, these kinds of acoustical engineering and environmental questions are really worth doing. We want to try to mitigate the impact on the communities affected. This experiment for 75 days of the summer months gives us a chance to try to work through with the communities some of these mitigating measures. It may well be that it doesn't satisfy everybody in those communities, but we're optimistic that we can go a long way towards mitigating the impact.

[ Page 2456 ]

D. Mitchell: I would encourage the minister to consult with the people of Horseshoe Bay, because I can tell him that they have not accepted the experiment. They don't like being experimented on, as people in communities don't. This is their home. It's where their families are. It's their community. They don't like not being consulted. I think the corporation must be more accountable.

I have one question with respect to the Bowen Island ferry run, which is serviced from Horseshoe Bay. It makes sense for it to be serviced from Horseshoe Bay, I might add. I wrote to the president of the corporation about this back in January. He responded to me, but we haven't got responses to a couple of specific questions. If I could, I'll ask them at once in the interests of efficiency. There are three small questions here.

One is with respect to a question that was already answered earlier concerning overheight restrictions. The Bowen Island ferry is an open-deck ferry. Why would there have been such a dramatic increase this year in overheight charges on the Bowen Island ferry run? In fact, there was a 64 percent rate increase on overheight vehicles. These vehicles are often run by small businesses that are servicing the island and are often located on the island. It's a tremendous hardship to the operators of those vehicles.

Another question is with respect to Bowen Island residents taking bicycles on the ferry. Is there any consideration being given to encourage a reduction of vehicle traffic by allowing bicycles on the Bowen Island ferry for free? It might be very useful in terms of reducing congestion and some of the other problems, like parking on both sides -- on Bowen Island and on the mainland side at Horseshoe Bay.

One final question concerns the rate increases for the Bowen Island run, which are about the highest on the so-called minor routes in the B.C. Ferry Corporation system. Is there any consideration being given to reducing the charge for foot passengers on some of the minor routes, like the Bowen Island route, as a way of reducing vehicles and in the interests of environmental considerations?

Hon. G. Clark: These questions are part of the tariff review that we've discussed at length today. I'll take under advisement your suggestion on bicycles, because there's some appeal to that. We're reviewing them all.

On the question of overheight vehicles, we have a consistent fare policy for equity considerations, because we do change vessels on routes. We don't want to discriminate on the basis of the vessel, because we want the flexibility of being able to change. As a matter of fact, we are changing the Bowen Island service. The Queen of Capilano will be servicing the Bowen Island route in mid-June, and that's a major improvement for people in that community.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, I assume that because the Ferry Corporation is a specialty art, if you like, its executives must talk to corporations around the world that are running ferries. I have in mind particularly those in Washington State, the ones that go over the channel to Europe and the ones that run between the islands of New Zealand.

I wonder whether there has ever been any comparison made between our costs per passenger carried or per mile travelled -- particularly as they relate to wages -- and their costs. I notice that in the last year we spent $147 million on wages. How does that compare to what's happening on Washington State Ferries, and from the manager's experience, how does it compare to what's happening in Europe?

Hon. G. Clark: The issue here is not so much the wage rate but the Canadian Coast Guard requirements. We have very high staffing standards for ferries and ferry traffic. I am advised that on the Washington State Ferries, some of them have half the staff that a B.C. ferry does. So you're quite correct; that has a huge impact on our wage cost component.

I'm not sure I have at my fingertips -- but my staff have -- any comparisons around the world. But you're right; we do discuss that, because we are routinely at conferences on ferries and ferry technology. There was a recent one in Norway and one in London. I can tell you that, on the operating side, our corporation stacks up very, very well. In fact, it has one of the highest and best cost-recovery factors on the operating side of any ferry corporation in the world.

[5:30]

C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister -- perhaps between now and Monday, when I think he's coming back in the House -- could get us those figures. I would specifically ask the minister to give us the figure on the cost per mile per salary paid. It doesn't matter how many salaries are paid -- either the cost per mile or the cost per passenger for salaries alone. The reason I'm asking the question is that it doesn't matter then how many staff there are on each ferry. It specifically gives us a comparison to make between ourselves and another operation.

Hon. G. Clark: I never thought you'd ask that question, so we don't have that information here with us. But we will certainly have that for you as soon as possible.

C. Tanner: I have only one other question, because most of the others have been asked by my friends on this side of the House. It's one that refers specifically to bicycles. The environmental critic over here was trying to make the point that the ferries have to be cognizant of the fact that we are all trying to be environmentally friendly.

My constituency comprises not only North Saanich, Sidney and Central Saanich, but a very important part of it is the southern Gulf Islands. There is a great deal of interest in bicycles by the touring people and by the residents of those islands. They don't find it easy to put their bicycles on the ferry. In fact, the attitude of the ferry toward cyclists seems to be: "You're a pain in the butt, and I wish you weren't here." I think the Ferry Corporation has to recognize the fact that more and more bicycles are going to be on those ferries. You need 

[ Page 2457 ]

to now recognize, even before the summer, the fact that people want to cycle, and they need to move their cycles from one island to another. The ferries have to recognize that fact. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. G. Clark: I think the member is right. We need to improve our management of bicycles, and I think it is a growing area. My staff were just telling me that recently 400 bicycles showed up unannounced for one ship sailing. We couldn't accommodate them; we exceeded our passenger licence. As you know, on the passenger side we're always significantly under the occupancy. Sometimes on the vehicle side we're at capacity, but we usually have room on the passenger side. When we've had that kind of traffic coming through, we haven't been able to accommodate it.

I'll take the member's questions, because it's not something that I've actually put my mind to. I thank the member for raising it. I think it's an interesting question about how we might try to improve service. In an anecdotal sense, I tend to agree that the corporation as well probably has not put its mind to it in terms of a growing market and a need to provide that service to people and to tourists. I'll make sure that we actively consider that.

C. Tanner: I'm afraid you walked right into this one. You had problems on that ferry because it was unannounced. I have a case today where they have been trying to make an arrangement with the Ferry Corporation. They want to announce it and are not getting very much cooperation from the corporation. I wonder if you could pull the sleeve of your friend on the right there and get him to take a more friendly attitude towards bicycles that are going to be arriving in blocks of about 350 this summer in my constituency, to go to another part of my constituency, to go to another part of my constituency.

Hon. G. Clark: We're not aware of that, so if you have those people phone Frank Rhodes, the CEO, I'll make sure that we try to accommodate. The question of reservations is a whole other area which is also actively under review. That may be part of the problem. We don't reserve space for anybody, really, on these ships. But we want to accommodate people, so we will try to do that. If you inform them, we will make sure that happens.

K. Jones: To the minister. I wonder if you could help us. I have a constituent in Surrey who was a supplier of expansion joints for all previous ferry builds, yet for some reason he wasn't allowed to bid on superferry 1. There was some follow-up on that, and he was given assurance that he would be able to bid on superferry 2. Yet, when it came around to it, he was not even allowed to bid on that. Can you explain what's happened there? There seems to be a real problem in that this long-term supplier of expansion joints has now had to lay off people as a result.

Hon. G. Clark: IFC, Integrated Ferry Constructors Ltd., is a consortium of private companies. When they win the contract, they decide on the subcontractors. They may not have pre-qualified this company for their bidding list, but that's not something that the Ferry Corporation can effectively deal with in a general sense if we're making an award. The previous government made the award to IFC. The second contract to IFC was awarded as the price was coming in under budget, and there were real efficiency gains as a result of moving to a second contract. We can't control private enterprise. It's up to them to decide who their suppliers will be.

D. Symons: I have quite a few questions. I think it will probably take us into the next sitting. I wanted to follow through first with a question, if I can, that was brought up by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands relating to bicycles on the ferries. I have bicycled over to the Gulf Islands, and I have noticed that a canoe or kayak goes on the ferry for the same price that a bicycle does, yet the bicycles are simply put over to the side and don't impede or take the space of any cars, generally, unless there are large numbers of them, whereas the kayaks and canoes -- two of them -- will take the space of one car. It seems disproportionate that they pay the same price. I'm wondering if, to encourage people to use bicycles and get them out of their automobile, they might be allowed on free, since they're not really taking any space that a vehicle might use.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take that under advisement. We are doing this major tariff review, so we'll review that question.

D. Symons: I would like to go into my regular questions not prompted by something somebody else had asked. I can really put these problems that the Liberal opposition has with the ferries into three categories: safety, consultation and coordination. Some of these topics have been touched on by some other members earlier in the day.

We've all heard the concerns raised through the media about safety on our ferries because of the accidents that have happened recently. In fact, some members of this House were aboard the ferry when one of these incidents took place.

As a result, there are two investigations by Transport Canada underway right now. The results of these investigations will not be available for at least a year. However, I understand that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has completed their preliminary report of these incidents, and it cleared the captain of the Queen of Saanich in the Sealink incident and it cleared the radar on board the ship that was involved with the Shinwa Maru

My first question is: what is the procedure for an internal ferry investigation, and would the minister make public all the documents relating to these investigations?

Hon. G. Clark: To deal with the first question first: we can't make it public at this time, because there's still litigation pending.

[ Page 2458 ]

With respect to the question of an internal review: the internal review is part of a broader process of review. It's our senior safety staff. They're all masters. They do a review, and it's given to the federal authorities as part of their bigger review.

If I can, maybe to anticipate a question, because of the fact that there were two such incidents, we have now set up an operational review panel. The members of that panel are Capt. David Bremner, ret., superintendent of ship safety, Canadian Coast Guard, national master, Company of Master Mariners of Canada; Brett Joyce, president of the ferryworkers' union; Capt. Syd Palmer, a retired B.C. Ferries master; Capt. Harry Martin, regional manager of the Canadian Coast Guard; and Rod Morrison, general manager of B.C. Ferries.

That operational review panel is now engaged in a dialogue and discussion with staff and other interested parties, and there's been some public discussion of some of those, and I'm quite happy with that. I think that it helps to generate an openness about the process, but I don't want to prejudge the outcome of that process by making anything else public at this time.

D. Symons: I understand that some of those preliminary process reports got leaked in some way to the public, and I spoke to Mr. Rhodes on the phone regarding this. There were some concerns raised by two men involved with the Ferry Corporation, a Mr. Lench and a Mr. Smith, who have extensive background and experience in the marine industry, and Mr. Smith particularly in marine safety. They've indicated some real concerns with the oil spill response equipment being inadequate on the ferries, and they feel that the number of days of safety training should be extended. Could the minister advise the House what he's doing to remedy this situation, and will he be implementing new procedures? Can we be assured that these people and others will be able to raise concerns in the future without fear of reprisal, if employees point out the problems?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's important for me to say this in the House. B.C. Ferry Corporation meets or exceeds every requirement of the Canadian Coast Guard. We are now reviewing the operational practices that the member talks about, and I'm delighted. It's a review that I and my staff have initiated. It's our review, as a result of that. We're now getting concerns forwarded, and that's part of the review. It's in excess of regulations by the Canadian Coast Guard.

On the question of oil spill equipment -- you may have heard; maybe you didn't -- I have already said that we are spending millions of dollars upgrading our oil equipment and other environmental equipment as part of our capital plan. Any concerns raised by that, during this process, will be reflected in improvements that come out of the operational review.

D. Symons: I believe another concern that was mentioned during this report -- it was reported in the press -- was the problem with the lifeboats. The lifeboats seem to be designed more for the sake of evacuation of the ships in the event of a sinking and are not terribly suitable for rescue of somebody who might have fallen or jumped overboard. Is there any thought of providing the ships with some boat that could be lowered very quickly, so that a rescue operation could be done quickly from the ferries, rather than the more cumbersome procedure that seems to be in place for putting lifeboats overboard?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the lifeguards meet or exceed every Coast Guard regulation. They already do, so nobody should think otherwise. We have Zodiacs on half of the ships, and that's part of the review. I can tell you that the Zodiacs will be on all ships, because I think it makes sense. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the operational review, but that concern is already being addressed by the corporation.

D. Symons: I thank you for your short answers. I'll make my questions short; I'm getting toward the end here.

The official opposition has been assured that this New Democratic government will be consulting with the people of the province before they make decisions that impact them. However, we have recently seen decisions made to provide communities with all-night sailings and other decisions such as the superferries -- without their input. We recognize the need to remedy long ferry lineups, and we're concerned about the processes -- or lack of processes -- in making these decisions. Will the minister advise the House what steps he took to consult the mayors and councils of Nanaimo and West Vancouver before making policy decisions that directly impacted on those communities? Does the minister feel that this was adequate? If not, what process will there be in the future for consultation?

Hon. G. Clark: We didn't do a good enough job on consultation. I don't mind saying that. My staff met with staff in the municipalities. They met with the mayors, but on very short notice. With time pressures to get the tariff schedule through and the new government and the transition.... We have to do a better job of that, and we're committed to doing so.

D. Symons: I have a rather weighty document from the city of Nanaimo. In this they make reference frequently to the problems of consultation with the government. I hope that is something that will be addressed. It's obviously a concern in many communities.

It ties in with my next topic, which is coordination. I'm sure that the minister is aware of the opposition's concerns that ferries are fundamentally linked to Transportation and Highways. We do not feel that it was appropriate to separate them within government. Last time they were debated during estimates, the Transportation critic of the day -- who is the member for Nanaimo -- said that he believed that they should be in the same ministry. Could the minister please give us the reasoning for separating Transportation and Highways and Ferries? They both appear to us to be transportation 

[ Page 2459 ]

issues. We feel that they should be under the same ministry. It would help coordination.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to make this point one more time. When we took office and I was given the responsibility, my staff asked for the people in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways who reviewed ferry transportation issues. The answer was zero. I asked the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the staff who reviewed B.C. Transit's budget policies or otherwise, and the answer was zero. There was no coordination. There may have been in one ministry, but there were certainly no resources devoted to that kind of coordination. It is better now in terms of coordination than it was previously, even though it's in a separate ministry.

I agree that there needs to be coordination, and there will be. It needs to be better than it has been in the past. We're working to do that. The Crown corporation secretariat is part of that. There needs to be a better relationship between Transit and Ferries and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We're committed to doing that. There are a variety of ways to do that. It does not necessarily require that they be in exactly the same ministry.

[5:45]

D. Symons: I'm wondering what the process for interministerial consultation is between the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. How often do they meet to discuss issues, such as the fact that the Island Highway is not going to be completed until about the year 2000 and the superferries will be completed prior to this? How does the minister expect to resolve these issues? These are the concerns that I have.

Hon. G. Clark: We meet in Treasury Board. We meet in cabinet. We meet in cabinet committees. My staff meet in interministerial committees. Frank Rhodes, the CEO, met with the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways within the last five days. There is ongoing communication and a relationship between my staff and those staffs. You're absolutely correct that there needs to be coordination. There is a lot of coordination -- sometimes, I think, too much.

D. Symons: I'm glad that you recognize the difficulties there, because that's something that keeps coming up in the correspondence I receive. We are concerned about the lack of coordination between B.C. Ferries, Highways and Transportation on issues, because the three are closely linked.

One of the things that this leads into -- and it was alluded to before in a slightly different context -- is that you were talking about the size of parking areas for cars. I've had some concerns expressed to me by people about being able to simply park their cars and go on the ferry as a foot passenger. I was out of the House for a while. Was the size of the parking areas addressed? If it has been addressed, I won't ask that question.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it has been addressed.

D. Symons: We'll deal with these quickly that way then.

The next question deals with the superferries. The government has now committed to building two superferries, and one will be on stream quite soon. The Liberal Party was committed during the election campaign and still believes that the smaller and faster ferries would have been the better route to go.

An Hon. Member: It has been dealt with.

D. Symons: It has been dealt with? Thank you.

Contracting out has been dealt with?

Hon. G. Clark: I've heard the Liberal views on these matters, and I have taken it under advisement.

D. Symons: I think we're drawing to a close here. The last one deals with the problems and concerns that the city of Nanaimo has regarding the change in ferry schedules, the all-night sailings and the difficulty with the traffic from the ferry terminal through the town to the highway. I mentioned the coordination of ministries in this regard. There is also a concern at this time that the ferry terminal there really needs a great number of improvements made on it. These seem to be held in lieu because of the difficult decision about what's happening at Duke Point.

I'm wondering if there can be some explanation so that the city of Nanaimo will have some feeling as to what can happen here. Is the ferry terminal going to be relocated or not? When will decisions be made on this?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but we dealt with this extensively, and I'd rather not recanvass it. But let me say this for the member: the CEO of the Ferry Corporation and the new chair of the board met with the mayor of Nanaimo this morning.

I acknowledge that the Ferry Corporation staff won't have to come back at taxpayer expense. We can cover transit and other issues.

I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: And when shall the Committee sit again?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just discussing this with the Clerks, because we'd like to do the summation of that discussion, as they've reported resolution. I understand the hon. minister has a translator for television; I don't think leave is required. Is leave required to extend the hours to hear the wrap-up?

[ Page 2460 ]

The Speaker: Can I assume from the House that Committee A will sit again at the next sitting? So ordered.

Is it also the will of the House that we continue long enough to do the summation of the debates of the Ministry of Women's Equality?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

The Speaker: According to the sessional orders I would call on a member of the third party and a member of the official opposition for a five-minute summary of the debates on the Ministry of Women's Equality.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to conclude my remarks today on the estimates of the newly founded standalone Ministry of Women's Equality.

Equality for women, in our view -- and it's certainly shared by the Liberal caucus -- is a human rights issue. Women need to be heard, believed and understood, and they need to receive justice. Today I feel an incredible sense of optimism. Certainly with the movement ahead on Bill 63, the Human Rights Amendment Act, we are on the right road. We are going to make a difference in terms of advancing human rights, just because they need to be advanced.

I am also pleased with the level of support I received from the Liberal caucus and from my colleagues across the floor. I believe quite honestly that you can only advance an issue such as women's equality if indeed you're prepared to work together and prepared to see the issue go forward just because it's the right thing to do.

The Liberal caucus has a committee of women's equality, and we are looking in detail at such issues as poverty and how pay equity can hopefully advance and improve that situation. We're looking at family law. We're very interested in having family law removed from the court system. We do not believe it's appropriate for the adversarial, confrontational relationship which exists when partners enter a court system to decide on custody of or support payments for their children. It tends to be a very difficult and stressful time. In our view, the court system does not add to the resolution of any dispute.

We hope to move forward in terms of providing background information on different and variable dispute resolution mechanisms. We hope there is some process for negotiation in family disputes. We would like to see a mediation mechanism in place at some point so that families do not have to enter a court system to establish custody or child support; rather, both parties can agree on a mediator and take that forward. Hopefully that will be the easiest in terms of allowing families to remain a unit.

We're also very interested in hearing more on the child care initiatives that the minister has advanced over the last number of months. We truly support the notion that child care has to be quality child care, and it has to be accessible. We do not support families having to travel to two or three different places in the morning if they happen to have children of varying ages. We truly believe that child care should be a community support system, and that it just should be a given that no new community building, no new public school should go forward unless designated child care space is available within it. That is something this committee will carry forward, and we will work most diligently with the Minister of Women's Equality.

I look forward to my continued association with the minister, because I truly believe that the way to measure the success of this ministry will only be available to us after four years, at the end of this term. I think it's a longer mandate. There are lots of obstacles that we can consider removing. There are a lot of things we can put in place to ensure that women have a better quality of life. At this stage, all these issues surround a choice and whether or not women have choices. I believe the Liberal caucus truly supports women having choices. Liberalism champions alternatives and choices for women. It champions the necessity for people to be involved in making decisions that directly impact on their quality of life.

Certainly, I look forward to working with the minister. I thank her and her staff for their expertise and for sharing it with me this afternoon.

Hon. P. Priddy: As I begin, I would like to introduce Mary Butterfield, who is providing visual language interpretation for the summation comments for those individuals who are not able to have closed-captioned available to them as they watch the proceedings of this House.

It's an important day as we wrap up the first budget estimates for the first Ministry of Women's Equality in Canada. It seems to me, as we finish these budget debates, that it is the beginning of an unprecedented journey in this province and country for women and for individuals who have traditionally and historically been denied a place in government in our province, and at the table that shapes the future of British Columbia.

As we proceeded through our budget estimates -- and indeed, I continue to talk about "our" budget and "our" ministry, because it does belong to every man and every woman in this province who believes in equality for women -- some themes emerged that I would highlight as we conclude. One of those is that the principle that this government brings forward through this ministry and through its other ministries is that of community development and the fact that communities know best what the problems are and what the solutions are. As I present this budget on behalf of our ministry, I'm proud to say that 77 percent of this budget goes directly to communities. It goes directly to women, who every day live the realities of the challenges in British Columbia. It goes to women who work on the front line and stand beside other women -- women from aboriginal communities, men from ethnic communities, people with disabilities -- as they move toward a different kind of equality and reality in this province.

[ Page 2461 ]

It was clear in our budget discussions and in some of the excellent questions raised by the opposition that many of the issues we address are partnership issues with other ministries. I'm very proud of this government's commitment for this ministry to be an active, equal working partner with all the other ministries in this government -- Health, Education, Energy, Finance, Attorney General and Advanced Education. It is an equal working partnership. We stand beside those ministries and work together on those issues. Some questions that were asked were issues where we will take a lead; some were issues where other ministries will take a lead. But we will do it together and in partnership.

We talked, as the estimates progressed, about how we would talk with women in this province. People talk about consultation. I chose to talk instead about how we talk with women in British Columbia, and how women can talk with this government and have an opportunity to influence it. Part of our budget has been directed at setting up formal and informal consultations and meetings across this province to offer every opportunity for women to influence this ministry and the issues that affect women's lives which this government will address.

As we looked at child care, employment equity and intervention and prevention of violence against women, it was very clear that this government in this ministry does not speak for women and does not stand for women; we stand with women, and we speak with women and others whose voices have traditionally been denied and have not been heard. I am very proud that this government is offering ways throughout this province so that those voices are no longer silenced.

[6:00]

We have an opportunity in this budget -- and it had a fair bit of discussion -- to make a difference in the area of intervention and prevention of violence against women. This is not about reducing violence; this is about eliminating violence. It is about zero tolerance for violence. The $10 million that we talked about in this budget will be going directly into the hands of people in communities: aboriginal communities, disability communities, communities in Burns Lake, Kaslo and throughout this province. If even one woman is abused in this province, it is too much. It will stop.

I'm grateful for the support of our ministry staff, who have offered their expertise to prepare this budget process with us. I'm also grateful to my cabinet colleagues, who also stand strongly on the issues that affect women's lives and affect employment for people from communities traditionally denied their place at the table. For their support, I publicly offer my thanks and gratitude.

Through this budget this government will take some very important first steps. They're only first steps; they're not last words. They are important first steps. They will go a long way toward making a real difference in the lives of people in British Columbia. If our ministry can say at the end of this budget process that our dollars are directed at being able to say what we have done as a ministry and what we've done as a government has made a real difference in the life of an individual child, an individual woman or an individual who lives in community in British Columbia and requires this government to stand in support beside them, then our budget has been well spent and well debated.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 3:14 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY

On vote 62: minister's office, $331,033.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise before the committee today to present and talk about the budget of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

The Ministry of Women's Equality, and the fact that we are here today, is a powerful indication of a message to the people of British Columbia about the government's commitment to women and to people who have traditionally and historically been denied a place at the table in this province and a part of this government. When I've talked to women across this province, when we've sat down at tables, in meeting rooms and over coffee, women have said that they have never before felt they are so much a valued part of this government, this province and the building of its future.

People often ask, actually: do we need a Ministry of Women's Equality? My answer to people is that we do, because women in this province continue on average to earn less than men, continue to be concentrated in the lowest-paid jobs and continue to live in poverty to a far greater extent than men. Too many women are abused by their husbands or partners, sexually harassed in the workplace and assaulted in the streets of their communities. One out of eight women are victims of sexual abuse and violence; one out of four women, victims of sexual violence; one out of two handicapped women, victims of sexual violence. Women continue to be excluded from all but a minority of positions of power and influence in Canada: in the justice system, in the halls of higher education, in the public service, in the business and financial community, and even here in the chambers of this government.

[ Page 2462 ]

The role of the Ministry of Women's Equality is to work together with other ministries and with the community to help make a difference in the lives of women in this province and in the lives of people who have traditionally been excluded from a place at the table. Change won't happen overnight, but we are beginning the process by focusing on some of the most pressing needs and addressing these critical areas. That's what we've done in the 1992-93 budget.

The issues we'll be concentrating on this year are all of long-standing concern to women in British Columbia. The resources allocated to Women's Equality in the '92-93 budget will enable us to significantly begin meeting the expectations of women and men in this province. But it's only a beginning. We have ignored the needs of women, first nations people, visible minorities and people with disabilities far too long. It's an important first step, but it is only a first step.

I'm very proud that from the resources of this ministry, 77 percent of the budget goes directly into the hands of people in the community, which is exactly where it should be going. Many of the resources will go toward increasing economic opportunities for women. We recognize that until women have economic equality, until poverty is no longer part of women's lives, they will never gain equality in other aspects of their lives.

I often say to people that this is not my ministry. I tell women that frequently and I tell groups that frequently. This ministry belongs to every single person in this province, every man and every woman who believes in equality for women. Everybody owns a piece of this one. When we talk about equality in this ministry, we're talking about equality in its broadest sense: social equality, political equality and legal equality. Our vision is a vision of a different reality for women in British Columbia, a reality in which we have a greater access to opportunity, power and decision-making. To realize that vision, we learn from the lessons of the past, take what we're doing now and build toward the future.

We open up the doors of this ministry to everybody, and we ask what the easiest way is for you to talk with us, and what the easiest way is for us to talk with you, so that you can help us shape the future of this ministry. That is part of what our vision is about. My job and everybody's job in this ministry is not to stand up for women but to stand with women, and not to speak for women but to speak with women and to ensure that women's voices and the voices of other people who have been excluded are heard strongly, clearly and at the table where decisions are made.

I will highlight, as I go through, three or four key issues which we will also be addressing in response to questions on the budget. The first one is child care. Improving child care services is a crucial step in helping women gain economic equality. Over and over again, women list the lack of affordable, accessible, quality child care as the single greatest barrier to entering or returning to the workforce.

Here in B.C. the picture for parents who seek child care in their communities has been very bleak. Parents have scrambled for quality care for their children and in many cases have not found it. I don't know if any of us can imagine or have experienced what it's like to require child care, to go to work and to not have a secure and safe environment for our children. Meanwhile, licensed child care centres have been closing their doors because of financial difficulties. Child care fees don't meet the actual cost of delivering programs.

Whether parents need to or choose to work outside the home, it is critical that they have access to a range of quality child care options. On April 23 this year I had the pleasure, along with this government, of announcing the government's child care plan, a collaborative effort of nine ministries and one Crown corporation. It is, again, an example of the partnership this ministry works in. We didn't do this by ourselves; this isn't just our job. Nine other ministries worked with us on this, every one of whom had a responsible, accountable piece of the child care strategy -- an important first step.

I think people have heard some of this before in the information provided, but some of the initiatives I'd highlight are that the Ministry of Women's Equality has the lead responsibility for implementing this plan. In recognition of the importance of child care to women in particular, we've allocated a total of $14 million, 45 percent of our budget, for this purpose. It is for enhancement, stabilization and expansion of child care. Part of the issue is affordability, and there are other ministries addressing that as well. But what we're doing is ensuring that there are spaces available for parents who are seeking child care.

An investment in safe, affordable, quality child care is an investment in a healthy economy and a healthy society. There have been research studies that say if you invest a dollar in quality child care, there will be a $4 to $6 taxpayer-saving over time. So we'll be providing more quality child care for children. It will open the door for more British Columbians, and particularly women, to work outside the home for pay, to work outside the home for other initiatives, or to get the education and training they need to make a difference in their lives if that's what they choose to do.

We have 16 different child care programs that we are taking forward. They include $2.5 million in new money for spaces for infants and toddlers. There are only 840 licensed infant and toddler spaces in the entire province, so we are working very hard to stabilize and significantly increase those. There is $3 million in an expansion program to help establish more non-profit child care centres. We're working to create more spaces in family day cares around the province and more referral systems to help families find the child care services they need. Families should not have to go from place to place in order to find child care. We want it to be easy for families to find good care.

The cornerstone of the child care strategy is the creation and expansion of child care services that are responsive to the needs of all parents and local communities -- again, something that we believe in. Local communities know best what the problems and the solutions are. Communities will tell us: this is what our community needs in the area of child care. We've listened to communities, we'll continue to do so, and we'll be working with communities to help them do 

[ Page 2463 ]

that planning. This isn't the last word; it's a good first step.

In the area of pay equity, women make up almost half of our province's labour force. In 1989 the percentage was 44 percent, and we know that it's significantly greater now. But here in British Columbia, on average women still earn only 66.8 cents for every dollar earned by their male co-workers. One of the priorities of our ministry is to begin the process of closing that wage gap. We realize it can't happen overnight, but we are determined to make a significant start.

The government of British Columbia is proceeding with a pay equity program for members of the BCGEU working in the public service. Under this initiative, workers in a range of, if you will, female-dominated job classifications have already received a salary increase. Our ministry is working along with the government personnel services division and the GEU to monitor and ensure that that system is accountable. In addition, we will be asking British Columbians to consider a framework for the negotiation of pay equity in the public sector.

We have expert staff who will be supporting the efforts of employers and employees to work on these important issues. We have learned from other jurisdictions. I don't know if there are always advantages to being last. You don't always say you're last with a great deal of pride, perhaps. In this case, British Columbia has not taken other initiatives under previous administrations, so we are last. Nine other provinces have already begun this. But we are learning from other jurisdictions what their experiences have been, and we will take those experiences to our process.

In the area of employment equity -- another very important part of our ministry's vision -- women are not the only segment of our population who face inequities in the workplace. An important element of government policy is creating equitable opportunities inside and outside government for all British Columbians, regardless of gender, race or disability. I believe that as a government and a province, we are diminished when we fail to recognize the rich potential provided by our diverse population. I don't want us to miss those opportunities.

As the ministry responsible for employment equity, we've begun to address the significant underrepresentation of first nations people, women and men with disabilities, visible minorities and women in the public service. The goals of the employment equity program are to create a public service that at all levels is representative of our diverse population, respects individual differences and denies no one job opportunities for reasons unrelated to the ability to do the job.

Implementing the employment equity program is a key responsibility of our ministry, and we have been allocated $1.1 million in this year's budget to proceed. We'll be working with the BCGEU and other bargaining units on employment equity initiatives. We will also be working with those groups who are underrepresented in our government, to find the very best ways to reach out and encourage people to be part of our government. We will be inclusive rather than exclusive. It is not only about having people come and work with us; it's creating a culture where people stay. It's not about counting numbers and saying that this many people are here. It's creating a government that creatures a culture that people want to work in, want to stay in and are welcome in. That is our goal. I want people all over British Columbia, people from first nations communities, ethnic communities and those with disabilities to look at this government and say, I see us there; I see us as part.

Education and training is another key component for us. Women form the majority of students enrolled in post-secondary education in B.C., but they continue to be dramatically underrepresented in traditionally male-dominated fields, such as science and engineering. Fewer than 5 percent of apprentices in critical trade and technical skill areas are women. Women continue to face additional barriers to participating in non-traditional programs. There are barriers such as biased course curriculums, course designs that make it very difficult for women who are raising families to participate. There are hours when people can't; there is no child care available; there are no role models, or very few; there is a lack of bridging positions. Those are all significant areas that we're looking at, and we are moving on.

[3:30]

We're leading an interministry working group on education and training equity. We're looking at how we can broaden education opportunities and choices for women, so they can participate in a range of occupations at all levels and make a good living that provides a standard of living that allows women to live in their communities and raise their families. All choices women make are valued choices; all choices women make are good choices. We just want to make sure that the range of choice is available.

Studies, by the way, have shown that by the end of this century women will outnumber men in the paid workforce. The implication of that is both interesting and probably apparent. But our success in encouraging women to enter and succeed in a variety of occupational roles is critical to maintaining the labour force growth in British Columbia. If women aren't there, this province will not be economically healthy. So it's a key role that we play. A strong, well-educated and skilled labour force is an essential ingredient in our continuing economic growth.

Intervention and prevention of violence against women is another key area. Economic equality is critical to women in B.C., but the struggle for equality goes beyond fair treatment in the workplace and equal training in employment opportunities. The hard fact is that the attitudes that limit women's participation permeate every aspect of our society. The most terrible expression of these attitudes is the violence that too many women face in their homes, in their communities and in their workplace. Wife assault has no boundaries. The women who crowd the beds at transition houses and safe homes across this province come from rural areas, urban areas, major cities and small towns, high-income families and low-income families, and all ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Wife assault is not 

[ Page 2464 ]

something that happens somewhere else. It happens in my community, and it happens in yours.

We've talked about some of the statistics, but when we talk about one in eight, one in four, one in two, the bottom line to this is that even one woman being abused is unacceptable. The violence must end. This government is committed not to reducing violence against women, but to eliminating it. That means we work with communities to prevent violence from occurring in the first place and to ensure that intervention occurs as quickly as possible when it does happen. A total of $10 million in new funds, 33 percent of our budget, has been allocated to the Ministry of Women's Equality in 1992-93 to respond to violence against women. These dollars will allow us to make a significant start in meeting that challenge, in partnership with other ministries.

Again, the majority of these dollars will go to communities directly, to improve services for women in their areas. I am very conscious that people in Burns Lake, Kaslo, Prince Rupert or Terrace know best what the solutions for their communities might be, and these would be very different solutions than those we might see for the downtown east side, Burnaby or Surrey. We need to be very conscious of the fact that regions, small communities and northern communities will deal differently with the solutions, as it should be. Our priority will be on improving and expanding front-line, community-based services for women who are victims of violence. This includes counselling and advocacy, and services for victims whose voices have not been heard. I'm talking now about women who are particularly without power in our society: immigrant women, women who are members of visible minorities, aboriginal women and women with disabilities.

Among the words that come up again and again whenever I talk about this ministry are community consultation and community partnership. There's a reason why I stress these words. Community consultation and partnership with community organizations are a central and integral underpinning of our ministry. I've almost stopped talking about consultation and said to people, let's just talk about how we talk together; let's just talk about what works.

We believe that people who work on the front lines every day providing services, or those who will be using those services, are the very best judges of the help and support they need from this government. I am not that judge. I don't have that expertise. I don't live those lives everyday. The people who know best are the people who work there every day and the people -- the women and others -- who live that reality every day.

That means that as a ministry, Women's Equality is committed to working with communities throughout the province to help them develop needed services. We're already working with community organizations in a variety of ways. Under our women's grants program, our ministry will provide over $1 million this year in operational funding to women's centres across the province, to help maintain and expand services to B.C. women. Centres have already received over $400,000 in stabilization grants from last year's budget, and they'll shortly be getting $37,500 each toward operating costs. A priority of government is to make sure support is available for women when and where they need it. Ongoing operational funding of women's centres will bring us closer to that goal.

Another example is project grants. The Ministry of Women's Equality provides one-time grants to community organizations for innovative projects that reflect the needs of women in their communities. In '91-92 we provided over $1 million in grants to community organizations in the province for a wide variety of projects in a number of areas such as intervention and prevention of violence against women, education and employment, and community needs assessment and planning -- and we are just announcing the next series of project grants for '92-93.

We have six communities around the province that are supported by regional coordinators, and we will continue to provide that critical support to regions. Coordinators help communities develop and tailor programs to fit the needs of women who live there.

Women in British Columbia have struggled long and hard for equality. The victories they've won were often won in the face of very entrenched opposition, with sweat, courage, strength, power and the passion of their convictions. Seventy-five years ago women struggled for the right to vote and to hold public office. Sixty-three years ago they struggled for the right to be considered persons under Canadian law. Seven years ago they struggled to have equality guarantees written into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today women continue to struggle for the right to live lives free from abuse, sexual assault and harassment; for the right to compete for jobs without unreasonable barriers; for the right to have their contributions valued equally; for equal opportunities; and for an equal share in power and influence. It's time for the struggle to end. The Ministry of Women's Equality has no magic wand to wave that will make all these inequities instantly disappear. We recognize that changing the attitudes and practices that contribute to the barriers to women will take time -- not too much time, we hope. But the initiatives I've outlined today will enable us to take some important steps forward.

This ministry is not an end in itself, but the beginning of an unprecedented journey in this country toward a different reality for women and men in British Columbia. By making sure that as Minister of Women's Equality I am a member of major cabinet committees, the government has ensured that solutions to systemic discrimination against women will be an integral part of cabinet discussions. By giving us a dual role of assisting other ministries in addressing the needs of women and taking the lead in delivering programs and coordinating policy and program development among ministries, the government has ensured that we have the clout to make a difference. By allocating significant financial resources to the ministry in its first budget, the government has ensured that our commitment to women will translate into action.

We've been given a unique opportunity in B.C., an opportunity to help bring about fundamental change for women and for other groups whose voices have not been adequately heard. Together with women and men 

[ Page 2465 ]

across this province, the Ministry of Women's Equality intends to make the most of that opportunity in the year ahead.

I'm very pleased to be able to introduce members of the ministry staff who have joined me today. I hope this is both a unique and a novel opportunity for you to see the women representation our ministry staff as you look across the table. I'd like to introduce them to you: Dr. Sheila Wynn, deputy minister; Pauline Rafferty, assistant deputy minister; Cheryl Dunn, special projects coordinator with the deputy minister's office; Roberta Burris, who is in charge of our employment equity initiatives; Dyan Dunsmoor-Farley, who is in charge of our child-care team; and Jan Hemming, who is our financial officer. I'm very pleased these people have joined me here today. We have other people here to also lend their voices and support, and I'm pleased to have them with me. We don't do this alone; I don't do this alone; this ministry doesn't do this alone. We do it because we have extraordinarily supportive, dedicated and qualified staff, and I'm pleased to have them here.

I just want to end my remarks by saying that before the questions begin, we'll do our best throughout the estimates to answer any questions that we can. For those questions that we are not able to answer immediately, we will endeavour to get answers to you as soon as possible. We may not always be able to get them within the same day, but we'll certainly bring the answers back to you just as soon as we can. We are quite looking forward to this afternoon.

L. Reid: I, too, am very pleased to be here this afternoon. I can say that it is quite delightful to be here at this particular time of day. I know I recognize some of you from interim supply. That was a much earlier time, shall we say.

My comments this afternoon are very much in support of the direction of this ministry. I think you are all aware that to be a woman in Canada today means to suffer enormous financial penalties and high levels of sexual abuse and discrimination. I think that is something we all need to stand together on. One of the first things I ever said to the Minister of Women's Equality was that I could see nothing more bizarre than two women rising in the Legislature to squabble about women's equality. So, indeed, her points are very well taken. You will not see us in opposition, necessarily, unless we are somehow missing some of the issues that need to be advanced on behalf of women, because I do not believe that this issue can be done alone. I think if both sides of the House.... This is not a party issue. I think all folks need to come together to advance these issues.

I rise today to address some critical issues. Certainly my list is not exhaustive; there are things that you will not see reflected here. But I'm confident that in my lifetime we will not always require a Ministry of Women's Equality. I am hoping that somewhere within the next 60 to 70 years we can actually make some definite progress in this area.

The issue of women's equality is championed by one of the basic tenets of liberalism. We firmly believe that the rights of the individual are paramount, and we will see that this ministry does all that it can in the next number of years. I see this as the beginning of a partnership. This term of office, this sitting of parliament, will hopefully carry forward and have some way to measure its success at the end of the day.

Women's equality may have its own ministry, but we see that many ministries are involved; indeed, there is tremendous overlap in violence against women, child care, women's health issues, sexual harassment and family law. I will address some of these issues today.

In my view, many of these issues will require extreme sensitization by professionals in the public. Problems need to be recognized before they can be solved. As we have seen in recent months, judges have been distinctly unaware of the ramifications of their statements -- e.g., the very young child who is "sexually provocative" and "no not really meaning no." There has been much discussion on the feasibility of training for judges and for lawyers to sensitize them to the issues of gender equality, violence against women and child abuse. As a society, we need to rethink our approach to these difficult situations. In 1989, 190 women in Canada were murdered by current or former partners. In cases of sexual assault on children, 48 percent of the assailants were family members and only 8 percent were strangers. Women are victims in 92.5 percent of all sexual assaults, and men are 99 percent of the accused assailants. In all, one in four women is sexually assaulted at some point in their lives.

There is a concern that violence against women isn't dealt with in a fair and serious manner. Historically, the police have been hesitant to get involved in spousal assault situations; they were once considered domestic disputes. Frequently, when these matters come before the courts, the judiciary has been less than sensitive to the questions of rape and assault. As our province experiences increased economic uncertainty, stress at the family level is bound to increase. The reality for thousands of women and children in our province is that they will become victims of violence.

The government must be prepared to assess its own staffing levels to ensure that trained personnel are available to deal with the increasing disclosures of sexually abused children. Sadly, many incidents of violence and abuse require more than counselling; they require the force of law. Take, for instance, the current practice in Duluth, Minnesota, and more recently in London, Ontario, where the courts, the police and the school system are working towards zero tolerance for violence against women. This must be our commitment in British Columbia.

[3:45]

It is my belief that family law should be delivered in a non-confrontational manner. This issue has been debated at great length by our women's equality committee of the Liberal caucus. We stand firmly behind the notion that we should not force families into adversarial situations. Given the nature of our justice system, it is incumbent upon us to increase the availability and potential of mediators in the judicial system. We need to ensure that there are many different dispute-resolution mechanisms. The financial and human costs of litigation and the time consumed in 

[ Page 2466 ]

taking civil action are detrimental factors to most potential litigants. Alternative methods of resolution must be explored.

According to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, it took 65 to 80 hours a week of paid work to support a family in 1991, a sharp rise from 45 hours in the 1970s. Most families now require two incomes. The report emphasizes stress on financial, physical and emotional strategies.

We must create a workable action plan for the delivery of child care. Far too many families are unable to secure quality care, and this must be addressed. It is time for government to work through local community-based organizations. I applaud the work that has been done by this ministry in this regard. We need to stand behind individuals interested in providing child care, with concrete advice on business plans, marketing and balance sheets. We need to realize that they need to be successful in their endeavour. We need to have, uppermost in our minds, a commitment to integrate child care into our existing structures. Child care needs to be available in all public buildings, schools and community centres. The public has already paid for these buildings once. We need to make better use of them. We must see the provision of child care as a continual service. We need to create centres of excellence for the delivery of child care. We must build on the plans of this ministry until we reach this goal.

Fifty-seven percent of single-parent families headed by women now live below the poverty line, a figure that has not changed since 1974. In addition, about 75 percent of women lived out the last quarter of their lives in poverty. The philosophy behind employment equity is to provide disadvantaged societal groups with opportunities for employment within the job market. We need to debate this issue at great length in the Legislature. Pay equity must be dealt with by this government. To do anything less is to perpetuate the problem and commit women to further peril.

The Society for Children's Rights to Adequate Parental Support is a non-profit society committed to improving enforcement of child support, rationalizing the process of setting child support and changing societal attitudes about the responsibilities of parents for their children after a marriage breaks down. In 1988 this society was a member of a coalition of organizations which had urged the province to establish a support enforcement program. The family maintenance enforcement program was implemented in 1988 and continues to lack effectiveness. On March 13, 1991, the Hon. Kim Campbell, federal Justice minister, released a Justice communiqué in which she explicitly identified financial abuse as a form of family violence. The Justice minister states that provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Divorce Act will need to be reviewed to enable the justice system to deal with the realities of crimes of family violence.

The Society for Children's Rights to Adequate Parental Support has undertaken a new campaign to convince the federal government to eliminate the taxing of child support payments. Susan Thibaudeau, a resident of the province of Quebec, has recently undertaken a class action suit on behalf of all single parents in her province. I express my strong interest in having this issue resolved as quickly as possible on behalf of all children in British Columbia. I believe that current tax laws discriminate against single parents and are blatantly unfair. These laws are particularly hard on women, who are usually the single-parenting spouse. Many single parents in Canada receive inadequate financial support or no support at all. Support payments are received on behalf of the child. As such, no child in British Columbia should have their income taxed.

Despite some gains, women remain seriously underrepresented in Parliament. Women hold 39 of the 295 seats in the House of Commons, or 13 percent, even though more than half of the population is female. We have work to do at all levels of government to ensure representation by gender.

The recent spectacle surrounding the Clarence Thomas nomination has brought the issue of workplace sexual harassment to the surface. Canadian courts have no jurisdiction to deal with sexual harassment. There are only two contexts in which sexual harassment can arise in a court of law. The first is when an employee is terminated as a result of sexual harassment of a co-worker; the second is when a person resigns his or her position, asserting that she or he has been the victim of sexual harassment which is so severe that the employment relationship has been repudiated. This would take the form of an action for constructive dismissal. Even in such an instance, the employee cannot claim damages for the sexual harassment itself but only for the loss of employment. Such damages will be measured in the same way as damages for wrongful dismissal. Similarly, if a women complains that she has been terminated as a result of resisting a superior's sexual overture, she cannot sue for damages for sexual harassment but only for wrongful dismissal.

There are many more areas we need to address than the ones I've mentioned today. I'm hoping that we can arrive at some common ground in terms of dealing with sexual harassment. Certainly I'm aware of a number of colleges in this province that are looking at this issue.

The work I refer to on sexual harassment was written by Howard Levitt, and I thank him for his thoughts.

The discussion of this issue and all others has only just begun. The estimates on Women's Equality have created a forum for initial discussion. However, the success of this ministry will be measured in four years, and it will be measured by the women of British Columbia. We look forward to seeing action plans and implementation plans. Policies and philosophies exist in abundance. British Columbians need this government to tie their theoretical underpinnings to real problems and real issues. I look forward to our continued association, hon. minister. Together we will be stronger. Gender equity is not a party issue; gender equality is a people issue. I look forward to all your upcoming legislation.

My first question today is: does the minister anticipate further growth in staff in the Ministry of Women's Equality?

[ Page 2467 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly within this year's budget we are anticipating further growth. Positions have been approved and have not yet been filled. We are anticipating growth within this year's budget to the amount that our budget has been approved for. In many ways that's an important statement for me to be able to make, because those positions which have been approved -- and I just want to check the actual numbers remaining to be filled, because we've begun a little bit of posting and filling -- allow us to use the employment equity principles and to reach out as far as we can to encourage people to come and work with this ministry.

In filling the positions that will be available to us, we will be advertising in non-traditional and traditional ways through ethnic organizations and first nations newspapers -- ways which people have not traditionally used to let people know that there are jobs in government and that they are welcome to come and work with us. Those positions, which we have yet to fill, will welcome 38 new FTEs out of a total of 65. We have 14 that are presently being recruited. We welcome the opportunity to refine the ways in which we reach out to people. Perhaps everybody reads the Vancouver Sun for jobs. That may be, but that's not been our experience. We really want to be able to reach out to the other communities and say: this is a government that wants to you have you here, and let's find some more creative-innovative ways of welcoming you.

Again, the totals: 38 new FTEs out of a total of 65; 14 being recruited presently.

L. Reid: Under the administration and support services subvote, could the minister detail what is included? To give you some background, what classification are the staff members, and how many would this include? Is the Women's Equality library and its staff included under this subvote?

Hon. P. Priddy: The category that you refer to is the deputy minister's office. There are six staff in that office. No, that particular area does not include the library services.

L. Reid: In terms of moving this through in some systematic fashion, we'll be touching on employment equity, and one of my colleagues will be asking a question momentarily.

I am wondering if you could outline the mandate of the employment equity program. Does the program aim to achieve equal, or equitable, representation of women? What about visible minorities, aboriginal people and disabled people in the public service? Have any hiring quotas been set?

Hon. P. Priddy: When we look at the goals of employment equity within this ministry, the member is correct. When we speak of employment equity, we are talking about all of those groups of individuals who've traditionally been excluded from government. We are talking about women, but also about people from the first nations community, disability communities and ethic communities. Of course, many of those are also women, so that also increases the numbers that are women.

Several things have happened. One is that there was already a statement in place from the previous administration that there would be employment equity. What we have done since this ministry was established is to consult with the union on the development of an employment equity program and on the impact of that on the workplace. Many individual ministries have developed their own employment equity plans, have trained staff and have implemented new initiatives on their own.

Some next steps for us -- and then I'm going to talk a little bit about the "how to" -- are to finalize our policy. It has been on the bargaining table, and of course we would not interfere with that process. Another step is to work with the union around a workplace profile, so that we have some sense of what the face of the government really is. Then we begin the outreach recruitment and look at employment systems that really bring people into government. In terms of how that will happen -- and you've asked about numbers -- it seems that when you look at experiences in other places and at the fact that you want to make it work and do it right, several things have to happen. We need to look at the barriers. What are the cultural barriers, physical barriers and attitudinal barriers that have prevented people from being part of the workplace? We are doing that now.

We are also looking at what creates a climate of encouragement and support. It is not a matter of saying, this many people should work here. It's matter of saying: how do we encourage people to come and to stay. There's work to be done in terms of creating an environment that is welcoming. We can only do that with the groups of people that are most affected. We would not choose to do that or be disrespectful enough to do that on our own. We are looking at how to create that climate and how to remove those barriers. We are doing that with the groups of people that are most affected. You would work out with employer and employee what it looks like now and what is a logical place for us to be in one, two or three years' time. We are doing that with the unions and with the people who will be most affected.

I don't think you go in and say it's these kinds of numbers or it's this whatever to any organization until you've looked at who's there, at why folks aren't there and also at what makes sense for a particular organization in a particular part of the province. It's different in Victoria than in Burns Lake. It also needs to be individualized to the province. I think we need to ensure that we are quickly, carefully and systemically removing those barriers and that we are doing everything possible within this government to ensure that people have an opportunity to work with us.

[4:00]

L. Reid: From your comments, I assume you've identified the barriers. Certainly the fact that you are not willing to set quotas at this time warms my heart. I am interested in knowing what kind of strategies will 

[ Page 2468 ]

be in place to remove these barriers, and if indeed this government would ever look at legislation.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I would caution the members of the committee that areas of legislation are out of order in examining the minister's estimates.

Hon. P. Priddy: The policy or the framework is now with the Deputy Ministers' Committee on Human Resources, which is looking at what some of the pieces of that will be. I mentioned earlier as well that there is a draft plan for the workplace profile. Some of the strategies.... I think I've mentioned some, but one is cross-government training. I think you and I have spoken before about things like the Kingswood model -- the kinds of models and training available for individuals to raise levels of awareness about what the issues are within government. That is a strategy. Accountability and responsibility across ministries and across staff for the initiatives within their own ministries is also part of the strategy. The employment equity branch in our ministry has completed training for employment equity representatives and directors of human resources and so on in more than 50 sessions so far with ministries and some executive committees. Actually, in many ministries, senior managers have participated and, I think, have been quite powerfully moved by the Kingswood program, which I know you are aware of. Those are some of the ongoing strategies.

L. Reid: One of the most significant barriers to accessing employment for disadvantaged people is inadequate recruitment procedures. This is a particular problem for aboriginal folks. Certainly those aboriginal people living on reserves are not familiar with employment structures or job application procedures for the public service. What is being done to inform, aid and recruit these people, who are now doubly disadvantaged?

Hon. P. Priddy: We know when we look at statistics for people from the first nations community, that it is even more of a disadvantage and a barrier for them, in terms of employment. We are working closely with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to establish contacts with them and with their outreach contacts in aboriginal communities, to develop our links into those communities and to establish the best way to do that. We don't have a finalized way to do that yet, but we have recognized that we must do it with the aboriginal community. We know that it is a more significant barrier for them, and that our outreach unit, which will be part of our employment equity branch, which is developing an outreach unit, will be very active in preparing potential applicants for the public service selection process, assessing qualified designated-group-member job applicants, participating in selection panels where requested and assisting managers in evaluating their worksites to ensure that, as it relates to people from the first nations community, those worksites are indeed welcoming and supportive of aboriginal people. Currently all of our postings are circulated to all of the bands and tribal councils.

L. Reid: Once you have those people up for the selection process and they are actually able to receive the job, do you have any thoughts on how best to retain them in the system and, hopefully, to promote them as they work their way through the public service?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, several. I will perhaps just highlight four or five of those.

First, that is why the training we are doing with ministry staff is so important -- so that staff is aware of what you need to do in order to encourage and retain.... Retention is the issue. Recruitment is part of it; retention is far more so. Secondly, we will be asking people from aboriginal communities as they join our government what makes a workplace a good place to be or to stay in. Getting that feedback from the aboriginal community itself, the training of individuals, our own accountability and follow-up, bridging positions within government.... Part of it, again, is creating the climate. But also, when people are here, if they want other opportunities, this ministry is very committed to the concept of bridging positions, where if people want to learn a different position within government but don't necessarily have the skills to apply for it yet, we can create bridging positions where people have an opportunity to learn those skills. We will be very much taking that initiative forward.

L. Reid: Working conditions, improving discrimination practices, sexual harassment policies -- all of those things need some kind of appeal process. Do you anticipate any changes, any improvements, to the appeal process?

Hon. P. Priddy: Unions, organizations and workers have given significant indicators of the need for change. Many of those issues are currently on the bargaining table; significant changes have been put forward there. I would be reluctant to go beyond that at this stage.

L. Reid: How is the employment equity team going to measure its progress? What is the time-line for achieving the goals set by the employment equity program?

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue of accountability and monitoring is, of course, the only way we will know if we are being successful. It's an important question that you've asked. I thank you for that.

The workplace profile will be part of what the employment equity team uses, because it will give us an indication of what the current face of our government is. Then, over time, each ministry will be responsible for establishing its goals and accountable for how those goals are met. There will be individual responsibilities within ministries. Each deputy minister will be accountable for achieving quantifiable goals, as will other staff people within ministries. Once the goals are set in partnership with each ministry, then there will be 

[ Page 2469 ]

accountability from the deputy ministers and other manager positions for those. There must be.

L. Reid: How representative of the gender balance in society is the staff at the Ministry of Women's Equality? How many aboriginal people are employed? What about people with disabilities and visible minorities?

Hon. P. Priddy: Not very. There's another answer, but.... Were you asking about our ministry in particular? That was the question, right?

Our ministry, as it was established, is very different than other ministries, because we have a different kind of balance. But there has not been a workplace profile done, so I would be reluctant to suggest that people from visible minority communities.... We haven't done that sort of self-identification in a profile, but it is not representative at this stage.

Our goal in hiring, which you asked about earlier, is to reach out to all of those communities that are not traditionally represented. If we do not do that, then we will not be able to establish credibility and work well with those communities we serve. There are currently many more women in my ministry than in other ministries. There is some ethnic representation, but a small amount. We're looking to do better.

L. Reid: Is the ministry developing a set of guidelines for the requirement of employment equity programs for contractors to the provincial government, such as those contained in the federal Employment Equity Act?

Hon. P. Priddy: At this stage our employment equity initiatives have to do with the public sector. The question which you asked would be a matter of future policy and is not one that we're currently addressing.

L. Stephens: This is a subject which all of us here have a lot of concern about. We certainly would like to see some major initiatives to deal with these very serious issues that are before all the women in the country -- and around the world, for that matter.

I think we probably all agree that poverty is a major cause of many of the problems that women have today; of course, employment equity is one way that many of us feel will right some of those wrongs. You've said that your ministry is looking at employment equity within the public service at the moment. In light of some of the recent top-level management staff that have been let go from the various ministries, the female numbers seem to be shrinking, as opposed to expanding. I'd like to know, given the fact that in the top management categories within the public service there are approximately 113 men and 16 women, what your ministry's goals are to see those numbers increase. I would like to know if you have a program, a policy or initiatives in place, and a time-frame for it as well.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think it is important to encompass that within employment equity, because the ministry would not deal only with the women in the public service -- the smaller number of women -- without dealing with the rest of it. It's all part of employment equity, and women certainly are one of those groups. Currently women comprise about 56 percent of the public service in British Columbia and are very unevenly distributed. They are underrepresented in technical areas and in senior management. There's no question about that. I'm not sure if they are overrepresented, but there are certainly high numbers in administrative support positions.

In terms of management positions, there is some steady progress. It is too slow. I'd like it to be more; I'd like it to be quicker. I always do. But there is progress in the management positions. Between the previous administration and this administration, there has been an increase in women in almost every management position. In 1992, 30 percent of management positions were filled by women. Certainly it isn't enough yet, but it is a significant increase from two years ago. Our senior management levels are very important sources of deputy minister for us, and we're pleased that 15 percent of assistant deputy ministers are women. Again, it's not enough, but it is increasing. The employment equity program will provide strategies for improving that kind of representation, but it is underrepresented. We can do better, and we will.

To add to that, the strategies around time-frames and so on are part of the whole employment equity initiative and do not stand alone.

[4:15]

L. Stephens: Your ministry will be coming forward with policies on employment equity, timetables and so on in due course. I'm sure this is something that will be forthcoming. Without asking about future policy, I'd like to know your thoughts on what you see being encouraged or developed in the private sector in order to further the advancement of women in management positions and to further pay equity.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two points about the private sector, I suppose. Indeed, as you've identified, it as an issue for future policy. One of our experiences, though, is that while we have a responsibility and a commitment to employment equity in the public sector, there is always a lot of interest in the private sector when the public sector moves forward. We've already had a lot of interest. There will be interest in the private sector in taking things forward simply because we are doing that in the public sector. I would expect to see some response simply for that reason alone.

The other part for me is that before I would ever assume to suggest what other folks ought to do, we have a responsibility as a public sector to get our own house in order before we talk with others.

L. Reid: Who are the employees currently on contract to this ministry? How are they selected? What qualifications do they have that are relevant to the jobs? What is the average length of contract? Since the number of FTEs has almost doubled to 65 this year, why did the ministry feel it was necessary to bring in more 

[ Page 2470 ]

employees on contract? What services are they providing that the ministry employees cannot?

Hon. P. Priddy: The individuals working on contract with our ministry are all working on time-limited projects. They are with us for a very specific purpose. There has been a time set for the project they are doing with us. There are nine people currently in this position, and all of those individuals have brought both the time and ability that this ministry -- a very small ministry -- needed. They are bringing that valuable service to us, but it is time-limited and project-oriented.

L. Reid: Significant dollars have been allocated for advertising and for publications. How much of this total will be used for non-discretionary publications such as the annual report?

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of the communications budget, we do not yet have a budget for an annual report. We are most concerned that our communication dollars are used for communications related to the programs that we are embarking on, and that it's information that is useful, readable and gets quickly into the hands of the community. In that respect, the total is $1,032,597: $100,000 for employment equity, $320,000 for women's equality programs, $400,000 for child care, and $212,597 for intervention and prevention of violence against women. It's communication that goes directly into the hands of the folks who most need it.

L. Reid: How does this ministry plan on measuring the success of its public information campaigns?

Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate your question, because one of the principles of this ministry is that all the work we do will be evaluated, regardless of whether it's a short-term project, a long-term project or whatever. It all has an evaluation component attached to it, because we have to be able to say about all of the work we do that it makes a difference in the lives of women and others in British Columbia, so the evaluation component is critical for us.

Around the communication ones, I would suggest that we will be able to assess in part -- for instance, with child care -- by the number of people applying for support and for grants, accessing the dollars, following up on the information and using the resources within our ministry for intervention and prevention of violence. I would make the same kinds of comments if we see an increase in people seeking services. We will find ways, certainly within the women's centres that we're working with, who are asking how people get there, how people find out about the services. That is all a component of the core funding we are providing as well.

Employment opportunities. When we see more people in government who are changing the face of this government from an employment equity perspective, those employment opportunities will demonstrate to us that that information has gotten out. As well, we've worked very hard in this ministry and will continue to put together a process in this province where, for want of another phrase, consultation occurs -- I prefer to say where we talk with women and other groups across this province in both a formal and informal, regularized way. I would also be using all of those opportunities to find out from people whether they are seeing our information, whether it's useful, whether it's written in plain language that people can understand, whether it's written in languages that people can understand or even in Braille if necessary.

L. Reid: Print publications, television advertisements and educational seminars: I think we both agree that so much of the language needs to be interpreted. I'm wondering if you have any plans to do interpretation sessions for Chinese television and Indo-Canadian television, and to do those same kinds of print materials and seminars in the languages of the community? You and I have had this discussion of the isolation of women in their homes, and certainly that information doesn't seem to reach them.

Will these advertising contracts be tendered? If an advertising firm has employment or pay equity programs, will it be favoured over a firm that currently does not have such a program?

Hon. P. Priddy: All of our contracts are tendered. We have not at this stage addressed whether pay equity and employment equity are tied to those contracts, but all of our contracts are tendered.

L. Reid: We have heard some discussion that grants will be available to different groups in the community. I'm interested in priorities for those kinds of grants, and indeed in what criteria will be in place.

Hon. P. Priddy: In order to ensure that we use the grant dollars in the best way for communities in B.C., we have talked with women and with organizations about what the priorities are, both for this government and for people in those communities. Currently the priorities that have been established at this stage are education and employment, child care, intervention and prevention of violence against women, and community needs assessment and planning.

L. Reid: Particular criteria?

Hon. P. Priddy: The criteria are that there is community support for the project, that it is a priority in their community. I'm not sure if it is a criterion, but the last part of the grant dollars is held back until the project has shown success. We see the evaluation before the final part of the grant money is offered to the organization. So it's community made, well supported in the community and non-profit organizations.

L. Reid: How much discretion does the minister have in this decision-making process in terms of allocating grant dollars? Has the minister considered opening up the selection process for the grants program to ensure public accountability for this money -- for 

[ Page 2471 ]

example, using the Select Standing Committee on Women's Equality as a selection committee?

Hon. P. Priddy: We're evaluating the entire community grants program. Are the grants working? Are we evaluating them well? Are we evaluating both their qualitative and their quantitative components? Are we evaluating fiscally whether they're working? We have not taken that next step. It's an interesting point that you raise about opening it up to the select standing committee, and I thank you for that. It's not that far along in our thinking.

We do evaluate, and we're re-evaluating the entire process as part of a strong commitment in this ministry to fiscal responsibility. We do not have a large budget, and we are committed to using those dollars wisely and carefully.

L. Reid: That was a longer question. My interest is still in how much discretion the minister has in terms of how those decisions are reached.

Hon. P. Priddy: We have a fairly strict, if you will -- for want of another word -- process by which grants are reviewed and approved. As mentioned earlier, applicants show that they have strong community support for their projects. They work with the regional coordinator in their area, who makes a recommendation and sends it through to the ministry. It's reviewed by staff within our grants department; it's also reviewed by the assistant deputy minister and the deputy minister, and then it comes to me. In the last set of grants that were approved, I followed the recommendations of staff, because they are the people closest to what is happening there.

L. Reid: How many of these grants would be core funding and services and how many are one-time project-oriented grants? I commend the minister for granting core funding to the 28 women's centres. The federal government cuts disrupted and in some cases eliminated the progress of many of these women's centres. However, once a need is identified, what safeguards are in place to ensure that the funding will continue for these one-time project-oriented grants?

[4:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: There are 28 operational grants to women's centres; that is core funding that will continue. The one-time-only grants are a significant reason for our review of the grant process. I think it's incumbent upon us not to fund projects continuously where we know there is not an opportunity for future funding. It is also, though, one reason that this ministry works so closely in partnership with other ministries.

Very often the grant work that we're doing and the people who are applying to us for grants will have implications for other ministries' budgets. We work in close contact with those ministries to look at the future potential for ongoing funding, so that we don't build in a need so that women become dependent upon a service and then pull back that service. We also look at the kinds of projects that may not require ongoing funding, such as education and research that can be one-time finite projects.

L. Reid: Is there a process for evaluating the progress or effectiveness of the programs, services and projects that receive funding? What is the time-line for these evaluations? Are they done while the project is in progress, or on completion? What mechanism is in place for guarding against situations in which funding is not used according to the plan or the guidelines set out? Does the minister have any reports summarizing the impact of the grants program since it was established?

Hon. P. Priddy: All receiving organizations sign a letter of agreement with us. When they receive a grant, that letter of agreement speaks to the accountability for the grant dollars and the purpose for which it is being used. The current system does include an evaluation process for each grant. The regional coordinators monitor the progress of that grant throughout the work of the grant, not only at the end, to find out if it did or didn't, but also to provide support throughout, if that is necessary. The final 25 percent of the grant is not released to the organization until after the project is completed and all the final reports have been reviewed by ministry staff. One of the final reports is an evaluation prepared by the organization which received the dollars. We do have reports in our ministry that you would be welcome to see about the impact of those projects.

L. Reid: How much money has been allocated to the community initiatives program? What is the mandate of this program? Has the minister requested an evaluation of the community initiatives program to determine to what extent it is fulfilling its mandate?

Hon. P. Priddy: The amount allocated to the community initiatives program is $387,000 for regional coordinators' salaries and travel, and $110,000 for the manager and administrative support salaries. There is an additional $239,000 to provide office and administrative support for the regional coordinators. However, that money is on hold at my direction, because this project is being reviewed and evaluated. Therefore there will not be additional dollars placed into the program until an evaluation has been completed. The evaluation will be looking at whether this program is meeting the needs of women in the regions.

L. Reid: Have any programs been cancelled or has any funding been cut since November 5, 1991? What new programs have been created, and what proportion of the budget would the programs be responsible for?

Hon. P. Priddy: There have been no funding cuts since November 5. In terms of the new program areas, 45 percent of our budget goes to child care; almost 16 percent goes to Women's Equality programs; almost 33 percent goes to intervention and prevention of violence against women; about 3.5 percent to employment equity; 1 percent to the minister's budget; and 2 percent 

[ Page 2472 ]

to the deputy minister's budget. Again, 77 percent of our budget goes directly to the communities. Of the new programs and the dollars there, 77 percent goes directly to people in Kaslo and Burns Lake and places where folks need it.

L. Reid: I want to ask a question regarding the British Columbia retirement savings plan. What is the ministry doing to help women who do not currently have access to adequate retirement savings? Women are often marginalized from retirement savings programs such as pensions, because they move in and out of jobs for the raising of a family, have part-time employment and those kinds of things. What is being done to enable part-time workers to have access to adequate and portable retirement savings plans?

Hon. P. Priddy: Since November 5 I have received a number of delegations of women who are very concerned about the inequity in their pension situation. Our partnership responsibility is to work with Government Services, which has the responsibility for pensions, to look at ways in which we can ensure that women who have had interrupted work histories or who have not worked for pay outside the home are economically supported and able to have an economic lifestyle that allows them quality of life. Our partnership responsibility, though, is to work with Government Services to do that, and that's what we'll continue to do.

L. Reid: On the concept of pension plans, one of the groups that is particularly disadvantaged is the nurses of this province. Current regulations state that nurses must work for 30 years in order to qualify for full pension benefits at age 55. Because of the nature of their work and the implications of raising a family, very few nurses meet these criteria. As a result, most nurses retire with partial benefits. What is the ministry doing to address this problem?

Hon. P. Priddy: I've also met with BCNU about this issue. We are concerned about the vesting time and the problems that the length of vesting presents. That argument has been well presented by BCNU as well as others, and we are supportive of changes in that. Again, we'll be supporting that with our colleagues.

L. Reid: Another important question is that of women and poverty. I know that you have women's advisers working in all of the ministries. These staff members are working to raise awareness of women's issues across the public service. Many women in poverty use the services of the Social Services ministry. In addition to the women's advisers, what policy networks has your ministry established with the Ministry of Social Services to address the special needs of women in poverty?

Hon. P. Priddy: One of the themes that goes throughout all of the work we do in this ministry, and which we see within all of our areas of initiatives, is poverty. There is no question of that. It is this overlay around child care and employment opportunities and violence that we see in the lives of women in B.C. Our responsibility within this ministry and the action we've taken to date in a large part is our participation in the interministry committees in which we work, such as the Interministry Committee on Intervention and Prevention of Violence Against Women, where the issue of poverty is a significant part of that discussion. As we begin to move forward with a response coming out of that committee, the issue of poverty is an important consideration. We know that the accessibility to child care, which we have begun to be able to increase, makes a difference in terms of women being able to have employment opportunities and therefore a different kind of economic reality in their lives.

For us, it is present all the time, and it is very much a part of the partnership initiatives. Also, we see that the education and training committee -- which is an interministry committee -- is in many ways one of the most valuable ways in which we make a difference or can help to make a difference, for women. There is an interministry committee on education and training, which this ministry initiated and chairs. Through that committee, working with the Ministries of Labour, Advanced Education and other ministries, we intend to have initiatives that will make a difference in education and training, and therefore in the economic lives of women.

L. Reid: What interministry initiatives are in place to promote gender equity and education and employment training? Perhaps just some more detail in terms of where you're headed. For example, what is being done to encourage girls and women to expect and plan for a career, and to explore non-traditional studies and employment options? What programs are in place to encourage women to pursue and gain employment in the trades, in the sciences and technologies?

Hon. P. Priddy: Again, in our partnership role with other ministries, we have both taken our own lead and supported other ministries, and continue to do so, both in terms of working with them and in financial terms, with resources supporting other ministries. The Ministry of Women's Equality has allocated over $250,000 in grants to education and training projects in the fiscal '91-92 year, including $60,000 to the Victoria Bridges Project.

We're currently working with five other ministries -- Aboriginal Affairs; Advanced Education, Training and Technology; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; Social Services; and Education -- to develop a better approach to achieving equity for women in education and training. An interministry education equity committee is collecting information to develop a comprehensive action plan for government, to achieve education equity for women. We believe that women must be empowered. That empowerment comes partly through education and training. We also provide $12,500 in bursaries for women in non-traditional post-secondary opportunities.

[4:45]

[ Page 2473 ]

L. Stephens: In the ministry operations subvote, child care, I see the budget has been increased to $1 million. I will just quote from the book here: "...provides for the coordination, analysis and implementation of programs which result in stabilization of existing child care services, an increased number of child care spaces, and improved quality of services to children." I wonder if you could share with us some of the locations where this has actually happened.

Hon. P. Priddy: The $14 million in the.... In many ways this is $14 million that was not present before. The dollars that were used in last year's budget really had to do with special needs and subsidy. This is really $14 million for expansion, enhancement and stabilization of child care spaces. I'm absolutely delighted to answer the question.

The $14 million breaks down in the following way: $2.433 million for infant and toddler incentive grants; $3.707 million for community-based planning and resource development and capital construction; $2.179 million for the licensing capacity expansion program -- more licensing officers; $1.46 million for expansion of the day care support program; $600,000 for early childhood education training spaces; $1.8 million for student day care subsidies; $618,000 for special projects such as the financial management and administrative support program; and $1.2 million for the cost of administration.

L. Stephens: Would any of these programs encompass high-school day care centres? Is that something the ministry will be or has been looking at? Or is it presently being implemented?

Hon. P. Priddy: That is certainly a possibility. These are new dollars and new spaces. The potential for any organization providing child care to approach us is there. The dollars are finite. I would like to be able to say that everybody who comes will have that opportunity, but we've already had conversations with a number of school programs around the infant and.... For instance, if there is a teen program that currently has infant and toddler spaces, there will be a subsidy for the existing one; if they are wanting to expand more infant and toddler spots within that, they are certainly eligible to apply for dollars under this. So it's a very strong possibility if people apply -- absolutely.

L. Stephens: The next category is intervention and prevention of violence against women. I understand that a family justice review report is due out in another couple of months or so. I presume that this will have some recommendations with regard to the justice system and violence against women. I wonder if your ministry has initiated any new programs for violence against women, and in particular whether or not it will be supporting the zero-tolerance position.

Hon. P. Priddy: Absolutely. The ministry will be supporting zero tolerance, to answer your second question first. Indeed we will be.

To comment on your question of what is currently happening, the interministry committee on intervention and prevention of violence against women is chaired by the Ministry of Women's Equality. It was established in April 1991 to coordinate government initiatives and to develop this government's strategies to eliminate violence against women and family violence. In this fiscal year, $10 million has been approved out of our ministry's budget to deal with violence against women. New and expanded programs will be coordinated by this ministry, and programs will be initiated by others. Currently that interministry committee is looking at the pieces in which each ministry will participate; when you talk about intervention and prevention of violence against women, it doesn't all fall within this ministry. It will be the Attorney General, Social Services, Health, Education and other ministries as well. We have not, to date, as a government -- other than through our grant program, which supported some new local initiatives in communities -- initiated new programs. We expect to be talking fairly soon about the results of that interministry committee; it is fairly close to finishing its work.

The large task force report called Is Anyone Listening? came out at about the same time as the budget. It was 400 pages and wasn't costed, and there was some significant work to be done on it. It frames part of the government's response, on top of what this government's commitment and belief is about how we support women in communities. So the $10 million in our ministry's budget is currently being looked at by that interministry committee. We're looking at what part each ministry plays so that we do that in a coordinated way. What women in this province will tell you is that if there is going to be a government response, it needs to be a coordinated one. That's what it will be.

There have not been new initiatives to date, other than grants in communities. But we will be expecting to hear very soon from that committee.

L. Stephens: Another question I would like to ask the minister is.... I think we're all aware that women's issues impact on many other ministries, agencies and so on. However, having said that, because the Ministry of Women's Equality is a standalone ministry, it is my feeling that it will, and should, be the lead ministry on women's issues, in consultation with other ministries. That is a given, as far as I'm concerned; that's what I think should happen. However, I would like to say strongly that I would certainly like to see the ministry very vigorously pursuing these problems that are there for all of us and have been for a number of years. Many people are hoping to see a change in how these problems are addressed, and speedily, as well.

The justice system is probably No. 2 on my list; poverty is No. 1 in women's problems, as far as I'm concerned. I would like to know what your thoughts are on taking family law out of the court system. I would like to know your views on arbitration trials.

The Chair: I would just caution the hon. members again, before the minister is recognized, that we're 

[ Page 2474 ]

examining the supply estimates of the minister, not the court systems or other ministries.

Hon. P. Priddy: In this ministry as well as in this government we are concerned about the justice system, its effect on women and biases in the justice system. There is a family justice review going on. We are working in an interministry working group on recommendations to improve the access of women clients to legal, social and court services.

Around family maintenance, the Attorney General is reviewing the system, as it recognized that improvements were required. We are providing input into that as well. Increased funds were provided for the program this fiscal year to ease caseloads and to increase enforcement.

Gender bias in the justice system is a very high priority. We have been working with the Attorney General. The Attorney General is chairing a gender bias advisory committee, and we are both working with and very interested in the outcome of that as well.

L. Reid: To continue with the comments made earlier on poverty, at present our taxation system is such that supporting spouses can declare maintenance payments as a tax deduction, whereas the parenting spouse must declare them as income. Is this minister pressing for an amendment to the provincial taxation system so that parenting spouses are not taxed on money for their children?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is an issue I'm very concerned about. I will be meeting with other provincial ministers next week -- time flies! -- in Whitehorse. It is one of the items I have asked Mary Collins to put on the agenda for discussion with federal and provincial people.

L. Reid: To continue with child care questions, what is your ministry's commitment to child care in all public buildings, schools and community centres? So that there will be designated space, will you be moving to commit to ensure that all new buildings contain designated child care space?

Hon. P. Priddy: We have stated, and are further developing, a policy that says that in any consideration of new capital construction, any time public money is spent, the provision of child care must happen along with any other consideration.

L. Reid: I welcome that comment, because my understanding is that metropolitan Toronto does not build a new community centre or school unless it contains such designated child care space. I would hope that we can very quickly move to that. What is being done now to monitor the quality of our child care facilities and the competence and wages of the child care workers?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would highlight two initiatives. One is that we have provided funding for the Ministry of Health for an additional 38 licensing officers, who have responsibility for monitoring the quality of child care. One of the differences now is that many of those licensing officers have early-childhood training and are able to look not only at physical requirements but at other kinds of qualitative things that happen within a child care centre. So we are monitoring it from that perspective.

Secondly, our day care support program will be providing greater resources to the community as well in terms of information and resources, which will enhance quality in child care centres.

Thirdly, on the infant and toddler incentive grants, 85 percent of those incentive grants must go to salaries. We know that child care workers are not paid in a way that reflects that children are our greatest natural resource. But having 85 percent of the incentive grant go to salaries is the beginning of acknowledging that we must make a difference in those salaries. Also, as part of our pay equity initiative, we will undertake a study regarding wages in all of the human service sector.

L. Reid: The 38 licensing officers you mentioned -- are any of them skilled in, and able to provide information on, business plans or marketing strategies, such that the business they create is going to be viable in today's economy?

[5:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: Some of those licensing officers may indeed be able to do that. They certainly may have that capability. We are very concerned about that kind of support for child care centres, and therefore we have done two things. We have in our ministry a financial management administrative support program which will assist non-profit child care facilities to develop and maintain financially sound management practices. We are currently in the process of tendering that contract, but that support service will be available for any board to have any kind of training or support or resources or information it needs in order to run, because it is a small business.

As well, the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade will be providing assistance to the private sector, including giving information about child care as a small business to private operators who are interested in developing child care services.

L. Reid: From your comments, can I assume that your ministry is not at this time making any distinction between profit and non-profit child care -- that indeed they should all have access to the same business plan marketing strategy, whether it's public or private sector?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct.

L. Reid: In terms of advertising and publications with regard to child care, has your ministry made any commitment to publicize the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome? Will those posters and information brochures be readily available in all languages?

Hon. P. Priddy: That area of initiative certainly falls under the Ministry of Health's alcohol and drug 

[ Page 2475 ]

programs. However, it is an area that I have discussed with my colleague the Minister of Health. As the member knows, it's an area in which I have a particular interest and will be pursuing.

L. Reid: In terms of child care, have any employees been hired on contract in this ministry? How long are the contracts?

Hon. P. Priddy: We have one contract position that has been there for two years, and it terminates at the end of July. All of our positions on the child care team are being advertised.

L. Reid: Since grant programs are frequently the first victims of financial cuts, what protection is there for child care facilities that rely on ongoing operational grants? Is there any protection in place for a business that's just begun to see it through at least the first three to five years of operation?

Hon. P. Priddy: One of the ways in which we would work to ensure that child care facilities stay viable is through good financial management practices. I've spoken of the ways in which we are supporting that. Child care centres don't really have operational grants. The first ones that would even be close to being considered that would be the infant and toddler incentives. Those are entitlements that we will ensure continue to be in place.

L. Reid: To move on to the area of health, the NDP committed to unambiguous sexual education in their 48-point platform. How is the Ministry of Women's Equality involved in this education program?

Hon. P. Priddy: Currently no dollars are available in our budget for health initiatives. The only initiatives within this ministry may be small project grants to organizations in the community who may be doing health education, but that is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. We do, however, have women come to us frequently who are concerned about health issues. We do work very closely in partnership with the Ministry of Health, particularly on women from ethnic communities being able to access health information in a language and in a way that makes it useable. We certainly make those representations to the Ministry of Health, but it's not an item that's within our current budget.

L. Reid: The previous government provided $1.2 million to the women's health centre, University Hospital, Shaughnessy site, in January 1991. What is the status of this women's health centre? How is the Ministry of Women's Equality involved in this centre, and what plans are there to further establish women's health centres throughout this province?

Hon. P. Priddy: Our deputy minister is a member on the advisory committee for the health centre. Beyond that, it is an initiative that is primarily under the Ministry of Health, but it is important for our deputy minister to be there and to ensure that we offer that support and are at least aware of any initiatives we might support.

L. Reid: Is the Ministry of Women's Equality involved in allocating funding for research into women's health issues?

Hon. P. Priddy: No.

L. Reid: Is the Ministry of Women's Equality assisting in facilitating the licensing of midwives in British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Perhaps because of my nursing background, I've have representation around these issues and the opportunity to sit with the Minister of Health and discuss them, but they are not ones which we are taking on, nor do we have a responsibility to take them on.

L. Reid: If we might move on to the area of justice, women are not getting a fair shake in the justice system, as the "maybe means yes" case illustrates. The justice system is not sensitive to women's issues. The problem is not just that unfair judgments are handed down. It encompasses the whole range of concerns, from the slower response time for women when they place a 911 call, to the reticence of law enforcement officers to become involved in domestic disputes. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality working with the Ministry of Attorney General to develop a compulsory education program for the judiciary, the police forces and emergency health workers, to sensitize them to women's issues?

Hon. P. Priddy: In this situation the lead ministry is very clearly the Attorney General ministry. We've had many very strong delegations to our ministry about this and have both shared that information with the Attorney General and, indeed, facilitated meetings with women who have come to us, to ensure that they have had an opportunity to meet with people within the Attorney General's ministry.

L. Reid: I wish to make special mention this afternoon of a group of women in the Prince George region. Their group is called Equal Justice for Women. Their objectives are to identify gender bias in the medical and justice systems, to educate and inform the public in the areas of gender bias and to support and encourage change in the medical and justice systems to eliminate gender bias. They have a particular concern, where women were needing to receive medical service and it ended up being some type of sexual assault, in their view. This Friday, June 12, Ted Hughes is receiving a report on an October 1991 presentation to the gender bias committee of the Law Society of B.C. This report from Ted Hughes is going to look at the decision that was reached by the judiciary in response to the Regina v. Clark case. I'm wondering if your ministry is anticipating making a response to that report.

[ Page 2476 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: When I was in Prince George, I had an opportunity to meet with some very strong, very powerful, very passionate women who have some extraordinary concerns about what was happening in their community, and I have continued to have contact with them since then. I also talked with Mr. Hughes about his report as it has gone on, and any opportunities we might have to support it. Quite frankly, I'm uncertain about whether we'll be responding. It is really a report to the Attorney General. However, I am looking forward to the report with great interest. Once I've seen it, it may give us a different indication of our action.

L. Reid: Is the Ministry of Women's Equality working with other ministries to address the concerns of women in the penal system?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is an area that we have had discussion within the ministry about; it is not an area that has been a significant initiative at this stage. However, I would at least comment that the federal-provincial-territorial working group on gender equality in the Canadian justice system, which was established about two years ago now, continues to meet. That is one of the issues it is addressing. At our federal-provincial-territorial meeting next week, it will again be back on the table. I would hope to have more information for you after that.

L. Reid: We've just seen the release of the task force on family violence report. Does the minister plan on implementing any of the recommendations of this report? If so, what is the time-line?

Hon. P. Priddy: The task force report, along with government policy, is the work of the interministry committee on intervention and prevention of violence against women. Its work is, I think, quite close to being concluded -- I would hope within a short time. Our $10 million is tied to the recommendations from that. Those recommendations should be out quite soon. So to answer your question, yes, we will be acting not only on those recommendations but on an overall strategy for this government to respond to intervention and prevention of violence against women -- not only the task force report, Is Anyone Listening?, but also the parallel aboriginal report, which was an important component of that.

[5:15]

L. Reid: While I recognize that the primary concern of the Ministry of Women's Equality in this area is helping female victims of abuse, the root of the problem lies in the prevalence of abusers in our society. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality working with the Ministry of Attorney General to initiate stricter sentencing guidelines for abusers and develop mandatory counselling programs that are effective?

Hon. P. Priddy: The interministry Committee on Intervention and Prevention of Violence Against Women is looking at the entire task force report, among other initiatives. It spoke strongly not only to some of the issues we've spoken on today but it also talked about support for abusers and about the issue of sentencing within the justice system. I would expect, although I have not seen that final work yet, that the recommendations of that interministry committee will address that. As well, we are working with the Attorney General's ministry around any initiatives that make it safer for women in B.C.

L. Reid: I have a very real concern about the quality of rehabilitative programs within our present system. Certainly that applies to men as well as women. Are there any programs in place to ensure that women receive counselling while they're in prison?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are no dollars in our budget available for counselling for women in penal facilities. That would come under the Attorney General's ministry. If you would like, we could try and find more information for you about that. It is not a direct responsibility of this ministry.

L. Reid: I appreciate the offer. I certainly think your ministry, with the talented folks you have with you, could certainly provide some guidance as to programs that would be effective in our prison system.

With the Thomas vs. Hill case fresh in our minds, sexual harassment is another pertinent issue. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality working with other ministries to develop clear guidelines as to what constitutes sexual harassment?

Hon. P. Priddy: As with one or two of the other items raised earlier, this issue is currently being discussed at the master bargaining table. The policy and the process are being jointly developed, which is, I think, a critical component to that. A major aspect will be in the education and training area. We will certainly be working in partnership with the union around the development of such policy.

It is critical -- I cannot say how vital it is -- that women who are sexually harassed are not further victimized by the process of dealing with the sexual harassment. Those policies must be enabling for women, and not further victimize them.

L. Reid: Will there be a public information campaign outlining these guidelines and advising victims? At the outcome of the report, once it's tabled, will the ministry take responsibility for ensuring that that information is able to be received by women in all languages and, again, at different venues?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

L. Reid: One of the other concerns we have shared, certainly as a women's equality committee, is the skill level of the folks who do the investigation on sexual harassment, the wait-time in the courts and all of those kinds of things. I appreciate that there are going to be some criteria and some guidelines coming forth. Will your ministry be involved in advancing the notion that 

[ Page 2477 ]

sensitization of, and educational programs for, everyone who deals in this area needs to be participated in?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

L. Reid: The maximum compensation that is available to complainants for emotional distress is, or was, $2,000. In terms of commitment by this ministry, are you going to be advancing programs and counselling in the community to make it more readily available for emotional distress? Certainly it seems to be an issue for women, in that there seems to be greater stress placed on families. All of those things, I believe, contribute to the greater stress and the greater need for community services. Are you going to isolate emotional distress as an option for your ministry?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm pleased, as I believe others were, with the change in the legislation that we saw today. There is still work to be done, and certainly our interest and our commitment is to continue to work with the other relevant ministries in order to advance that. At this stage we do not have a particular initiative that takes us forward, but a change in the human rights legislation, offers us an opportunity to take another step forward with those ministries.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, is this ministry working with other ministries to evaluate the effectiveness of existing services to victims of sexual harassment and to amend these services where needed? Again, is there some measurement mechanism in place?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I could just clarify the question. Was it victims of sexual...?

L. Reid: Harassment.

Hon. P. Priddy: Okay, thank you.

We do not as yet have specific initiatives for that evaluation. As the policy develops, and as the policy develops with our union, then one of the things that we must put in place is a way to not only evaluate whether the policy is effective but whether the supports and counselling that are in place are adequate, are provided by people who are best able to do that, are of long enough duration and that there is assistance to return to the workplace. That is not currently in place. The point is well taken.

L. Reid: One way in which the province of Ontario has addressed the issue of sexual harassment and discrimination against women is to develop gender-equity advertisement guidelines. These voluntary rules prohibit alcohol ads from presenting women in sexist or demeaning manners. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality developing similar gender-equity guidelines for media and advertising?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member raises a very fine point. That is not an area that we have had an opportunity as yet to be involved in. It is, however, one that is important to do, and it is one that I would be more than happy to take forward with our colleagues. I have not had an opportunity to do that yet, but it is an important initiative and does need to happen.

L. Reid: I welcome your comments on the last question.

To turn to aboriginal affairs, does the minister have an adviser on the special circumstances of women of first nations heritage?

Hon. P. Priddy: There is not an adviser in this ministry for issues that affect the lives of women in first nations communities. I have three points. One of them is that Aboriginal Affairs is the lead ministry in many of these areas. However, as we go to do our hiring, we are very conscious of the fact that our ministry does not have within our staffing complement representatives from a variety of communities, including first nations communities. We know we will want to have within our own ministry that kind of competence, ability and experience, which we don't currently have.

We are working to establish an aboriginal child care council, which will provide advice to the ministry around child care. Those will be individuals from aboriginal communities throughout B.C., who will be able to provide advice to us in the area of child care. And there are many other areas within the ministry where we don't as yet have the benefit of someone to provide that advice. It is an area that we intend to address.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments. Could I ask for clarification at a later date of how involved your ministry would be with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in responding to the needs of aboriginal women both on and off reserve, and if in fact you have any comments about some of the different services that would need to be available? The question is whether you are going to have to distinguish between facilities and services required on or off reserve.

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue of on-reserve, off-reserve services for people is one that we know is both complicated and that has not yet been resolved. It is frequently the subject of discussion at interministry committees, as it relates to a variety of social services. We must bring some resolution to it. We have made some initiatives within our ministry to reach out to aboriginal women: we provided $130,000 in 17 different projects to aboriginal communities throughout British Columbia.

Again, aboriginal communities know best what the problems and solutions are within their own communities. As I say, the aboriginal child care council will be providing that sort of advice to us as well, so some of that is coming. We have some significant way to go in terms of setting up our networks and our communications around the province to ensure that we get the best kind of information from people in those communities.

[ Page 2478 ]

L. Stephens: I wonder if the ministry is considering working with the Ministry of Education to encourage female students to enter more math and science classes and whether that is a focus of the ministry -- to work with youth, particularly the female youth, to encourage them to receive more education than they do, specifically in those two fields, math and the sciences.

Hon. P. Priddy: In part the answer is yes, we will be. We have already provided resources to the Ministry of Education around looking at curriculum and initiatives within education that will at least support young women to make different choices if those are the choices they wish to make. It's not about people having to do more math and science. A broad range of informed options have to be presented. We've already provided some resources to encourage young women to have an opportunity to make different choices and for the development of curriculum and education programs within that ministry. The Interministry Committee on Education and Training will be looking at that very carefully and very closely, because it is a priority for them. The front page of the Globe and Mail this morning spoke to that very issue, so your question is timely.

D. Mitchell: On the issue of sexual harassment, the member for Richmond East earlier referred to work that's being done by a lawyer from Toronto, Howard Levitt, who's done work on harassment in general. One of the things that he has looked at is an alternative system for responding to complaints with respect to harassment.

[5:30]

If you take a look at the existing tribunals and human rights councils, they are inadequate. Many of the officers don't have sufficient training to deal with these kinds of complaints. Also, because of the time that it takes to resolve complaints through the human rights tribunals, not only in British Columbia but elsewhere, there is not a lot of incentive to bring complaints forward. Also, the penalties that can be prescribed are really next to nothing, almost meaningless.

One of the things that Howard Levitt has proposed is the development of a separate tribunal that would deal exclusively with harassment and sexual harassment cases, where the officers servicing such a tribunal -- perhaps from a cost-effective basis they might not be full-time -- would have proper training and would be able to deal with these kinds of complaints in a systematic and efficient way. These tribunals might have educational roles, as well, in offering public education seminars. In terms of the training in harassment prevention, they might also help resolve some of the issues which are responsible for giving rise to these kinds of complaints. It's a serious problem.

I believe that the proposal might have some merit, because it centralizes the legal jurisdiction and investigative and educational responsibilities in one body. It doesn't have to be a large bureaucracy. In fact, I think it could be a very lean operation, but it could be very efficient in dealing with this serious issue.

Would it be within the ministry's mandate to develop or recommend the development of legislation or such a tribunal to clearly define what constitutes sexual harassment and require all employers in British Columbia to adopt sexual harassment policies?

Hon. P. Priddy: It falls within the mandate of this ministry to take forward any initiatives that make a difference in the quality of life and safety of women in British Columbia. I would be more than happy to talk with both my colleagues from Ontario at the federal-provincial conference next week about the issue that you've raised -- you've spoken of this before -- and also about working with the Ministry of Education and human rights legislation to look at what kinds of legislation and policies we can put in place. I don't know what that might look like in the end. However, what we do know is it happens too frequently; we do know it's frightening; and we do know that women are currently victimized by the process they have to go through in order to lay a sexual harassment charge. So I am happy to talk with any and all of my colleagues about anything that will make a difference in the way that we resolve this. I appreciate your comments.

D. Mitchell: Just one other matter. We've been engaging in a very important exercise here today, reviewing the estimates of this new ministry for the first time. I must confess, hon. Chair, I was one who had a small degree of skepticism as to whether or not it made sense to have a separate Ministry of Women's Equality. I think I've done my best to suspend my disbelief -- or one might call it skepticism -- because I believe that the minister has adopted a number of very positive initiatives, and her budget this year is testimony to that.

I'd just like to indicate that there's an island in my own constituency called Bowen Island. The minister is aware of it and just recently, through her ministry, supported an institution called Family Place on Bowen Island, which offers service and support to women who require it in that sometimes isolated community. It is support not only for women but for families in that community. I think that's been very positive, and I'd like to compliment the minister on it.

In terms of the whole range of support and grants that have been offered by the ministry, I'm aware of another one. Some assistance has been given to an organization which is national but has headquarters in Vancouver -- MediaWatch. It also, in my view, does some very good work in terms of helping the public understand how media messages influence and shape our attitudes and values with respect to women and hopefully helps toward correcting some of the misinformation and mixed messages in the media. That, again, is something very positive that the minister has done.

I wonder if the minister might just indicate if that is how she sees her ministry evolving in the future -- with continued support for third-party groups, which may often be volunteer-based and which are delivering services and support to communities and to women, often in a very cost-effective manner. Is that how her ministry is going to evolve? Is that how she sees it? 

[ Page 2479 ]

Rather than centralizing those services within a bureaucracy, does she see it delivering those services through funding, through assistance, to third parties, which are perhaps closer to the grass roots?

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you for the question. The principles we have talked about throughout these budget estimates, and the principles of this ministry, have to do with the fact that the people who know best what the issues are in the lives of women in British Columbia are the women who live the realities of that life every day or the people who work every day in services to women and to other people who are traditionally denied a place. Communities know best what the problems are, and communities know best what the solutions are. From this ministry, I can only believe in a community development model, which says that the resources are best placed and best identified in the community. Our role as a ministry is to ensure that the resources are there, that we are accountable for them, that they are well used and that they are evaluated, but that they are in the hands of the community. That is why I say with some pride that 77 percent of our budget goes directly into services in the community, such as organizations you've spoken of. That is a very large part of our mandate, and will continue to be.

L. Reid: I rise to conclude my remarks on the estimates of Women's Equality this afternoon. I wish to thank most sincerely the staff you have brought with you. I also wish to commend the folks who have come today to listen to the estimates on Women's Equality, because as more people become aware of and sensitized to the issues, we will be able to implement and effect some positive change.

I would welcome receiving the workplace profile on the Ministry of Women's Equality. I can assure you that I will take it back to the Liberal caucus. Hopefully we'll be able to put one in place as well that reflects where we wish to go as a society. Thank you most sincerely.

Vote 62: minister's office, $331,033 -- approved.

Vote 63: ministry operations, $30,675,967 -- approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:38 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada