[ Page 7375 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

J. Smallwood: As caucus chair, I've been given the pleasure of reporting on a rather contentious debate that happened in caucus today. The debate was around introductions, interestingly enough. It was whether we were each individually going to introduce our constituency assistants. The debate went something like this: our constituency assistants are so hard-working and so committed that each one of them should be named, and the riding they represent should be etched in Hansard's record. We agreed that that would be too long and too lengthy an introduction, but we wanted to make certain that all of the constituency assistants were warmly welcomed by the House and that their work was recognized by all of us.

S. Hawkins: I have the great pleasure today of introducing five guests from my riding of Okanagan West. I'd first like to acknowledge Mr. Aaron Dinwoodie, who is the regional director of the Central Okanagan regional district. As well, he is a very, very hard-working community volunteer and is very committed to youth. I also want to recognize two students from Mount Boucherie Secondary School, Carla Brumpton and Chris Downie, who are joining Mr. Dinwoodie. They are accompanied by two very hard-working teachers from Mount Boucherie Secondary School as well. They are Jamie Robinson, who is debating coach and with whom I had the pleasure of working during the annual debates last year, and Jill Robinson. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

G. Campbell: As we know, this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the country of Israel, and today is their special celebration to mark that event. The Israeli nation has worked very hard over the last 50 years to build a strong democracy and to find security and peace in their region. I would like the House to join me in wishing everyone from the state of Israel and that nation and that community mazel tov.

T. Stevenson: I wouldn't normally break party ranks on this issue of constituency assistants -- normally I wouldn't, hon. Speaker. I'm only doing it today because I have a new constituency assistant who left Alberta -- that land that the opposition loves because of their health care cuts and their education cuts -- and came to work for me in British Columbia. So I ask the House to make Barbara Chan very welcome. She's been here only three months, and I think she's loving British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Every year some of the cream of Canada's universities enter the Canadian foreign service to work overseas on our behalf. Today I had the honour of meeting 11 people who are entering the foreign service and who are awaiting with anticipation their postings around the world. They're on a cross-country tour right now to get a sense of what's going on in each of the provinces, and we had a very interesting conversation and meeting. It's my pleasure to ask the House to please welcome Douglas Danch, John Drummond, Scott Gilmore, Marie-Louise Hannan, Heather Jeffrey, Lynn McDonald, Michelle Souillière, Steve Vallée and Georges Whalen. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I have two introductions to make today. I would like to take the opportunity to make welcome my executive assistant, Raj Sihota -- no relation to anybody in this House -- and Eric Chan, who is my newly hired special assistant, working here in Victoria in my office. I'd like the House to please make them feel very welcome, because without their support, I know that I would not be able to get done nearly half the work that I get done every day.

In addition to that, I'd like to join the member opposite in welcoming some students and their debating coach and the educator from the regional district of Central Okanagan. Last year, in fact, the regional district of Central Okanagan worked in partnership with the city of Kelowna and school district 23 to create a program called Local Youth Government Day. Today I had the great opportunity of meeting with the two students, Carla Brumpton and Chris Downie, and also their debating coach, Jamie Robinson, and another teacher from the school, Jill Robinson, along with one of the mentors, Aaron Dinwoodie. I ask the House to please make them feel very welcome.

F. Gingell: April 30 is important not only to all of us -- because I hope we all have our income tax returns filed today -- but to many families in British Columbia who are waiting for the Allen report with respect to the restructuring of contracts within the Ministry for Children and Families. It's particularly important to parents of autistic special needs children from the lower mainland who are here with respect to the important services offered by Gateway in my community. So I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming three parents -- Judy Forster, Pauline Reayburn and Karen Philipchuk -- and the director of Gateway, Mr. Bill Fraser. As we start May tomorrow -- May being Child Care Month -- I think this is an appropriate moment for us to recognize and welcome these parents to our Legislature, and I ask everyone to join me in doing so.

G. Plant: Seated in the gallery today is a resident of the constituency of Richmond-Steveston who is a community activist and also a member of the board of school trustees of the Richmond school district. I ask that the House please make Brian Webster very welcome.

S. Orcherton: I notice that in the gallery today we have a special guest, Mr. David Smith, from the Victoria chapter of the Hepatitis C Society. Along with him are a few of his members. It's always a pleasure to have Mr. Smith join us in the gallery, but especially today, I think. Mr. Smith does tremendous work on behalf of people suffering from hepatitis C in our community here in greater Victoria, around the province and, indeed, across the country. He works long hours on behalf of those people, struggling for justice for them at the federal level and elsewhere. I ask the House to give him a very sincere and heartfelt welcome to this chamber.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery is a friend of mine from Surrey-Green Timbers, Dwaine Martin. With him is Sheila Knight. Sheila is a court service employee here in Victoria. She is the first vice-chair of Local 1201 of the BCGEU, and she is the sponsor of her local's Lisa Bell Protts Lifetime Achievement Award. Would the House please join me in making both of them very welcome.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to make some introductions today on behalf of the member for Peace River North. All members of the House will know that this is the member who never gets to make an introduction, and he's in his constituency today. Strangely enough, joining us today is his wife LaVerne. We have with us LaVerne Neufeld; Nathan Neufeld,

[ Page 7376 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have several bosses in the Ministry of Attorney General in the minister's office that I work for, and one of them is Jocelyn Brown. Her mother-in-law Diane Brown happens to be in the gallery. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: This side of the House would also like to recognize David Smith and the work he does on behalf of hepatitis victims. We join in making him welcome.

And, since we're introducing people who work with us and expressing the appreciation we have for them, I would like to introduce my legislative assistant and assistant legislative assistant. On behalf of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and myself, I'd like to welcome Terri Cunningham and Ben Basi. They're in the gallery. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

[2:15]

B. Penner: Yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing my brother. He enjoyed his experience during question period so much that he has brought two of his friends, fellow employees with B.C. Tel, here today. It's my pleasure to introduce Sam Catroppa from Surrey and Mick Howren from White Rock. In addition, the daughter of a constituent of mine, a young woman by the name of Wendy Johnson, is here today. She has brought with her a Rotary exchange student from Turkey, Aida Ilgin. I ask that the House please make these people welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today -- besides my constituency assistant Ruth Milne, whom I won't introduce -- are two trustees from Smithers, Bob Henderson and Gerry Hemming. Gerry is a long-term resident of the Bulkley Valley and a very good rural representative who is still seen around the valley travelling in a horse and buggy. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

COMPENSATION FOR PRE-1986 HEPATITIS C VICTIMS

On March 27, B.C. joined with other provinces, territories and the federal government to announce an offer of $1.1 billion in financial assistance to those Canadians infected with this disease between 1986 and 1990, the years for which a test to screen blood was available but was not used in Canada. British Columbia signed this agreement and believes it is a positive step. Our province anticipates spending $205 million on health care treatment for those infected during those years. In addition, British Columbia anticipates that the cost of treatment for those infected before 1986 will total another $353 million. Those are significant commitments.

But it is clear that Canadians believe that more must be done. Canadians are telling Ottawa that it cannot cut off compassion on a given date. It is our government's view that these Canadians must be heard. The existing agreement is an important first step, but we are urging Ottawa to accept its responsibility to address and fund the needs of those infected with hepatitis C through blood transfusions before 1986.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate the minister's comments. We believe that the victims of the hepatitis C tragedy need to be treated fairly, and we believe that these victims of the blood supply shouldn't be victimized once again. We join our voices with those around the country who have spoken out and asked for fair compensation for all victims of this terrible tragedy. To that end, we wrote a letter to the Premier, and we expressed our disappointment.

It's amazing that this government can call this agreement a positive step. Last night we saw the government in Quebec unanimously ask the federal government to review the agreement and look at this again. We need that kind of commitment from the members on the opposite side of the House, and we need to make sure that we do everything we can for these victims. We needn't victimize them again. The option they have available to them right now is a class action lawsuit. I don't think that's good enough. We need to be moving forward on steps for these folks. I think that what we're looking for and what the hepatitis C victims are looking for is not empty words, and it's not promises; it's a real commitment from this government that they will be looking ahead and looking at ways to make it easier for these victims as they face their life-threatening illness. I ask this government to reconsider what they've done and to move forward and give the help that these victims need.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that this province will be spending $353 million with respect to treatment for those infected prior to 1986. The issue, however, is not strictly one of dollars. It's one of fairness; it's one of compassion. It's one of the need for this government and the federal government to recognize that there are Canadians suffering and dying who need our help.

Hon. Speaker, three times I have raised this matter in the Legislative Assembly, and three times I have been told by this government that they're not prepared to act. Yesterday a unanimous vote by the National Assembly in Quebec indicated that a mistake had been made and that a change needs to be made. Today the Ontario Health minister has said that she will support the Quebec motion. Today the Premier of Alberta has indicated that he believes that the provincial Health ministers and the federal minister need to be reconvened.

Words are not enough on this. This chamber must take action by way of a formal motion so that this government is

[ Page 7377 ]

Introduction of Bills

PENSION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 13, Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, which will amend certain public sector pension statutes. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act.

The bill has four purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to enable part-time senior administrative staff at colleges to make contributions to the plan. The second purpose of this bill is to formally enable by regulation, on a recommendation by the pension board, a pension plan benefit pay-out to a plan member with a significantly shortened life expectancy. The third purpose is to give the government the option to separate the roles of the superannuation commissioner and the chair of the pension board. Finally, the bill also makes several minor housekeeping changes.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 13 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

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

K. Krueger: . . .to fulfil the high honour of this office. Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture did lose sight of his duty to uphold the high honour of his office, so my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Regardless of how tough it is, will he now do the honourable thing and uphold his duty to fulfil the honour of his office, to uphold that honour, and resign from office today?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. I call on the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I welcome the member for Kamloops-North Thompson into the debate, however late. He's certainly welcome.

At its heart, this issue is essentially a land use issue. There are the interests of agriculture and the interests of community, and that's the essence of politics in B.C. On our side of the House we take these issues incredibly seriously. We go forward to our convention and debate them for the whole world to see on television. My job as Minister of Agriculture is to see that the interests of agriculture are looked after.

I have yet to hear from the other side what they feel. What is their position on the agricultural land reserve and on the use of the "provincial interest" and on how to balance these issues? I challenge you, hon. member, to go to Langley next weekend, where farming actually matters, and say what your position is on the agricultural land reserve -- and to get your leader to do the same.

The Speaker: Hon. minister. . . . I remind all members to address their remarks through the Chair.

I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson on his first supplementary.

K. Krueger: I think everyone appreciates what a tough position this is for the Minister of Agriculture. I think everyone in this chamber appreciates what a tough position the agricultural land commissioners have been in for the past many months. Those land commissioners never failed to uphold the high honour of their office. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for me as the MLA for Kamloops-North Thompson to turn a blind eye to this situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sure you know about supplementaries. The preamble is to be quite brief.

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, I chose to uphold my duty as a member of this chamber, a Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. I ask the minister. . . . Again my question is to the Minister of Agriculture: will he take this opportunity to do the honourable thing and resign from his position in cabinet?

The Speaker: For a brief reply, the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. C. Evans: A brief reply. Hon. Speaker, when Commissioner Perry reviewed the invocation of the provincial interest, he said that the process was flawed. He asked me to appoint a commissioner, to hold a consultation to rewrite a definition of the provincial interest and to review the process -- so that the hon. member will understand it in future.

A week ago I appointed the dean of agriculture at UBC, a totally independent individual, to review these matters, to say how the provincial interest should be defined and how it should be invoked, and to report out to the public. Then the hon. member and all of us will understand how the process should work in future.

M. de Jong: We understand how the process should work, and it doesn't involve ministerial interference. Three days ago the Minister of Agriculture was asked to explain. . . .

[ Page 7378 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

M. de Jong: He was asked to explain his disgraceful attempt to influence members of the ALC. He denied the allegations and said. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, please. Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: He said this: "If the chair of the commission says that he wasn't bullied, then where is the proof. . . ?" Hon. Speaker, today we have the proof. Kirk Miller says that the integrity of the ALC has been compromised. Kirk Miller says that he and his colleagues on that board were subjected to incredible pressure by this minister and this government.

[2:30]

The Speaker: Oh, hon. member, that's no. . . . Before the minister answers, I'm going to say to the hon. member that I believe some of the language used was inappropriate in this House. I ask him to find another word or withdraw it.

Hon. C. Evans: Hey, it's okay. He can say anything he wants. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you for your suggestion, but it is. . . . Would you take your seat, please.

The member for Matsqui. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. C. Evans: The Six Mile issue has been quite difficult to manage. If I were a coward, I would not have made my decisions and gone to the Horticultural Coalition convention and explained my position. I would not have gone to the BCFGA convention and explained my position in front of 300 farmers and five of your backbenchers, who have yet to take a position, or to my own party convention. I do my job because I believe we have nothing to hide. Our position has been open all along. I actually take pride in the openness and integrity of the process thus far.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: This morning British Columbians awoke to discover that the head of the Agricultural Land Commission has absolutely no faith in the Minister of Agriculture. He has called for a public inquiry. He has no faith, and he is disgusted by the pressure that this minister brought to bear on that commission. The minister has been confronted with an overwhelming and unprecedented vote of no-confidence by the head of the ALC. He has one honourable option. Will he exercise it now and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: I find it a little bit odd. The member opposite, in all his bombastic rhetoric, suggests that there is some issue between me and the chair of the Land Commission that he would like to understand. He doesn't care about the issue; he only cares about the television cameras.

And my proof? One week ago, in estimates, with the Speaker to keep order and Hansard to keep the official record, the chair of the Land Commission sat next to me for two days while the members opposite asked not one question about Six Mile Ranch -- on the record. The Agriculture critic asked not one question about the integrity of agricultural land. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson asked not one question about Six Mile Ranch. And the member opposite, who is busy pointing his finger, didn't even come into the room.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we will not proceed until there is order.

I recognize the member for Matsqui on a second supplementary -- briefly.

M. de Jong: Let's put it in terms that maybe even the minister can understand: someone is not telling the truth. Is it the lifetime public servant who spent the last 25 years defending the integrity of the ALR, or is it this minister who connived, who plotted, who pressured the ALC to do something he didn't have the political courage to do himself? It's disgusting. We all know who is not telling the truth; this House knows who is not telling the truth. Will he have some courage and stand up and confirm that he's not telling the truth?

Hon. C. Evans: It's kind of tough to keep your sense of humour in the face of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. minister, please take your seat. When order has been restored. . . . A question has been asked of the minister. It is the minister's right to answer the question.

Hon. C. Evans: I have no desire or wish to denigrate or argue with the good people of the commission or the good chair. My position has been open all the way through this process. It has been very hard on the people on the commission. It's been hard on lots of elected people. It's been hard on the people of Kamloops. But, hon. Speaker, it's all out there, as clear as the light of day.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: If you actually cared, hon. member, you could have asked. . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . .your questions on the record last week. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . .when Kirk Miller sat in this building.

[ Page 7379 ]

G. Campbell: In 1991 the vast majority of people on that side of the House ran with this pledge to the people of British Columbia: "We will restore the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission." Yesterday the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission left no question in anyone's mind that this government and this particular Minister of Agriculture have been undermining the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission, and he said explicitly. . . . He called for a public inquiry into the activities of all the members of this government with regard to their undermining of the commission. Doesn't the Minister of Agriculture understand that the only way to uphold his pledge to maintain the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission is to resign?

Hon. C. Evans: Because I'm a student of political history in this province, I understand that the only way to uphold my pledge to defend agriculture and the agricultural land reserve is to see to it that that man never governs.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO HANDLING
OF SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

The Speaker: Your question.

G. Campbell: We have had the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission say that it is time for a public inquiry; it is time to review this government's actions.

The Speaker: Hon. member.

G. Campbell: My question to the Attorney General is very straightforward: will you be willing to carry out your duty and call a public inquiry, under the Inquiry Act, into this government's interference with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of the various steps of the processes that have been taken in this particular matter have been transparent. They've been repeated. That's the end of the matter.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members please take their seats. Until order has been restored, everyone in his seat.

I recognize the Attorney General.

Tabling Documents

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I also have the honour to. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Attorney General, continue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the B.C. Human Rights Commission annual report for 1996-97, and the British Columbia Police Commission annual report for 1996-97.

Petitions

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: This petition is signed by 834 British Columbians. It requests that the government exempt the Gateway services from the current proposed contract restructuring in the Ministry for Children and Families.

Standing Order 35 Motion

It is urgent that the matter of full compensation for all people infected with hepatitis C by tainted blood be debated in the Legislative Assembly today, in light of the motion passed unanimously yesterday by the National Assembly of Quebec -- which also just received the support of the Ontario Minister of Health. The federal Health minister, Allan Rock, has indicated that he is closing this file. It is therefore even more urgent that the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia discuss this issue today.

On Tuesday the Premier said he would "not act unilaterally in British Columbia." Today the province can act with the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to reopen the negotiations.

I enclose a copy of the motion I propose to move should the Chair find a prima facie case.

The Speaker: Thank you for that, member.

I recognize the Government House Leader, in response.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by this member in the House over the last few weeks. This is a very important matter. This afternoon the

[ Page 7380 ]

I would question the urgency of it today in the context that this matter has been before the public for months now. Indeed, we have a commitment from the Minister of Health to move forward on it in a way that makes sense, representing our government to the federal government. We welcome the participation, in her discussions with the federal government, of all members of the House.

It is also important that we move this matter forward in a way that it can actually be resolved on behalf of the victims of the hepatitis C virus, who, at the end of the day, are the most important people in this whole matter. It is our government's commitment, expressed by the Minister of Health earlier today, to do that. I suggest that this House support her as she carries out those duties.

G. Campbell: I rise to support the motion from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I believe this is a matter in need of urgent public attention. It may not feel like it is an emergency to people in this House who do not happen to suffer from hepatitis C, but I can tell you that it is an emergency for thousands of people across the country.

We have an opportunity to speak with one voice, to work together. It has been granted us today. Other provinces have broken ranks, and I would recommend that we move forward with an emergency debate on this, so we can clearly send B.C.'s voice across the nation.

The Speaker: I will not rule on this at this point. I will bring back my ruling on it either later today or at a later sitting.

[2:45]

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
(continued)

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, before we go on, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce my staff who are with me. To my right is my deputy minister, Bill Lefeaux-Valentine; to my left is my assistant deputy minister, Linda Hannah; and beside Linda is John Dowler -- I believe John counts beans. So away we go.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to be here to proceed with the budget estimates for the Ministry of Fisheries. I want to start out by thanking the minister and his staff, particularly for the letter of March 30 and the briefings we had. Since this is a new ministry, I thought we would start out and discuss the whole mission and purpose of the ministry. I think I'd like to hear specifically what the mission statement for the ministry is, because I think that really sets out clearly, hopefully, what the government's agenda will be and provides a focus for staff in terms of the work they do.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would refer the member to "The B.C. Fisheries Strategy" discussion paper, May 1997. I'm sure the member has a copy of that. That clearly lays out the direction, the future and the vision of the ministry. I would offer at this stage, two months into the process, that we haven't written down on a piece of paper: "mission statement." Here it is. It's built on the strategy that's portrayed in this document. If the member requires further investigation or clarification point by point or has a specific question, I would be pleased to answer.

J. van Dongen: I'm not familiar off the top of my head with the document, although I know I have read it. I wonder if the minister could comment, then, on the balance of the objectives in terms of conservation, the economic balance and the environmental aspects of the mission. I think it's important to have some clear understanding of what the objectives are. Maybe he could comment on those in a little more detail.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not trying to be evasive here. The member asks what sounds like a very simple question: to outline our day-to-day work in this ministry -- where we were yesterday, what we're up to today and where we're going tomorrow -- when he talks about tying this to economic and environmental principles. I'll offer this and see if we can get beyond this opening question here.

The first priority of this ministry and of this government with fish -- particularly on the marine side, the salmon -- is conservation. We have dedicated a large number of resources as a government. In fact, legislation falls under the jurisdiction of colleague ministers -- for the protection of habitat, for the conservation of fish, for the rebuilding of species -- and at the same time, this ministry, within its realm of responsibility, has the need, the mandate and the obligation to speak for coastal communities. Finally, it gives a coordinated political voice from the province on the need for these coastal communities and how they view their needs for survival. In coordinating with these communities and with the fishermen on those coasts, whether we're dealing with first nations or non-first nations communities, we are preparing a strategy for the survival of coastal communities that moves us forward. That's the ocean side.

Of course, shellfish aquaculture falls under this; other aquaculture processes fall under this ministry, and some groundfish strategies. We have a memorandum of understanding signed with Ottawa, between the Prime Minister and the Premier, that clearly lays out the roles and approaches of both political jurisdictions within the political jurisdiction and guidelines of the two areas, British Columbia versus Canada. That's the coast.

We also, in this ministry, have taken on a responsibility that was under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: the freshwater fishery in the province -- the stewardship of the wild fish resource in our fresh waters, the operation and continued operation of our freshwater hatcheries, the stocking programs and the consultative cooperative work with other jurisdictions and other nations. Having said all of that, this ministry also has responsibilities, I believe -- I'll get my sleeve jerked and told to sit down in a minute, maybe -- for the licensing of the processing facilities on the coast as well.

[ Page 7381 ]

That's really our realm. We respect the law; we work within the law. Conservation is our primary goal -- and concern for fish. We have the economic. . . . Actually, it's a tourism-social-whatever-other kind of thing on the freshwater side, as the freshwater fisheries, through tourism and other endeavours, bring close to half a billion dollars a year into B.C. We're quite broadly based.

I will offer that we have a Fisheries ministry. We have a minister. The minister doesn't quite have an office yet, but we're getting there too. We have staff up and running. But what we don't have yet is the outside bounds of the ministry. We're still putting some of that together to see where the ministry would unfold.

That becomes an extension of the future which, under the tight rules of Committee of Supply, becomes future policy and not examinable. I'm not trying to tease the member, hon. Chair; I'm trying to find out where the member would like to go with this or if that satisfies. If any one of those categories I mentioned requires further examination, I'd be pleased to offer whatever response and answers I can.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I also want to say that I appreciate the fact that this is a brand-new ministry. It's been a very short time frame for both the staff and the minister in terms of establishing offices and management teams and that kind of thing. I've tried hard not to bother them too much up to this point, but I ask the question about a mission statement because I think it is essential and important.

I think it will be important that the ministry, once it gets settled, turn some specific attention to that. It's important from the point of view of the stakeholders and of the public to understand what the ministry is trying to do. In a practical sense, one of the issues that's always debated is if this is going to be a ministry that's more focused on habitat and environment, and habitat restoration than on jobs and economic development. Where will the balance lie between those two important needs? That's one reason I ask the question. There's another reason, and that is in order to measure performance effectively under the government's accountability initiative, which was started two or three years ago, I think. It's important for the ministry to have that mission statement and to have specific objectives, both in the longer term and on an annual basis, so that both the government and the public can have something to measure against. I ask the question from that perspective.

In view of the real concern in British Columbia today about jobs and economic activity -- in particular, jobs for people in fishing communities -- I wonder if the minister could comment a bit more about that in terms of the mission and the objectives of his ministry. Is that the primary focus of the ministry? Is it a primary focus, along with conservation? Where is the balance? Where is the main activity of the ministry?

[3:00]

I like to look at the balance that we're trying to achieve as a ministry. When we step out the door, when we go to a meeting and talk about ourselves as being the Ministry of Fisheries of British Columbia, we are way beyond the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Although we do have an advisory role, a participatory role, in the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, our primary focus for this ministry would be just what the member is looking for: to find a way to strike a balance between economic activity, conservation of species and supply, and the rebuilding of supply of fish.

We do participate. The Crown corporation Fisheries Renewal B.C. is under this ministry in order to work on habitat restoration projects and to consider other initiatives as they come in for proposal and consideration. This ministry will give a voice to the economic needs of the coastal communities. We are just now entering the time of the announcement of the federal fishing plan. As an example of this ministry attempting to strike that balance between the need to conserve and the need to survive if you happen to live in the remote regions of the coast of British Columbia, we have commissioned, as released yesterday, Dr. Parzival Copes to bring forward a set of recommendations to the federal government on how we believe that this balance can be achieved through selective fishing methods, no fishing at all at times when endangered coho species are in the area, and a diversified fishing plan for the sport, aboriginal and commercial sectors. I am hoping that's the kind of balance the member is looking for. That's what this ministry is focused on. We are the voice and the activity centre and the planners for that.

J. van Dongen: I want to pick up on one of the comments the minister made. He sees this ministry as the voice for coastal communities. I'm assuming that he's talking in the context of representation for our coastal communities and British Columbia vis-à-vis the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the federal government. In addition to that, how much emphasis will there be within the ministry on engaging in activities that will lead directly to new jobs and new job opportunities in these coastal communities? I think there's a distinction between lobbying the federal government on programs, etc., and activities focused towards actual job creation.

Hon. D. Streifel: I am going to try this. As I understand the question, and a nod may get me started off here, the member is looking for specifics on what we're doing to help supply jobs on the coast of British Columbia through diversification of fisheries -- kind of like that -- rather than just going to Ottawa and saying: "You blew it again."

First of all, we have the memorandum of understanding with the federal government, as I referenced earlier, where we are a participatory partner in the planning and diversification of fisheries and what happens. We are a co-conspirator, so to speak, in the allocation of some new fisheries -- one of them being sardines. It has been across the field quite recently on

[ Page 7382 ]

Of course, we have announced and are participants in the expansion of a dogfish fishery and in the dogfish pilot project in and around the Queen Charlottes. I believe there will be 20,000 tonnes of dogfish harvested there, primarily for export to the European market. Now, the harvesting of the dogfish is actually a double benefit to the coast of British Columbia in that the fishermen in the boats go out and harvest the critters, then the folks on land in the plants will process them, and then our transportation industry will ship them to a transition point where they'll be re-shipped. They'll be processed in different quadrants and sections. A piece of the back might be for the big lump of fish you might buy in Britain or France for fish and chips. The fins and the belly flaps. . . . As I understand it, the fins get processed for another way of consuming it. The belly flaps are cleaned off, smoked and dried kind of crispy, like chips, and they're a delicacy in parts of Germany. I see that the hon. member has smirked; he may have chomped on some of these things in his life. But those are examples of what we can do as a full, participatory partner on behalf of coastal communities like Massett, for instance, where the unemployment rate is astronomically high, at 85 percent, and where we can help divert some resources. That is a diversified fishery. It's really a new fishery that has not been done in this province since the forties. In fact, we can supply economic activity vis-à-vis jobs. You know, when someone collects a paycheque, they're pretty happy. If they don't have a paycheque, they're not happy at all. And this supply replaces what was in a lot of ways a very viable salmon fishery on the coast. We have to get into other activities.

There's an opportunity in some areas for other groundfish strategies and other sea life -- urchins, cucumbers and this kind of stuff. In fact, there are other possibilities. We are working with individuals on a different way to catch salmon and a different way to handle salmon: catching, handling live, bleeding out and processing by hand right there at the back of the boat or on a short haul to a fish dock, as opposed to just brutalizing the fish out of the water in a lump, freezing them and sending them somewhere else to become a second-rate product. We are working on new techniques of handling and processing numerous species of fish, up to and including, for the members' information, the shipment of live fish and live shellfish to remote parts of the world, which is an extremely high value-added enhancement.

These are the kinds of projects that we're involved in. We're not just a lobby to the big guy in Ottawa. We are very proactive on the ground and aggressive. I would like to see -- and this will be in our mission statement and our strategic plan, if you would just bear with me for a few moments, hon. member -- a change in attitude toward fishing on the coast of British Columbia, from the "grab a bunch and sell them" salmon fisheries of the past, to selectively choosing some wild fish; processing them to the highest possible value, even if it's in a reduced fishery; then maybe moving on when that fishery is done to doing something else on the coast -- if it's not dogfish or urchins or crabs, maybe moving on from that to restore habitat and those kinds of processes to extend the work life of the. . . .

I'm being signalled. Remember the last word I said. I'll sit down; someone needs an introduction.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

W. Hartley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members. I believe our visitors are just leaving, but I want to introduce them. There are some 50 grade 6 students and several adults visiting today from Marysville Middle School in the United States. Please welcome them.

Hon. D. Streifel: If I've gone far enough for the member opposite, if he just gives me this one, I'll sit down.

What we want to signal is that there is hope on the coast; there's a future on the coast. One of the strongest mandates this ministry was given was to help the coast survive until those changes take place. If we consolidate the right to catch those fish, if we move from the concept of a common-property resource to a privatized resource concentrated in a few hands with no downsize capacity at all -- just concentrated in fewer hands -- we will never, ever have a coastal community that survives. We are not the east coast; we are a diversified west coast. We have that opportunity right in front of us, and I would most strongly urge British Columbians and the hon. member opposite to grasp that initiative now, today, and help us with the coastal survival needs and redistribute the harvestable wealth on our coast.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for his detailed answer. I guess I asked the question about the emphasis on jobs in the economy, because I think it should be a critical part of the ministry, and I think it is. But I also wanted to point out that it's important for this new ministry not just to be involved in pursuing federal responsibilities and lobbying the federal government on their responsibilities. I think that the ministry has considerable scope and opportunity for economic development that we, as a province and as a provincial government, can directly influence ourselves. To the degree that this government, together with the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and other ministries, can actually drive its own agenda in terms of economic development, I would certainly urge them to do that.

Still sort of talking in general terms about objectives and the goals of the ministry, if he had to chose three goals for the coming 12 months, specific projects or objectives that he and the ministry have, I wonder if he might talk about what they are. Whether it's a particular segment of the fishery or a particular policy issue, what are the three most important achievements that he could look for in the coming year?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm really tempted to say, "to get a new office and get fully staffed," but I'm not going to say that. As much as I like to tease and kid around with folks, I think this is an extremely important question, and I really thank the member opposite for bringing it forward. I believe it's a thoughtful question, and through the initial part of my answer, I hope to spawn further debate on just these issues of what we're trying to accomplish. That's the theme of the discussion so far: who represents whom out there, and do British Columbians count, or are we just going to get written off like the east coast?

[3:15]

The second goal is the final accomplishment of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with our American neighbours. I have met

[ Page 7383 ]

The other goal -- and none of these is in any particular declining or increasing order of importance -- is to be the voice for the coastal communities. That voice has to be legitimate and open in its call for equity and access. We could use some help from the members opposite, particularly the critic for Fisheries, who is well respected in the community as a reasonable individual. A voice for equity and a voice for access to the resource and increased employment through a diversified fishery. . . .

One example of equity and access that I've spoken in the House in the past on is the circumstance around hake on the west coast of Vancouver Island. The federal government allocated a portion of the hake fishery to be processed by Polish factory ships off the shore of British Columbia. That may not be a big deal to somebody that works 40 hours a week -- whether they're in a supermarket, in a doctor's office or wherever the heck they may work -- but to the companies that put up the money to rebuild their plants, the allocation to Polish factory ships represents their profit for this year. That's the profit that they dearly needed to drive back into expanding their manufacturing facilities in order to participate in the vision and the goal of a diversified and growing fishery on the west coast. That was taken away from them. We need a voice for equity and access. To the workers in those factories that processed the hake and produced the surimi that made the fancy crab that the yuppies love to eat, that allocation of 20,000 tonnes to the Polish ships represented the difference between a few months of work and a lot of work this year -- where they could actually do stuff, buy things, spend money and not have to go on pogey or on the dole at the end of it.

I say that if we can accomplish a strong and united voice and movement under the Canada-B.C. agreement and a Pacific Salmon Treaty where we know where we're going on the coast with the salmon in particular and with these other initiatives and proposals, that's what I want to accomplish in this first year. We've hit the ground running. I've been in all these communities. We've even had some of them come visit us here on these very same issues.

J. van Dongen: Well, it's always interesting to ask an open-ended question like that and see what kind of an answer we get. I think the third answer would probably be the area that I hope would get the most emphasis, because that's the area that the ministry itself has the most opportunity to influence. Where we can, we'll certainly be supportive of coastal communities with the government to try and retain jobs, not only for fishermen but also for plant workers.

The minister used the example of the hake fishery, which we were pleased to support. I think when you look at the Pacific Salmon Treaty -- and I certainly wasn't intending to spend a lot of time discussing that matter -- I think we're all very, very hopeful that the salmon treaty talks get going and meet with some success. Really, I think a lot of people who are more familiar with that process than I am have said that there is probably the best chance this year of getting some kind of a resolution, and if it doesn't come now, it may be a long time down the road. I think the reality there is that there are elements to that Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiation that we can't control and that we have a limited ability to influence.

The Canada-B.C. agreement. . . . I'll respond to that a little bit. I'm certainly going to canvass one or two aspects of that agreement. Again, I think it can be a useful document. We have had some concerns about the level of bureaucracy involved in all the various committees and agencies under that agreement. If we watch that part of it, it may be useful, but I always try to measure things in terms of how they impact the fishermen in Ucluelet, Tofino or Port Hardy, or the plant workers or that kind of thing. Agreements between two levels of government don't necessarily translate into immediate results on the ground -- although it is a useful thing to do.

I want to move on to the structure of the ministry a little bit. I think it would be useful for the stakeholders to have the minister go over the various components of the various ministries that have been brought together. There was a lot of discussion and a lot of input by certain stakeholders and various groups that had an interest in how the ministry was going to be formatted -- which pieces were going to be in the ministry and which pieces were going to be outside the ministry. I wonder if the minister could go over those points, with particular reference to the B.C. fisheries secretariat, which was part of the Premier's Office. I'm sure the minister would want on the record what's being pulled together and what's being excluded. I know he said that it's still a bit of an open-ended process. There are some studies going on to decide what will be fully included. I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing exactly what is part of the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. It's a question I asked just three hours ago, because it seems to modify and change slightly every day. At this time in the creation of this new Ministry of Fisheries, the Victoria-based fisheries programs, the research unit at UBC, the fish culture program and five provincial trout hatcheries have been transferred to this ministry. The regional fisheries sections, regional fisheries inventory specialists and the Hill Creek compensation hatchery remain with the Ministry of Environment. All resource stewardship staff, habitat protection, environmental assessment, aboriginal relations, enforcement and land use planning, and headquarters and regions also remain with MELP.

The member should know that the borders of the ministry may change after a one-person advisory commission kicks in to provide further advice and recommendations on the delivery of fisheries, wildlife habitat and water responsibilities. That's the only uncertain part in the formation of this ministry at this stage. A letter of understanding has been drafted to confirm interim arrangements between the two ministries and ensure the continued delivery of fisheries programs in Victoria and regions. That's the split between us and MELP.

We'll try to get the movement from the fish side of Ag, Fish and Food over here for the members. That's mostly the groundfish strategy, the shellfish stuff and the marine-side allocations.

Just to quickly reference, the Canada-British Columbia agreement is a historic document in Canada. It's the first one that has ever been signed with any province, and as a matter of fact, a number of other provinces are quite envious and have asked for advice and have looked for an opportunity for their own agreement on fisheries with the federal government. That's the information for the hon. member. I wouldn't like to think that it's just another piece of paper signed by the

[ Page 7384 ]

While I have this new document in my hand here, programs and operations and conservation are MELP, research is MELP, enforcement and licensing is both, commercial fisheries is us, aquaculture is us, sport fishery is us, market development is us, fish culture is MELP, coastal oceans policy is us, coastal planning is us, fisheries inventory is both and fisheries statistics is both. The secretariat is only involved at this stage, as I understand it, in an advisory capacity in the PST negotiations. Really, there isn't much left at the secretariat level other than to conclude that very, very important piece of work, the Pacific Salmon Treaty. For continuity purposes at this very sensitive time, it's there.

The member referenced the Pacific Salmon Treaty in his first comments and where we are at with it. We're still meeting; that's where we are with it. Speaking as an individual who negotiated for a living, as long as you're meeting, there's always hope.

J. van Dongen: We seem to be covering three or four questions and three or four answers all at the same time. I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to provide us with a listing of what's in and what's out -- certainly at the current time -- and whether there will be an attempt -- at some point in the future when this one-man study is finished -- to make that information available to the public, to provide some clarity as to how the division is taking place.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to send over an org chart for the information of the hon. member. He'll probably come back to me and say: "A minute ago, when you answered the question, you said this. This says something else." If the member says that, I'm going to stand up and say: "You're absolutely right." I gave him a verbal list of where stuff came from, not where it's now housed. This is the real deal, the full-meal deal -- in some terminology, maybe the full monty. But I'm going to have it sent over to the hon. member, and once he has had the opportunity to skim through it we'll probably get some questions on it.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that information from the minister. The one-person commission that is doing that review as to the outside boundaries. . . . What would be the expected timing of his submission and the decision as to finalizing the structure of the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's a tough one. If I had my way, it would have been the day before yesterday. It's proving to be a little more difficult than we had hoped. We expect it to be on the ground and running within a short period of time. We've had a couple of setbacks that we hadn't planned on -- personal circumstances of some individuals that we had hoped would do the job. I can only offer to the member that it's going to be as quickly as possible. My opinion is that it's overdue. We're behind on it, and we'll see if we can get caught up.

[3:30]

Are the minister and the ministry taking any submissions or inviting any comments from any of the interest groups on that? Or is it pretty much an internal ministry process? I'm not saying that we need to consult for eight months or that sort of thing, but is there any opportunity for comment by interested people?

Hon. D. Streifel: The role of the special adviser will be just that: to pick up the information from the various groups. There has been some work done in a directory manner that would set up this special adviser. I am not actively seeking input to this process at this time. We'll leave that to the adviser. Inadvertently, I keep getting lots of advice on this, hon. member.

J. van Dongen: I was going to ask the minister. . . . I know that certain groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation and others had some pretty strong views about how the ministry should be structured. I'm wondering if the minister could offer any comment as to their response -- and other stakeholders -- in terms of how it's going together.

Hon. D. Streifel: The whole purpose of forming the outside boundaries of the ministry is to establish where the administrative capacity begins and ends. In fact, it won't make a great deal of difference to the corporate structure of the whole of government.

More appropriately, to answer the member's question on the positioning from some of the interest groups or the folks who have a deep interest in this, last weekend in Fort St. John I addressed the B.C. Wildlife Federation's convention. I spoke with a number of them, admired their projects and worked with them. I was also at the Steelhead Society annual general meeting and fundraiser, and I spoke with a number of folks on this same issue. I've met with individuals in communities on this issue -- not specifically to discuss this. But certainly, in the form and scope of conversation, advice has come forward to me. I've directly asked the main proponents of vast directional changes for this ministry, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, to have more patience, and I explained to them last weekend what some of our difficulties are. I haven't been barraged with protest calls, so I guess they're waiting for us to get our act together -- as I am.

J. van Dongen: One of the relationships that I think is going to be critical and probably involves a lot of ongoing work is the relationship with the Ministry of Environment. In the briefing session that I had with the minister's staff, we talked about the policy unit in Victoria -- if I can describe it that way -- moving into the Ministry of Fisheries, and that part of the work of this commissioner is to attempt to develop some form of single-window delivery on the ground in the regions. That is a pretty critical area, certainly in terms of current discussions out in the field, involving things like setbacks and the discussions under the Fish Protection Act -- that kind of thing. I think that is going to be very, very critical. I wonder if the minister could just give us an update. I know it's all in a state of flux, but could he give us some comments on that area?

Hon. D. Streifel: I work very closely with the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Agriculture on a number of these issues, the Fish Protection Act being one of them. I don't have administrative authority with the act at all; it rests with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. But as the

[ Page 7385 ]

As well, I share a common concern with the member for Abbotsford in that we represent very similar regions of the province. I've taken the opportunity as a private member to talk to the minister on the issues and concerns which my constituents have brought forward. Although that's not in the realm of the minister, it's pretty hard to step out of his skin all the time and become a quasi- or pseudo-minister or a member. Those are very important issues, and we do work closely together. I think they are serious issues, and I understand the positioning from the member.

Other issues, of course, more specific. . . . Maybe the member would throw something else out, and we could have a discussion on that as well. But the role of the special adviser will be to sort out the next step of jurisdiction. That's actually in the future, and I don't want to go too far down that road, because that individual is not there yet.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's reference to some of the issues that impact urban property owners, farmers and others. It wasn't my intent to get into specific issues, but I appreciate his reference to them.

In terms of the process that the one-man commission is going through, I would like to refer the minister to . . . . I don't have a spare copy of it here, but it's an article in the Chilliwack Times, dated April 7, 1998. We can either get a copy of this, or if you can find it in your clipping service. . . .

Interjection.

J. van Dongen: It makes extensive reference to some comments by Betsy Terpsma of the Ministry of Environment -- she's a communications person -- and talks about the business of referrals involving the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries. I'm not going to read it all out. But it goes at some length into the process, as she understands it.

I have a concern that there may be duplication in the process. It may not even be clear at this point. But I simply want to register, for the minister and the ministry, my concern about the increasing complexity of the referral process as it's set out in that article. I'd simply put that on the record for the minister and ask if he has any further comments about that referral process specifically. That would involve local governments, the Ministry of Environment and, in some manner, the Ministry of Fisheries.

Hon. D. Streifel: I couldn't have hoped for a better question from the hon. member. First of all, I'll correct the misconception again. I have written to the local papers on some occasions. I've tried to contact some of the local journalists to correct the misconception of who's acting out there. It's the relationship -- and the referral from MELP, in some instances -- to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans federally. It's not the provincial Fisheries ministry.

It doesn't seem to matter to some, particularly a few local politicians out there -- running the risk of taking a whack at somebody that's not here to defend themselves -- but sometimes the criticisms are politically convenient, and accuracy means diddly in the process. I know the member opposite doesn't fall into that role. That's why he's asked the question: to look for clarification. But some local politicians, in fact, in the Fraser Valley have been taking a crack at this ministry for no other purpose than political expediency, because it's not the jurisdiction of the ministry they're having trouble with. They're having trouble with DFO.

This minister is on the record on this drainage ditch issue as stating that a number of these ditches were built and dug under the ARDSA program. The evidence exists and is there that a ditch was dug. It becomes a ditch; it should remain a ditch. And there are ways to protect that ditch from fish encroachment. Others were watercourses that were always there, always natural, and that had been enhanced.

I believe we have to strike a protocol to address and balance off the needs in those watercourses with the fish and the agricultural concerns. The ARDSA program helped improve the land value -- the value of production on the land -- in the Fraser Valley, as the member would know, quite dramatically a number of years ago. We got some areas where you could do nothing but crop a bit of hay or do very high-quality corn crops because of the drainage that happened out there.

The second part of that is that I think we have to pay a lot more attention to the natural habitat in that area, so fish that are in the area and want to spawn in a particular coho habitat won't be forced to find refuge for spawning purposes in somebody's drainage ditch. They can go back into the natural watercourses, where they were naturally. I think it's incumbent on us, through our programs of habitat renewal, to facilitate that. I asked the federal government very vociferously to participate in that process, and I'm looking for voices in the community. So we can have ditches that drain agricultural land, we can have fish habitat, and we can have a transition.

We can understand that there may be some sacrifices we make on behalf of fish. But this isn't the tunnel-vision approach where you go out one afternoon, find water trickling and say: "That's it; you can't farm any longer." It's not fair, and it's not appropriate.

Now, again in this chamber I am on the public record with perhaps too simplistic a view of the issue. But I haven't yet had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans explain to me why that won't work. It certainly sounds logical to me. I mean, I've heard of screens and fish weirs to keep fish out of areas. It seems to me that it would be extremely logical.

So I invite comment from the member opposite to see if this fits within the thought process of perhaps the whole opposition caucus on this issue. It's another offer of a way to work together to correct the record, to keep the chippy political expediency away from some of those municipal councils that see NDP and throw a knife at it for no particular reason.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the comments of the minister on the specific issue of ditch cleaning. I don't want him to prejudge what comments were in the newspaper article just because it comes from Chilliwack. The comments that I was referring to deal very much in a generic sense with the process of dealing with referrals from local governments to the Ministry of Environment and to the Ministry of Fisheries. I certainly agree that the ditch-cleaning issue specifically is strictly a Department of Fisheries and Oceans effort.

It does give rise to a little bit of further discussion on this transitional phase we're going through, setting up a new ministry and the relationship with the Ministry of Environment -- about a concern that I have. The minister alluded to it. I want to pursue it a little further, because it is creating great difficulty for people -- more so in the urban settings, residen-

[ Page 7386 ]

[3:45]

I think it is absolutely critical that we put some good minds to work to try and cut through some of this overlap, duplication, confusion and pointing at each other. It's going to be a regulatory nightmare and a delivery nightmare if we don't get some of those things sorted out. What we have now and what the Chilliwack Times article refers to is simply introducing another player -- namely, the Ministry of Fisheries -- into this whole mix. I wonder if the minister could just give us a few more comments on how he sees that unfolding, with particular reference to the Canada-B.C. agreement.

Hon. D. Streifel: I do agree with the member opposite that it is confusing and that it has to be sorted out. That's one of the purposes and reasons behind the subgroup working on sorting out this jurisdiction. The special adviser will help in that way. I will stick with my previous comments about the political chippiness that comes out of a particular area of the Fraser Valley and for no sense or reason -- there was no phone call to me -- with no attempt to find an explanation or say, "What are you doing?" two months. . . . Actually, at the time that that article and several others came out, we hadn't been a Fisheries ministry for more than a week. We were being blamed for everything ill on the field, on the ground, in the water and in the air in the Fraser Valley -- simply because some individuals feel that it's worth more to them to take a crack at us than to stand up on behalf of British Columbians and say: "We have a historic agreement."

Let's take over the jurisdiction where we can. Let's transition to that so we scrap the confusion -- so when we're out in the field, we've got one officer out there. That officer may be the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; he may be DFO; he may be B.C. Fisheries. But we've got one person out there making the decision -- not one making a decision and a day and a half later somebody shows up in a different colour of shirt and makes another decision. Then a day and a half later someone shows up with a new truck -- probably from DFO -- and makes another decision. That's the purpose of the working agreement and the agreement and why we're trying to get it sorted out: so we can end all of that stuff out there. It makes it doubly difficult when someone out there takes a crack, for no particular reason, and you get one weepy voice from the wilderness saying: "All right. Give us a chance." We can use the member's help, because he agrees that we have to sort this out. Maybe he can help us right it within those councils in the Fraser Valley.

J. van Dongen: It's good to have the minister's commitment to work on that and get it sorted out, so there truly is one individual delivering the service or the regulation as required.

I'd like to ask, then: will this process include -- I assume it will include the Minister of Environment -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs and either UBCM or other groups representing local government, so we can get them involved in determining a process that works?

Hon. D. Streifel: At this stage it's really a technical working group -- you know, sit down and you do this, you do this, and you do this. When it comes to the point of having an effect on the lives of others, it would be appropriate at that time that we include them. At this stage neither the Ministry of Municipal Affairs nor UBCM is involved in forming the jurisdiction of this ministry; at this stage it would be inappropriate if they were.

J. van Dongen: Will they be included, then, once the provincial government -- the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries -- get their game plan sorted out? Will local governments be included in some manner, in terms of the interaction between their operations and the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not quite sure where the member's going with this. I do know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, along with the UBCM, is working with the Minister of Environment on the Fish Protection Act. This ministry wouldn't have an across-the-table role with UBCM or local government over a circumstance like that. We will -- and have been on almost an informal basis within our first two months and hopefully in a more formal manner in the near future -- be working with local communities, primarily on the coast and in fisheries production areas, on their needs and how they view the service that the ministry can provide them in this role and on how we could cooperate to ensure the survival of coastal communities.

The learned gentleman from Port McNeill is very interested in community fisheries issues, and we will be working with him. We will be working with other governments up and down the coast, as indeed we have. I've met with councils in Prince Rupert, Masset, Ucluelet and a number of other communities already, in my first foray into the field. I expect to build a stronger, fuller working relationship with these local governing bodies as we address common problems around who works, what kind of work, how much work -- whether it's a month, a year or nine or ten months a year -- is available and how we diversify. Yes, we'll be seeking their input and indeed welcoming their input.

J. van Dongen: With some luck, I think I'm starting to understand the involvement of the Ministry of Environment in land use issues that involve local governments. Am I to understand from the minister that in terms of when you've got, say, building permit applications or zoning applications -- applications that generally come through local government -- will it still be strictly the Ministry of Environment that will be the window of the provincial government in terms of involvement in that and that the Ministry of Fisheries will simply provide input or comment to the Ministry of Environment? I think that's what I'm grappling with. Right now, if

[ Page 7387 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: No, that would be the Ministry of Environment. It won't be us. We're not involved in land use planning or that kind of stuff. It's strictly in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Environment. We don't have an involvement; there's not a two-step process -- nothing added.

J. van Dongen: I think that part of my confusion comes from this article. I know that parts of this article are not what I'm referring to, but it's the last column that. . . . Maybe there is some misunderstanding about how the process will work. Certainly I understand from the minister that on economic development issues and that kind of thing, the ministry will be involved with local governments.

I want to ask the minister: in the process of assimilating these various units from different parts of government, are there any activities that have actually been dropped out of the mix? Is there any activity that the government was doing a year ago that has been dropped out as a result of setting up this new ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Licensing has been merged, so it's here. Inventory work around habitat has been merged; it's here. And the big one, actually -- looking for things that were dropped -- is that for all intents and purposes, the secretariat is gone. Dennis Brown is still involved with the Pacific Salmon Treaty, but the secretariat itself is gone.

J. van Dongen: If we could just turn to the estimates, the blue book, I have a few questions from that. And to follow up on the previous question to the minister, I know that in the note on page 177, it talks about the figures for this year and last year as being set up on a comparative basis. I'm wondering if the minister has any estimate of cost savings achieved in terms of these economies that we talked about. I mean, what kind of dollars were saved by shutting down the secretariat, for example? Does anybody have any figure on that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I won't begin to suggest to the hon. member that it was cheaper to form a new ministry. There's more value in forming a fish ministry where we're able to consolidate the issues around fish and indeed, as we continue, to consolidate the issues around wherever the next stage the ministry goes. But in particular, there was a need on behalf of British Columbians to consolidate the voice for fish, and that's what was done in this ministry. It wasn't done by fully funding from chips off other areas. There is an increased cost.

J. van Dongen: The number of FTEs indicated for this year, fiscal '98-99, compared to last year. . . . There was an increase of 28 FTEs -- to 165 FTEs. I wonder if the minister has any comparison that indicates where the new additional staff are going -- what parts of the ministry.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this. When we were put together to make our 165 total FTEs, we had 88 come from Environment, Lands and Parks, and we had 49 come from Ag, Fish and Food. We had 28 new FTEs. As the member rightly points out, that's 165 FTEs. The additional cost for funding the 28 is a tad over $4 million.

The purpose of the 28 new is to provide for the province's enhanced role in fisheries management. So it is an establishment of print on the ground for the broad spectrum of fisheries management, where we'll be going -- as I've referenced much in my opening statements -- on playing a more active and more proactive role in working on behalf of coastal communities and indeed inland fisheries -- where we'll be taking this ministry. You can't do it without people.

J. van Dongen: If we could pursue that a little bit more in terms of detail, the minister said "fisheries management." Are we talking of biologists? Or are we talking of regulatory people? Are we talking of industry development people? If we could just talk a little more about that. . . .

[4:00]

In fact, the makeup of the expanded FTEs is a mix of technical folks and policy folks. The ministry is split: about 20 percent are at headquarters doing all kinds of things over there, keeping the place running -- and probably writing my paycheque every other week or so -- and 80 percent are in the field, where we have the actual folks involved with the commercial fisheries, aquaculture, the sport fishery, market development, fish culture and all those other kinds of good things.

Do we still look at seaweed out there? Does Michael Coon still go out there and taste seaweed? Actually, I kind of thought he might be along today. He was recognized just last week as a long-service employee within this realm -- with a couple of different ministries in the past, but lodged in with B.C. Fisheries now. He's a valuable employee.

That's kind of where we go. The bulk of the folks are out there doing the work, and a few are left at home to make sure that the folks out there know where to go, what time to get there and what the assignments are.

J. van Dongen: I think that an increase of 28 is significant and may well be appropriate. I don't know. I thought that if we could get a little more specific about what those people were hired for, it would give another indication of priorities for the ministry. I'm wondering if the minister has a schedule of employees, broken down by head office versus the regions, last year compared to this year. Is there such a schedule, and would it be available to me?

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't exactly have that information, yet. We would hope that by the end of the month we'll be able to provide that. I would just reference the member's comment on 28 seeming to be a large number, and what do they do. I did go over the list. Commercial fisheries -- they're working in that. We've seen results there: the allocation of sardines, for instance, and the dogfish initiative and others -- groundfish, black cod. Without folks out there, you can't just wish it to happen. I guess, as the old saying goes, if wishes were fishes. . . .

Aquaculture is a very sensitive question and issue. We're still in the process of putting together a full policy. We do recognize that there's a vast and requested expansion within the shellfish aquaculture structure. We have to have folks out there who are willing to do the work, willing to work with other departments and other ministries. In the sport fishery,

[ Page 7388 ]

In market development, all kinds of new stuff comes on stream. Where do you market it? How are you doing it? We like to help out there as well. That's a very valuable aspect of the promotion of fisheries in British Columbia, particularly as you diversify the fisheries. You might be able to jerk dogfish and mud shark out of the water and look at them and say: "Hmm, what are we going to do with them?" Well, what the heck. They're making fish and chips out of them in parts of Europe. The belly flaps are nice little crunchies in Germany. Parts of the fins are used for other stuff, and as a matter of fact, they are one of the treatments in the health food stores that's most popular.

An Hon. Member: Iodine.

Hon. D. Streifel: We have the helpful colleague. Iodine, very true. There is also shark cartilage; the carcasses can be used and ground to produce shark cartilage.

Without someone there, the job doesn't get done. Those fish have been there a long time, and they haven't been fully utilized. There was at one time -- it just ended around the time of the Second World War -- a use for dogfish on the coast. Since then there's been virtually no commercial use on this coast, and it seems to be relatively plentiful.

J. van Dongen: I want to reassure the minister and state for the record that I'm not necessarily being critical that there are 28 additional staff. I think it's important that resource ministries and resource industries have the necessary support both on the regulatory side and the industry development side, provided that proper measures are taken to ensure that they're doing useful work and work that generates economic activity. I want to make that point, because I don't want any confusion about why I asked the question. I think that very often resource ministries are overlooked in terms of their revenue-generating capabilities, providing their staff are focused in that general area.

I want to ask, then: has the additional staff all been hired already? Is the ministry up to full-staff complement, or do these numbers involve some future hires that haven't been taken on yet?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simple answer: no.

J. van Dongen: If we could just turn to page 181 in the estimates document, simply to ask the minister about the line-item grants and contributions under corporate services. The figure given as projected to be spent for '98-99 is $280 million, which is the same as it was for last year. I wonder if the minister could explain what's included under those grants and contributions.

Hon. D. Streifel: I hope the member misspoke when he said we were going to spend $280 million. That was part of the savings I generated when I was Minister of Human Resources. In fact, our total budget is less than $20 million -- the smallest ministry in government and, looking at the newsclips, probably one of the most productive ministries.

J. van Dongen: The minister's certainly right. I did misspeak. I should have said $280,000. But again to the minister, what is included? It goes back to my earlier comment about value for money, and certainly the small ministries that provide economic development provide value for taxpayers' money. But again, to have the minister comment on the grants and contributions that are being made under the corporate services part of the ministry. . . . What kinds of grants and contributions would be included in that?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the member, I have some. . . . Let's see. We're looking for $2.8 million. It doesn't quite make $2.8 million, I think, but I'll try it. Pacific Fisheries Conservation Council, $750,000; urban salmon habitat program, $1.2 million; wild salmon marketing, $20,000; water quality in Baynes Sound, $14,000; Coastal Community Network workshops, $20,000; north coast development, $6,000; gear selectivity, $20,000; Atlantic Salmon Watch, $30,000. These are parts of the planned grants and contributions of the Ministry of Fisheries. I can give some more here. We're looking for the total. This is $2.2 million here. The next question you're going to ask me is: how come this is $2.2 million and the one in the book is $280,000? We'll get someone to get that while I ramble off the rest of these things.

The sport fishery strategy is $20,000; Partners in Progress is $38,000; kelp and shellfish monitoring, $5,000; aboriginal community development workshops, $2,000; first nations river guardian program, $2,000; Sooke salmon trap, $2,000; Kyoquot tribal council fisheries -- I bet you can't pronounce that one, hon. member -- $2,000; Heiltsuk MOU, $2,000; Nuu-chah-nulth MOU, $8,000; and Tsimshian MOU, $1,000.

Those are some of the grants that we give out. They actually go beyond your specific question about the $280,000 in corporate services grants, but that's the kind of stuff we do with our dough.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the plan for grants and contributions in the coming year, the year that we're in, are there going to be any changes in terms of focus and priorities, or will it be basically a duplication of what was done last year? Will there be a reiteration of what was done last year? Will there be any shifts in priorities on those grants?

Hon. D. Streifel: In some instances, they were established in the past. We've carried them on. They've fallen under this ministry.

The $280,000 referenced earlier was under the corporate services section of this book. The others are fisheries programs and operations. The total is $2.2 million.

J. van Dongen: Is the ministry intending to carry on the Partners in Progress program in the same format that it has been in in past years?

[4:15]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we're carrying them on. We in fact use that money to leverage funds from other jurisdictions -- out of the federal government and others. As a matter of fact, part of the funding in Partners contributed to the develop

[ Page 7389 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce to the House and ask the House to make welcome a number of students from Killarney Secondary School in my riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. These students are from grades 8 to 11. They're English-as-a-second-language students. I've just had them all in my office, and their English is getting pretty good -- as good as mine or better. I'd also like the House to welcome Ms. Schwab, Ms. Prenosil, Mr. Lee and Mr. Akrap, who are teachers assisting this class. I'd like the House to welcome the Killarney Secondary School students.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chair, I just have few questions for the minister with regards to the fishing end of it. I may be jumping ahead a bit to what he intends to discuss later on, but I've been fishing on this coast from Hecate Strait to lower Vancouver Island for over 55 years. I know I don't look that old, but. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: That's a debatable question.

I sometimes question: what is going on in the industry? The minister knows better than I do that there are very few fish out there now. I really worry as to who, federally and provincially, is in charge, because no one seems to be getting together. Every time you turn around. . . . And I'm not blaming the minister for this. Yesterday he put out another press release about another group of people at Simon Fraser saying that they've done another study. The study ostensibly says that we should get together with the feds, and on and on it goes. Every month we seem to see a statement like that.

I am just wondering if the minister has considered the question of zero fishing. There seems to be a turf war out there right now between the commercial fishers and the sportsmen in regard to coho. If there's ever been a study or figures as to how much is involved, so that we could have a moratorium for one, two, three, four or five years, either on the commercial side of it or on the sport side of it. . . . Sport fishing, I think, returns more money than commercial, so we keep hearing. If he could make some comments on that, I'd be interested.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try and take these questions down and run them off one by one. The first comment was that there are very few fish out there. Why? There are multiple reasons. Some we understand; some we don't understand.

We do know that there's a downturn in the number of some species of fish due to some habitat loss, primarily due to urban encroachment. That's the circumstance with the coho on the south coast. We know that the fish numbers are down on the north coast in some areas due to Alaskan interception. We know that fewer fish are surviving in the ocean; we don't know why. There are a number of theories; there's no exact science. It could be that the smolts run out and into a wall of mackerel teeth, and not enough of them survive to come back to spawn. We know that some of the fish that are coming back, particularly steelhead, are undersized for their age and are hungry and empty. So there's a problem out in the deep ocean on the survival side; there's a lesser problem, as a matter of fact, on the habitat side. There are American interceptions on the north coast. That really is what we know about why there are very few fish.

The study that was released yesterday was under the Canada-B.C. agreement as advice to the federal government on how to prepare a fishing strategy on the coast of British Columbia. That's what that study was for. It's not about who's in charge or who should have authority; it's more about who should benefit from a reducing and changing fishery on the coast.

For instance, currently the thought is that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. So some folks have to leave the industry. Most of the folks that have left the industry are the small business person, entrepreneur, family fisherman -- the small boat that's bought out of the industry and cancelled out or retired. There is a larger concentration of fishing capacity now in the hands of fewer people: corporations. But with the technological change within the industry. . . . It doesn't say that they can catch fewer fish because there are smaller numbers; they just have larger boats and better equipment.

Part of the study that was released yesterday suggested that in order to mitigate the damage in the coastal communities, in order to facilitate viability of existence so families can live on a street in downtown Alert Bay. . . . In fact, the fishery strategy of the federal government should reverse, and we should be parcelling out the catch into the communities' hands. We're not suggesting for a minute that we should catch the last fish. The report that was referenced and released yesterday said that in some areas we may have to stop fishing altogether -- as a matter of fact, where the coho are almost nonexistent. But there are some coho runs that are abundant enough to support a smaller fishery. Whether it be commercial, aboriginal or sport, it could support a fishery.

The species of fish other than the endangered coho stocks and the very depleted chinook stocks are quite abundant in some areas: sockeye, pink and chum. As a matter of fact, the best guess at this stage is that there are between 17 million and 18 million fish out there to catch. A complete moratorium for five years might create a worse problem than a slowed-down, spot-selective fishery on the coast, which would require a gear change for commercial and a gear change for sport and reduced activity across the whole spectrum of fishing.

The problem with letting all the fish go was experienced in the north coast not too many years ago, when the sockeye run was allowed fully on the spawning grounds, and there were too many fish to spawn. Some of these fish spawn at the same time that the endangered coho spawn, and you get too many on the spawning grounds. They spawn on top of each other; they destroy each other's egg nests where the fish spawn. They compact too many on the grounds, disease transfers, and we could lose a whole species or a whole run because we thought we were doing the right thing to let all the fish onto the grounds. That's a big fear on the coast this year -- that a complete moratorium on the whole coast for salmon fishing in all categories and in all sectors would produce devastating results in some areas.

That's why we have offered the advice that it is possible to carry on a limited fishery based on gear type, region, timing of runs and that kind of science. Really, that's what that report was about, and that would be the danger -- to answer the

[ Page 7390 ]

D. Jarvis: I appreciate what you're saying, and I think I understand all of it. But I find it rather difficult at times, because we have gone through buyouts of the licences before. This is about the third one that they've talked about over the years. That doesn't seem to have done any good. The fact that letting all the salmon migrate and go and spawn would wipe it out. . . . I find it hard to conceive of that. Before man entered the equation, all the schools of salmon entered into the streams and spawned and all the rest of it. But that's another story.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

There's another thing. I mentioned when man entered the equation. There's another aspect there, and that's the seal. Every rock you go by nowadays has seals all over it. Seals may be very nice and have nice brown eyes looking up at you and nice noses and all the rest of it, but they have entered the equation. They are now multiplying, and there are thousands and thousands of pups being born. They don't eat cabbage; they eat fish. To a certain degree, that is probably adding to the depletion as well -- maybe not entirely, although we know what happened on the east coast of Canada. I would like to know if the minister is pursuing a cull of seals.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, I'm not. It doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of this ministry; it falls under the jurisdiction of DFO. In fact, we will support the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in their endeavour to control problem seal populations that we have. The Puntledge River is one of them. There's a gate in place to stop the seals; there was a cull. I understand that DFO may in fact be considering further action. It's not up to me. I'd draw the attention of the hon. member to the nice pen case I hold; it's sealskin.

D. Jarvis: No, Mr. Minister, there's nothing wrong with using our resources. That's what they're there for.

The other question I have is in regard to mining. I know we're going in a roundabout way, but I do intend to come back to the fishing end of it. Tulsequah Chief, up in the Takla, is where they just finished an assessment process, and the Alaskans were very critical of it in regard to the fishing of salmon in the Taku River inlet. Was your ministry involved in that assessment at all?

Hon. D. Streifel: This ministry, the Ministry of Fisheries, was not directly involved -- not at all involved, as a matter of fact -- in the environmental review. It was under Ag, Fish and Food at that time and MELP. The Taku River is an important river; it's a part of the treaty circumstance between us and Alaska. The river rises in our area and breeds all those fish; it's a real good maternity river for us. We want those fish back; they're ours. That's the purpose of the need to acquire a Pacific Salmon Treaty.

[4:30]

D. Jarvis: Well, you're exactly right. It should be supported. In actual fact, they no longer drag the ore down the river on boats, as they did in the past. The road that's going in there, which is supposedly in question, is in the next valley over. So there is no real danger with that.

Anyway, I was told that the Tlingit up there and the Alaskans, as well, contend that the split in the spawn is 78 to 18 -- 78 percent being in the Americans' favour. Is that correct? How would they measure that, anyway?

Hon. D. Streifel: The other species aside, we have an arrangement where we do benefit from 18 percent of the sockeye that are there. Through enhancement measures, we're attempting to increase that, hon. Chair. The other species, of course, are aside from that. This is one of the rivers, one of the watercourses, that's in discussion and under negotiation under the agreement with Canada and U.S. -- the Alaska side of the PST.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to get into this first set of estimates for this brand-new ministry. As someone who has long advocated a greater role for the province to play in the management of the fishery, I'm just thrilled to death that we're actually starting to see this come about. I must say that I was listening very carefully, and I was rather intrigued by the questions that came from the member for Abbotsford, the official opposition critic, around the scope of the mandate of this ministry. Clearly there are some jurisdictional questions that need to be dealt with there.

If I stray outside of the mandate of this minister, because I know from time to time I've. . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Oh, the Chair is saying he won't let me. That's probably to both our advantage.

But I know that from time to time I ask this minister questions, and frequently the answer comes back that it's outside the scope of the ministry. So I'm going to try and be very specific. I'm curious with respect to a number of the reports that have been done, and of course I'm cognizant of the Parzival Copes report with respect to coho and the problems associated with coho. I'm really curious to know to what extent British Columbia is involved and, more particularly, to what extent this ministry is going to be involved in the management of seal populations in British Columbia. Clearly, in some areas of the province -- not all -- the seal population, it would appear, is now of such sufficient numbers that both sport and commercial fisheries are affected by their numbers. If the minister could tell me where the mandate of this ministry falls with respect to the population of seals, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. D. Streifel: The extent of the mandate of this ministry as it pertains to seals on the coast is really in listening to the complaints and questions from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- that are out of order. It's not under the jurisdiction of this ministry. The science and the control and the count and all of that is under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[ Page 7391 ]

G. Wilson: That was more or less the answer I anticipated, having already asked questions of the minister in question period and having had that response. I think the minister will agree that if we're to look at the overall management of fish stocks and if the province is to now start to take a more active role with respect to this industry in terms of the protection of jobs -- and I understand that it is an issue of serious concern for this minister -- we are going to have to somehow blend or marry together the information that may or may not be gathered by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

I understand that the Department of Indian Affairs now has a number of first nations groups who are actively working on this seal population and the whole matter of habitat management and industry development. So I wonder if the minister might tell us, given that there is an increasing number of fishermen who are unemployed. . . .

I understand, just by way of digression, that it's okay to call them fishermen again -- that there's been some kind of a tacit vote taken among people in the industry, including women, who would prefer to be called a fisherman than a fisher.

K. Krueger: Fishers being weasels.

G. Wilson: Exactly. Fishers being weasels, as the member from Kamloops says. So I'm delighted, as someone who has a family with a long history in the commercial fishing industry, that we can now call them fishermen again.

But I wonder if the minister has really given any serious consideration to how some arrangement may be made between his ministry and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to a cooperative seal management plan that in fact might generate local employment and might be able to put people into an employment situation, and the extent to which this is really being discussed with any degree of seriousness in B.C.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would offer direction to the member that my response to his first question was given in openness, in an attempt to shed some light on the seals. In fact, it's not the jurisdiction of this ministry. This ministry has not approached DFO on a culling of the seals or on what to do with the carcasses once they're killed. It's not in the scope of this ministry and makes this line of questioning -- as it always has been -- out of order, actually.

G. Wilson: Well, I know this is a sensitive issue and one that the minister may choose to not want to get pinned down on. I understand it's not within the jurisdiction. But the management of fish stocks, I believe, is now going to be a cooperative project with this ministry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I think it is within the mandate of the Ministry of Fisheries to actually manage or attempt to comanage fish stocks.

Given that there are number of factors. . . . I heard the minister say not so long ago, with respect to a question on what has caused the diminution of the fish stocks in B.C. . . . There were a number of factors cited, and predation is one of them. One of the main predators, notwithstanding what. . . . I could get into long discussions about the commentary in halls full of fishermen whom I've listened to. Department of Fisheries and Oceans personnel tell them that seals don't eat live salmon, only dead ones. We can get into long stories about that, which I'm not going to do. It was quite bizarre, as you can imagine -- the reaction of a hall full of 350 commercial fishermen, hearing that.

Nevertheless, predation is a problem. It is an issue, whether it's in the mandate specifically or not. If we're to look at comanagement of fish stocks, that has to be an issue of some concern. So I'm not trying to pin the minister down. I'm simply trying to ask the minister whether or not there is any effort to be made now with respect to the management of fish stocks, to look at predation as an issue and to try to draw the federal government into sharing information, because they are. . . .

I have firsthand knowledge that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is now looking at the potential of an aboriginal seal industry in B.C. They're looking at it; believe me, they are. Therefore it seems to me that one of the issues we have to recognize is that we, as British Columbians elected in this Legislative Assembly, have some responsibility to make sure that if that's to occur, it occurs as part of an overall strategy for stock management -- which I think is in the mandate of this ministry.

So in light of that, I wonder if the minister might tell us what his opinion is of the information that's being collected. Is he generally in favour or not in favour of this approach? I think that it's a matter of public policy. The people of British Columbia have a right to know where this minister stands.

Hon. D. Streifel: My opinion is not under the direct auspices of that which is controlled or debated in the estimates for the minister's office. This is an issue that falls within the realm -- the ballpark, the infield, the outfield -- of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. My opinion matters not in this case. Predation control is an important issue. It's under the auspices of DFO. As a matter of fact, it may come to fuller fruition under complete implementation of the agreement with Canada. But at this time, it's not there. It's not referenced, as I understand, directly in that agreement. It's their bailiwick.

Hon. Chair, I would appreciate your advice to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that he direct his questions to the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries, Ottawa.

The Chair: The minister has asked for the Chair's opinion. We are dealing with the matters that come under the Fisheries ministry, of which the minister is the head. We should please take the caution that we deal with those matters.

G. Wilson: I'm sure that the seals in British Columbia will breathe easy that David Anderson is the sole and only minister who's going to pay attention to their numbers. [Applause.] And for those over there who are applauding that, so be it.

But I think it is important that. . . . In the estimates debate, the opinion of a minister is critical on a whole host of issues. I understand, hon. Chair, that this minister doesn't want to be pinned down on what his position is with respect to a seal management program, because it is going to be controversial in British Columbia. I'm not going to pursue trying to pin him down, because he's quite clearly not prepared to be pinned down on that question.

[ Page 7392 ]

The Chair: Members, the Chair gave a caution. If I could just perhaps clarify, it is not a requirement in estimates for ministers to give opinions. I think the minister stated his position quite clearly. So perhaps we could take another line of questioning.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: The member opposite says I should keep on fishing. I guess I'll try a different bait.

I want to talk about whether or not we've got any kind of work that is currently being done in terms of stock management. I would argue, with respect to the coho and the agreement that's just come forward on the coho, that there is considerable work being done with respect to disease and disease transfers to salmon.

I wonder how and to what extent this government is actually involved in the work that is currently being done with respect to the concerns around the importation of exotic disease strains into British Columbia by the salmon aquaculture industry. I know that the member for Abbotsford intends to discuss aquaculture in a lot more detail later, so I'm only going to limit my concern specifically to some of the work that has recently been done with respect to disease transfer. If the minister might tell me the extent to which he is involved in these studies or that his ministry is aware of these studies, this would clearly be important to returning salmon stock.

Hon. D. Streifel: This is a very important issue. I think I understand where the member is going with this. We did have, in the recent past, an environmental assessment office review of aquaculture on the coast of British Columbia. Their report suggests that the negative environmental impact is modest at best. They recommend a cautionary approach to salmon aquaculture. We do have, for our use, for our consultative purposes and activities within the Ministry of Fisheries, a Minister of Agriculture and Food veterinarian who has an expertise level in fish disease.

If the member is referencing the circumstance in New Brunswick -- that terrible tragedy -- that particular salmon anemia has never been diagnosed, I believe, in British Columbia. It was noted in the environmental assessment office review that we in British Columbia have the most stringent rules applied to the importation of other species of anywhere in the world, and we intend to keep it that way. We intend to make it even tighter. That's really about all I know at this time on this issue.

G. Wilson: I might have missed the minister's introduction of staff, but I do recognize a familiar face that dates back to the early introduction of fish farms and of sitting down and putting in place coastal planning. It's funny: what goes around comes around sometimes.

I want to draw attention particularly to the Scott Cove hatchery. This is an area where the province has jurisdiction, because it deals with the introduction of Atlantic salmon and net pens through IBEC and Scanmar farms. That had a brood-stock mortality of 3 percent until the introduction of those two farms. After those two farms. . . . In the next four years, Atlantics were introduced. There were diseased Atlantics found in those farms, and the coho mortality went from 3 percent to 47 percent. The spring salmon populations crashed, as did the chum salmon, which have virtually disappeared in that area.

I guess my question is with respect to the importation of Atlantics, and in this case, we're talking about Scottish Atlantics -- not from New Brunswick, but from offshore. There is nothing in the aquaculture review that would prevent this from occurring again. I read it very carefully. The information that I have at hand is information that comes from people who are reputable in the industry, and they're people who are reputable within the science, so I'm not making up these figures. These figures are provable. I wonder what the minister is prepared to do about this, because clearly, in this area and dealing with Scott Cove, this is an area where we have some very serious concerns.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try to sort out the jurisdiction here for the hon. member. Because the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast says it's all my jurisdiction and says I have all the authority doesn't necessarily make it so. The Scott Cove Hatchery is a community-based, more or less private enhancement facility. And yes, there was an increased mortality rate. As I understand it, that's when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. . . . That's where the jurisdiction leaves any area that I might touch with my finger.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans could not find a traceable link back to any specific area. With the limited information I have at this stage, I would agree with the hon. member that it's certainly suspicious, but it's solidly anecdotal at this time. There hasn't been a scientific link back. The member may say these numbers are true and correct, but I would again stress that because he says it doesn't necessarily make it so in this case. They might be real numbers, but they might be out of place.

G. Wilson: I'm a little mystified by that response. But we know what the mortality is, because we've measured it. They know what the coho mortality is. It's true that Scott Cove is private.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, I think that if one can instruct the minister to respond through the Chair, we might be a lot better off here.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

G. Wilson: You know, it is interesting. By way of comparison, I was in the estimates of the Attorney General the other day, where we were told that because of the introduction of photo radar, all of a sudden the number of accidents had plummeted. Now, you talk about anecdotal evidence; my goodness, in that case there's absolutely no linking correlation necessarily except by pure coincidence, and the government's prepared to take all kinds of credit for that. But when we have a 3 percent mortality rate prior to the introduction of net pens in the vicinity of a hatchery, and diseased salmon come in and the mortality rate rises to 47 percent, you're not prepared to draw any kind of link. So when it kind of suits you, you do, and when it suits you, you don't.

With respect to the jurisdictional question, and that's really what I want to come back to. . . . For the information of those who are listening, the reason that Scott Cove is now kind of privately funded is because all the other sources of funding

[ Page 7393 ]

Anyway, having said that, let me come back to the question of jurisdiction. The importation of Atlantic salmon and the movement of Atlantics into the fish farming industry is something that came about as a result of provincial regulation, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This was a B.C. government decision. There was tremendous opposition to the introduction of Atlantics; there was tremendous opposition to the proliferation of net-pen culture. It was this government, which was aggressive in their pursuit of that, that made that come about. So the minister cannot hide behind this it's-not-in-my-responsibility answer here, because it is. I want to know what the minister is doing to mitigate against disease transfer from the introduction of Atlantics into the net-pen cultures in the Broughton Archipelago generally, which is in my riding -- I could argue that it's provincewide, but certainly let's deal with the Broughton -- and in the Scott Cove vicinity in particular. The mortality rates now are completely unacceptable.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's difficult to stand and correct the member, comment after comment. The decision to import Atlantics to this coast was initially a federal decision, not a provincial one. The province supported it, but the fact of the matter is that it was a federal decision that goes back to the 1920s, when the stocking took place in the Campbell and Qualicum systems -- and since then. He would like to deny the truth and deny the facts. He likes to fish with fiction most of the time.

The importation is overseen by the fish transplant committee. I admitted to the member that in fact the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did have a look at the increase in mortality. We didn't deny the increase in mortality; we recognized that it was there. DFO had a look at why, and they said there was no obvious link. I'm not one to fully accept what the hon. member is presenting as the obvious. There was no proven link. I'm not saying the link didn't exist, but I don't have the capacity or the ability to determine that link. It's not the jurisdiction of this ministry. I would just offer for the hon. member that he continue the fight on this issue, and I will help the hon. member lobby and work with the federal government to re-fund programs that they have abandoned on this coast. That's part of the mandate of this ministry: to get a fair share for British Columbia from these regions. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers that I've spoken to are absolutely devastated by the budget cuts they've suffered federally. I can do no more than that.

G. Wilson: I'm not going to go back through the history of Atlantic importation in the 1920s. We didn't have net-pen culture in the 1920s to the extent that we do now. The minister will be fully aware that it was in the mid-1980s that we started to see the proliferation of net-pen culture. Through the latter part of the eighties and the early 1990s, we got into a long, extended and protracted debate, much of which is in the Hansard of this Legislative Assembly itself, with respect to the wisdom of bringing in Atlantic salmon.

[5:00]

I think the minister can answer a couple of short snappers -- no pun intended. (1) Who licenses the fish farms, (2) who inspects the fish farms with respect to their siting and whether or not they have adequate siting, and (3) who is doing -- or is anybody doing -- disease management and disease control on site?

Hon. D. Streifel: Multifaceted question, extended answer. Licensing is the Ministry of Fisheries. Tenure siting is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The fish vet is within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There is a reporting requirement if there's a disease outbreak. The monitoring of imported fish is partially controlled by DFO, but the fish transplant committee is multi-jurisdictional. The movement of fish is provincial and federal.

G. Wilson: So the first three ministries that the minister talked about -- Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment and Parks and Ministry of Ag and Food -- are all provincial ministries. So it is this government, not the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that has the primary responsibility for the siting, location and licensing of these pens. If there is a mortality in brood stock. . . . And the correlations are pretty obvious to anybody who's looking at it. It's kind of like somebody who's a chain smoker who gets lung cancer. It's the same kind of defence as the cigarette tobacco companies: "There's no direct proof." I mean, it's pretty obvious if this is occurring. I did give a commitment to the official opposition critic that I was going to be concise in this line of questioning, as he's offered me an opportunity later in these estimates to come back on some other things, so I urge the minister to take that issue really seriously. It is more than just a passing concern to people who are trying very hard to get these hatcheries to replenish stocks.

I do have a couple of other quick questions that I'd like the minister to deal with, and then I'll defer back to the official opposition critic. The other one comes back to predation. Does the minister have any knowledge of the number of seals that have been killed by fish farmers? Is anybody keeping count of the number of seals that fish farmers kill because of predation on the nets? Is there any responsibility for this ministry to keep count of the number of carcasses that are showing up on the beaches?

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer is no. It's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that does the licensing and tracks the kills.

G. Wilson: Maybe we can come back and talk a little bit more about the seal scarer issue and the licensing of seal scarers. I understand that these sonic devices that they've been using are no longer legal, although that's not to say that these devices are no longer there. Maybe the minister could just confirm that these sonic seal-scare devices are in fact illegal in the province of British Columbia now and are no longer in use. These are essentially -- for want of a better word -- machines that send out very high-pitched sound waves that supposedly keep seals away. However, they have a serious impact on whales and dolphins, because, as the minister will be aware, those sound waves carry great distances

[ Page 7394 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: Before I answer this, I was negligent in not introducing Michael Coon, a very trusted adviser. Michael is one of three employees in this ministry who was honoured just last week for long service commitments to government service.

DFO authorizes these little devices that are supposed to chase the seals away. Our environmental assessment office has recommended that the acoustic devices be eliminated. That's expected to happen within two years, at this point. They are not illegal, but we are aware of the problem, and we are working towards the elimination of the problem.

G. Wilson: I'm shocked at that response. I'm sure that the whales and dolphins will just keep their ears closed for two years and not be affected -- not that they have ears, but whatever their sound receptors are. That's a very, very disturbing answer. I'm going to defer to later on in these estimates. I will actually go back and pull out the Hansard from previous estimates where we were given assurances from previous ministers of this government that these devices would be illegal and no longer on net pens. I'm going to confirm that before I go further, because that's a very, very disturbing answer, if these things are still around.

Let me ask this question. It has been told to me -- again, this is anecdotal evidence, and I really don't have any tangible evidence to suggest this is true -- by a number of fishermen that one of the primary incidental catches that they're finding in the Georgia strait and up into Johnstone Strait are Atlantic salmon. They're pulling these fish aboard as part of an incidental catch when they're out fishing for real species of Pacific salmon. This would suggest that there are large numbers of Atlantics that are escaping from the net pens.

As the minister, I'm sure, is aware, the Atlantic salmon is not a real salmon from our perspective, in the sense that they don't die when they spawn. Therefore they are able to hang out for long periods of time. If there is any interaction and interbreeding, it's my understanding that this could cause a serious threat to salmon stocks. I wonder if the minister might tell me if he shares that anecdotal evidence, if he is hearing about large numbers of Atlantics caught as an incidental catch, if we are doing anything to site where they may be, or if, once again, we are washing our hands of this and saying: "Well, this isn't our business; it's up to the feds."

Hon. D. Streifel: Gosh, I hate to debate this most hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, but the catchment of Atlantics in a bycatch or something is probably beyond anecdotal. There is solid evidence that Atlantics have escaped. Indeed, it wasn't too long ago that 26,000 flew the coop, so to speak. In fact, I would be surprised if none of them got caught. They eventually add themselves into the food cycle and become food for the whales and seals as well. I view it as a serious problem, as a matter of fact. That's one of the defined weaknesses of the net-pen technology from aquaculture. We do fund the tracking. Atlantic Salmon Watch is funded by B.C. Fisheries; it's one of the grants that I spoke of earlier.

In a perfect world there would be zero escapements. It is my understanding that technology does exist to vastly decrease the escapement from aquaculture farms. There is some research and development going on in Nanaimo harbour by a B.C. company with a closed-bag containment that reduces escapement. This is all part of -- among other things, I suppose -- the future of aquaculture in the world, as a matter of fact. Nobody wants to defile our oceans and waters that we need for natural resources. But there is a place within those bounds, as a matter of fact, to farm parts of the ocean. I'm sure the member would never suggest that we go back to the harvesting of wild rice and the picking of berries, without any kind of agricultural enhancement in any way on parts of the land. But we have to do that in a responsible way, as well, within feedlot structures and intensive agricultural and horticultural practices. I believe there's room for that within the broad spectrum of fish farming, whether it be fin or shell.

G. Wilson: I guess I would say, by way of prelude to my next question, that in a perfect world, Atlantic salmon wouldn't be in the Pacific; they would be in the Atlantic. One only has to look at the history of the Washington and Oregon river systems to see what has happened in the past with respect to escapements of Atlantics to understand that this is more than just a serious problem; it's a critically serious problem.

I heard comments with respect to the funding to try and track these. I'm encouraged to know that we're actually going to be doing something about that, but I'm very discouraged to learn of the numbers of bycatch that are Atlantic. We were assured by many qualified people who were formerly in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in previous estimates, that Atlantic salmon did not survive in B.C. waters, in Pacific waters -- that they died. We were given assurance after assurance -- and I have been through public meeting after public meeting -- that we should have no concern about this, because there was no evidence that they spawned. There was no evidence that they competed for habitat. There was no evidence that they competed for feed. We were told by fish farmers that they would only eat a pellet; that they wouldn't eat a fish; that they had no instinct to survive in the wild, because they were completely raised in nets; and that we shouldn't have any concern about the introduction of this species.

I'm hearing from the minister today that the years of assurances we've been given. . . . Now this minister is confirming they were not true and that in fact there are large escapements. I wonder why the minister would not, then, recognize that the only net-pen culture that we ought to have in the ocean are those fish farms that are raising domestic Pacific salmon and that those who wish to raise Atlantics do so on land, in aquaculture sites that are built on land, where no-escapement is assured.

[5:15]

But I tell you that those assurances we were given have clearly not proven to be correct, and we had better move on it. I hope the minister might give me some assurance while I go and do some work with the Hansard and come back into these

[ Page 7395 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: It's quite disturbing -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in his placement of history, replacement of comment and injection of comments that aren't quite there. The assurances that, as I understand it, have been issued are that there's not been one successful spawning of Atlantic salmon on the Pacific coast. Surely the individual understands that when the fish jumps out of the bag or moves out of the net, there is a period of time in its cycle that it would live. It doesn't go from inside the net to outside the net and say: "Oop! I'm dead." The member would know better than that. But there has not been one instance recorded of successful spawning, of reproduction, within the cycle of that fish. I would remind the hon. member that the Atlantic salmon isn't the only fish that lives after spawning. There are a couple of them on our coast -- the cutthroat and the steelhead as well.

G. Wilson: Will the minister confirm that there are a number of these Atlantics caught in the incidental catch -- the size and weight of which indicate that they are at full maturity and have reached the point where they can spawn and, in fact, have reached a weight, a maturity well beyond that which they would have been raised to in a net pen?

Hon. D. Streifel: I can confirm that fish have been caught. I can't confirm the member's other statements. They're his own statements, not mine -- that they are full, mature fish and able to spawn. I would offer to the member, if he has such fish or if he has friends that have such fish -- or if he would like to go get some fish -- that we should have them looked at by a fish biologist, because I would like to be up to speed on this. It's a very, very serious issue. As I stated earlier, it's one of the determined weaknesses of the current technology around fish farming -- whether or not they have Atlantics in the bag, chinooks in the bag, coho in the bag, or in some areas, steelhead in the bag. It's the east coast, I think, where they farm steelhead in pens.

G. Wilson: I'll undertake to do what I can to try to confirm dates and times of catch and recorded instances. The minister must be well aware that my riding is a long coastal riding that is home to many, many commercial fishers. I don't think these people are telling fish stories, so to speak. I'm quite confident that when somebody who has been in the commercial fishing industry for 30 years tells me that they have a catchment of mature Atlantics, they know what they're talking about. I'm completely assured of that.

Secondly, I would point out that while the Atlantics are not the only two that don't die after spawning -- the minister mentioned cutthroat and steelhead, both of which are trout. . . . We understand that, but they happen to be indigenous to this part of the world; Atlantics are not.

This is a very serious issue. It's one that, with the blessing of the official opposition critic, I'd like to come back to a little later on in these estimates. I will go back and get the Hansard materials that we need, because the minister -- certainly by inference -- suggests that I'm somehow making this up. I take exception to that. This is not an issue, as Mr. Coon will know, that I am new to. We have certainly been on many committees over the last ten or 11 years that deal with aquaculture siting, placement and escapement. I'm happy to go back and review the record and bring material to this minister, because I tell you, we have been given assurances, and those assurances have not been fulfilled. I'm most disturbed by what we've had transpire today.

J. van Dongen: I want to carry on now and ask the minister some questions about Fisheries Renewal B.C., which is the Crown corporation set up by the Legislature last year, last session. I note that it's not, as I see it, part of the government's budget estimates as tabled for 1998-99, but it is part of the minister's responsibility, and I assume that we can talk about it here. I'm wondering if the minister could first of all give the committee an update as to the status of the development of the Fisheries Renewal B.C. initiative.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll just take this opportunity to introduce Jim Anderson, the executive director of Fisheries Renewal. At this stage, I understand -- if you jerk my arm, I'll sit down if I'm out of line -- that the business plan has been to public hearings, and Fisheries Renewal is just in the process of receiving proposals. The next question I answer will probably be about when they're going to be out the door with it, or something.

J. van Dongen: As I understand the legislation, the business plan is approved by the board and the minister, and it's also tabled in the Legislature. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, as a matter of fact. It's just with me now. It was from the board to me, and it will be tabled in the Legislature in a short period of time -- maybe within a few short weeks.

J. van Dongen: So just to confirm with the minister, then: have all the criteria for evaluating proposals been finalized and are they available to the public?

Hon. D. Streifel: The criteria have yet to be set by the board. The business plan is a broad aspect of funding. Proposals are on their way in. To repeat the first part of the answer, the criteria for dispersal is yet to be set by the board.

J. van Dongen: To follow up on that question, then: have the criteria for evaluating proposals been discussed as part of the public discussions? There were public discussions involving the strategic plan for Fisheries Renewal. Were specific criteria also discussed as part of that process?

Hon. D. Streifel: The selection criteria are contained, at this time, within the strategic plan, and they've been published as such within the strategic plan. They're also part of the applications. They're contained in the applications that go out; people fill in the blanks and decide where it's going to be.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that, if I understand it correctly, because I think it's important for people making applications to know up front how they will be evaluated -- on what basis they will be evaluated. Just for clarification, there will not be any further additional development of criteria with which to screen applications. All of that is now known and established and available to any members of the public.

Hon. D. Streifel: The internal criteria are under development. The application criteria have been published within the strategic plan and on the application forms; that's the way it works. I believe that the hon. member has been given a set of

[ Page 7396 ]

J. van Dongen: Well, I wonder if the minister could clarify, then, the difference between external criteria -- or, you know, the kind of information that's currently available in the application process -- and what he has described as internal criteria. I wonder, by way of example or something to distinguish what the difference is. . . . I'm concerned that there are further criteria being developed by the board, which may well be appropriate but are not known to the public at the time of their application.

Hon. D. Streifel: The criteria that it would be necessary to apply are broadly published. You would demonstrate that the partner group addresses specific sectoral challenges; develop a practical, inclusive partnership; define achievable objectives; consider possible mechanisms; demonstrate final outcomes and not adversely affect existing British Columbia products, production processing, etc. That's what you need to fit in to apply. But if that's all you needed, then you'd need a bottomless, endless resource of money to fund everything that fits that.

So when that hits the door with the Fisheries Renewal board, they have to put in place selective criteria that would rank the applications from top to bottom, or one-on, so they would have a way of allocating the funds. There's $22.5 million over three years. Rather than fund everything that comes in, there must be a way to rank the applications for value and worth as they come in. That's what's being developed now. And that's an internal process.

You know, that's really the way almost all of the applications for these kinds of funds happen. If you're a certain group, if you fit a certain profile, if you've met certain goals, you apply. Then your application is valued against others that come in, to see who gets the funds.

J. van Dongen: Would that internal ranking regime be available to members of the public? Would they be able to access that information to see what was being used to rank their proposals?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general, yeah. You know, the general criteria would be available but, I would suggest to the hon. member, not necessarily on individual projects, weighing one versus the other. There are some confidentiality issues here and other things. The general application of the selection, I think, would be available. But I don't know if it would necessarily be fully appropriate to expose all the internal decisions. There are criteria to get in, to apply. Then there has to be a ranking process. Always, you know, if the debate came down to, "Why did that one get it and this one didn't. . . ?" The hon. member, I think, would fully understand how difficult it would be to carry that on fully publicly. You'd never get any job done, never get anywhere.

[5:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: If I remember the question, it was: where did the money come from and how much is going to be spent? The moneys all come from Forest Renewal B.C., and this fiscal year there's going to be $8.8 million available for program funding in '98-99.

J. van Dongen: What is the total budget for the coming year? Specifically, what is anticipated in terms of administration costs?

Hon. D. Streifel: Projected overhead and expenses. . . . I may have actually misled the member slightly in my first answer of $8.8 million. That did not include the overhead and expenses. There's $857,500 in overhead and expenses on top of the $8.8 million. So it works out to about 9 percent of total expenditures. There's $208,000 for board operations, $92,500 for consultation and public reporting, $259,000 for salaries and benefits and $298,000 for office rental and other support costs. Again, the overhead expenses for this year are projected at $857,500 on top of the $8.8 million project money.

J. van Dongen: Under Bill 19, which was passed to establish Fisheries Renewal B.C., cabinet has the power to establish some kind of limit on administrative costs. I'm wondering if cabinet has made any decision in that regard.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, there's been no decision to cap this off. This 9 percent is pretty low in comparison to most other circumstances. The decision here has been a conscious one to dedicate the resources. In talking about it in millions, it sounds like a lot. We want to make sure that it goes a long way, because in the overall scheme of things it's fairly modest at this stage. We've made a conscious decision to direct the funding into programs and deliverables as opposed to administration, so we've kept it quite skinny at 9 percent or so.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the FTEs involved, would any staffing for fish renewal be included in that administrative expenditure that the minister mentioned?

Hon. D. Streifel: Was the question FTEs or people?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Okay. There are six folks that work there. That's from the support staff -- who last week would have been recognized in Secretaries Week -- to the CEO. The number is six.

J. van Dongen: That represents an ongoing operation, then. There's not going to be additional offices or staff. That represents sort of a permanent staffing complement.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, that's it.

J. van Dongen: In the information that the minister sent me, it makes reference to four programs being developed: the salmonid renewal program, development and diversification, planning and partnerships, and original renewal program ideas. Is it intended by the board of Fisheries Renewal that a certain amount of money be allocated to each of these program areas that have been identified?

Hon. D. Streifel: The program is: salmonid renewal, $3.5 million; development and diversification, $2.25 million; planning and partnerships, $750,000; original renewal program ideas -- wow, that's a loaded one! -- $1.5 million. I am assured, beyond a doubt, that that adds up to $8.8 million.

[ Page 7397 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: We don't have the number right in front of us. I am assured that we could calculate the amount, if the member would have patience, or we would get it back to him later -- send it to him or something like that. That was actually the first one I've had to fob off like this. If the member needs the exact amount, we'll dig it out for him in the course of the day or tomorrow.

J. van Dongen: As I understand the whole concept of Fisheries Renewal, this agency and this board of directors and its six staff will be inviting proposals for projects, reviewing them and possibly funding some of them. Will Fisheries Renewal actually go out and seek partnerships, or will it rely on the applicants to do that themselves? I'm wondering how the process is going to work.

Hon. D. Streifel: That's really a prerequisite, a primary function, a characteristic of how we deliver this. One of the reasons why we can do it with only six FTEs is that the requirement is for partnerships. They can stretch those dollars further with partnerships, and that's what we're going to do.

J. van Dongen: So when the minister says there's a requirement for partnerships, does that mean that if a group wanted to seek funding from Fisheries Renewal that they're expected to also have another partner involved with additional funding? Am I understanding that correctly -- sort of along the lines of the Partners in Progress program?

Hon. D. Streifel: Generally speaking, the applicant would require 25 percent of their own funding. The other requirement is that they have to partner up to stretch the dollars.

J. van Dongen: As the Fisheries Renewal B.C. board approves projects, what sort of an auditing process will there be in place to ensure that the funds are expended for the purposes that they were applied for? What sort of checks will there be in the system to ensure that the projects are delivered as described and that the taxpayer is getting value for money?

Hon. D. Streifel: For the information of the hon. member, there's a standard contributory agreement to help audit the funds. We are working with the auditor general, meeting with him now to set up a process for doing just that.

J. van Dongen: So the auditor general will be making recommendations as to how these projects should be audited. Would those audits be carried out by Fisheries Renewal B.C.? Will they be a standard audit within government?

Hon. D. Streifel: The auditor general will be helping us set up a process for auditing. Some, in fact, may be done outside by independent auditors. I should note at this time that the CEO is Paul Kariya, who has vast experience in this field. With the help of the auditor general, we'll have a process that will be available to audit the work to make sure the money's well spent.

J. van Dongen: Will Fisheries Renewal itself establish a relationship with other funding agencies -- the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, for example? Will Fisheries Renewal work with those agencies, or will it rely on the applicants to establish those partnerships?

Hon. D. Streifel: We have a concern that we don't duplicate effort here. Yes, we will be having contact with the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund to ensure that we're not doing what they're doing administratively. But partners with Fisheries Renewal programs could, in fact, receive some funding from the Habitat Conservation Trust as a contribution to a program.

J. van Dongen: Do the minister and Fisheries Renewal have any idea at this point when the first projects will be announced? Along with that, will the board deal with these applications in batches on a monthly basis or on a six-month basis? Does the minister have any information as to how the board will time their decision-making on projects?

[5:45]

J. van Dongen: As I understand it, there have certainly been significant dollars in Forest Renewal that have gone into projects that have fisheries impacts or improvements in habitat. Is there going to be a relationship between Fisheries Renewal and Forest Renewal in terms of the projects that impact fisheries matters?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yeah, Forest Renewal has spent a lot of money in the past on watershed restoration. I believe some of their projects may or may not resemble what Fisheries Renewal does. As I understand it, it may be possible to partner up with moneys that come from there as well as from other organizations. In fact, the province spent around $150 million last year on habitat restoration. We'll be another player in the field, along with that and other things.

I would ask some advice from the hon. member. If he is fairly close to the end of the examination of Fisheries Renewal, should we call the question and rise and report progress now?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Two more? Okay, thank you very much.

J. van Dongen: The minister is lucky that we don't have much time to ask this question. I'm wondering if there has been any discussion of further future funding, specifically the landing fee on fish.

Hon. D. Streifel: It would be easy to say that's future policy and out of order, but I'm not aware, in fact, that there have been any pointed, specific discussions in this area.

J. van Dongen: Just a final question to the minister on Fisheries Renewal: will there be any of these projects targeted to the coho crisis that we're facing? Is there any intent within the Fisheries Renewal board's plan to focus funds on that particular issue?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's not a specific intent at this time, but certainly, given the circumstances around coho and the need for habitat restoration and the kind of habitat coho exist in, it's not unlikely -- and it's not unexpected, actually -- that projects would come along that would fit just that need. But again, there is no specific intent or direction at this time.

[ Page 7398 ]

Motion approved.

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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)

L. Stephens: This morning we talked about some of the health care issues that are important to women in rural British Columbia and about their access to health care services. We're going to continue on with health care issues. I'd like the minister to start out by talking a little bit about what her ministry has accomplished and what her priorities are for the coming year in health care issues related to women.

Hon. S. Hammell: I think that maybe I should take this opportunity to help the members opposite understand some of the nuances that play out between this ministry and its priorities. Our budget runs $37-some-odd million, and of that money, $30 million is dedicated to prevention of violence. The rest focuses on the administration of the ministry, as well as the issues of our other two priorities. The members opposite may not understand that the delivery of services, such as the services to the people in the north, is not my mandate; my mandate is to engage in policy discussions around issues that touch on women throughout the province. I could imagine that if I had a budget of somewhere around $6 billion, we might be able to get into service delivery, particularly around women's health issues, but the budget is a modest budget. Hon. Chair, our budget works and our issues work because there is tremendous commitment throughout government on issues of equality towards women -- and likely so in health. So when you look at the health issues and the work that this ministry does and the work that government does around women's issues, you have to look at the broad scope of how gender-specific issues are being recognized and heard in the health care system.

Some of the examples of our work have been around mammography. If the member will just give me one second, I can just add a little bit of texture to these comments to give her a little bit more detail. Last October the Ministry of Health announced its plans to contribute money and other resources to a number of programs related to breast health, including $6.8 million to the screening mammography program of B.C., which provides screening through 23 centres in B.C. There was also $25,000 to work with the breast cancer information project to sponsor breast cancer forums enabling communities to raise awareness about breast cancer. There was $90 million for the B.C. Cancer Agency; $750,000 over five years to the Centre for Breast Cancer Prevention; and $5,000 to the Asian Pap Smear Clinic, to develop information on the prevention and early detection of breast cancer for Mandarin- and Cantonese-speaking women.

I just use those as examples of how this ministry supports and advocates on behalf of gender-specific issues such as these for the women of British Columbia, and we are working with the Ministry of Health on these issues.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister wasn't clear this morning. What the members of the opposition were talking about was what the minister has done to advocate on behalf of rural women in this province to access health care services. We're not talking about the services that are delivered by this ministry, because there are none.

This ministry does not deliver health care services; this ministry advocates and provides funding to organizations in various places around the province to make sure that women have access. The ministry isn't a hospital. The ministry doesn't do mammography. The ministry doesn't do Pap smears. This is a central agency -- as the minister continually points out -- and does not deliver services, other than through grants and contributions to organizations around the province. What we're talking about here, and what I want to know through these estimates -- and this is pretty much how the questioning is going to go for the rest of the day -- is what this minister is doing around these various issues that we're going to talk about. And the various issues that we're going to talk about have to do with what affects women's lives. If this ministry wants to be an important, free-standing ministry that talks about the equality of women and the accessing of the opportunities that are out there for women, then we're going to talk about these issues. Frankly, I would like some answers, because in this morning's session we didn't get any.

The ministry's policy division -- and we're not going to talk about that at this moment. . . . The role of the ministry is to identify women's issues, to advocate for women and to educate on issues that involve women in the province. They do that through their grants and contributions to various community-based organizations and through direct contributions to transition houses, women's centres and women's assault centres. Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. When I ask the question, what are the accomplishments around health issues of the Ministry of Women's Equality, I want to know what issues have been identified, what issues are being advocated and what issues the ministry has been providing some kind of educational opportunities on.

The provincial health officer did a report, and there was also a women's report done. To be very clear, the Minister of Health provides the health services. Simply, I'm asking the

[ Page 7399 ]

With the health issues, I would like to know specifically what the ministry has done on the issues of children and youth involved in prostitution and victims of sexual exploitation. Is the ministry involved in discussions with the Ministry of Health or with the Ministry for Children and Families? Is this ministry at that table advocating on behalf of female youth involved in prostitution and victims of sexual exploitation?

Hon. S. Hammell: To the last question, the answer is yes.

L. Stephens: Could the minister please elaborate on just exactly what that advocacy consists of?

Hon. S. Hammell: We sit on the ADMs' committee on prostitution, and we have been supporting work in the community.

L. Stephens: This is going to be a long afternoon, and it's probably going to be a long few days if these are the kinds of responses that we're getting. This needs to improve. These responses need to improve.

[3:00]

Hon. S. Hammell: There is an ADMs' committee that involves our ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Attorney General and has the overall strategy of government around this issue. In fact, I was with the Attorney General when he originally announced the launching of the special project around prostitution. We have also locally supported the PEERS project, which is the Prostitute Empowerment, Education and Resource Society. That is work done locally in this area, working with prostitutes to empower them to find other employment and to support them while they're going through that process.

I do agree, if my sense is from the member opposite, that this is a very important issue. It involves a variety of ministries, as well as mine, as we look at the gender-specific part of this project.

L. Stephens: Have there been studies done on the extent to which child and youth prostitution is a problem in this province?

Hon. S. Hammell: There has been research done at the committee level, which I will be pleased to get to you. There's also just been the recent conference in Victoria around the exploitation of youth that the Attorney General, I think, was involved in, as well as the Minister for Children and Families. Also, prostitutes, when they're leaving violent relationships, often do use the facilities of a transition house.

L. Stephens: One of the other issues that is of concern, certainly in eastern Canada and somewhat in Vancouver, is trafficking in women. Vancouver has been demonstrating that that has been a problem. I understand that Women's Equality has a Safer Future program that funded a Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women forum. Could the minister talk about that? What has come of it? What's happening in that regard?

Hon. S. Hammell: That project was a number of months ago. I actually attended it as a speaker, sort of launching the event. It was sponsored by a lecturer at the University of Victoria, and my understanding is that this issue is not only of interest to that group but has been picked up also by the Hon. Hedy Fry. She has a particular interest in this area.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Let me just be a little bit more specific here. The Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women (Canada) is working with women and women's groups in Prince George to identify the impact on local Filipino women of federal immigration policies regarding family class visas and the live-in caregiver program. The research will assist these women's voices to be included in the immigration legislation review, as well as get plans to develop a local and provincial network relating to these issues and a framework and a methodology for future work.

So GAATW's work is ongoing. If I understand it -- I don't have the information in front of me -- I think it is also funded, in general, by Status of Women Canada.

L. Stephens: The last time I looked, I think the government had committed about $3 million to address prostitution and sexual exploitation of youth, and there is a provincial action plan. I understand that it's delivered through the Attorney General's department and the prostitution unit in downtown Vancouver. The plan has identified some gaps for youth and has defined some objectives and steps. What part of the action plan is the Ministry of Women's Equality involved in, and what is the Ministry of Women's Equality doing in the communities to support the efforts of these communities on the sexual exploitation of youth?

Hon. S. Hammell: The Ministry of Women's Equality is not the lead ministry on this issue, and it is not a program area. Our involvement is largely through the deputy ministers' committee, as well as funding specific projects that come through us in our violence prevention program.

L. Stephens: I'm well aware that this ministry is not the lead ministry; that's not the issue. We talked about that before; we've been through that. This ministry does, though, provide community-based educational programs -- the Safer Future program. Is youth sexual exploitation part of the Safer Future program of this ministry? Yes or no? It's very simple. And what are the amounts and where in the province?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't want to seem uncooperative. I just described to you in detail the PEERS program, as well as the GAATW program, and both of those are through our Safer Future program. That is how we fund them. Now, at the policy level, the deputy minister sits on a committee, the deputy ministers' committee, on this issue. I can send no higher civil servant to the issue. Because I am not the lead ministry, it is not in my mandate to fund the program. But I do fund. . . . Through the Safer Future program, I have funded PEERS and I have funded -- it's an odd word -- GAATW.

L. Stephens: Are these the only two programs that the ministry funds?

[ Page 7400 ]

L. Stephens: One of the other issues that impacts greatly on women is substance abuse. Again, with substance abuse the ministry is not the lead ministry. These programs all come out of Health, but they do impact on women -- the closure of Pender Detox, the fact that there aren't enough detox centres for women, the fact that there are more and more women needing services like this, the fact that at the moment there's only one transition house that provides drug and alcohol abuse counselling of any kind.

One, what is the minister doing in her own ministry to deal with women and drug and alcohol abuse? And two, what is the minister doing to advocate to the other appropriate ministries, to make sure that those kinds of services are available to women?

Hon. S. Hammell: I would just like to. . . . I know the member has mentioned it, but I want to highlight that we do provide more than $300,000 annually to Shimai, a specialized transition house in Surrey that is staffed 24 hours. It provides services to women who suffer alcohol and/or drug misuse issues. I would like to acknowledge the member opposite's point that we don't do enough. This transition house is new; it's one of the most recent ones that has been added. It's an effort to recognize that this problem exists and that it exists with women. Often, it is more closed with women than it probably is with men.

But I'd also just like to mention a couple of other things that we are doing. We are doing it largely through the Ministry of Health and through the advisory council on health. Their report outlines concerns and opportunities for maintaining and enhancing a system of care for women with alcohol and other drug problems. Its recommendations are: the appointing of an interministerial, inter sectoral working group comprised of individuals knowledgable on drug and alcohol misuse; prevention priorities to include pregnant women, teenage girls and seniors; and early intervention priorities to identify consistent and respectful ways to access health care and human service systems.

I'd also like to mention that in our symposium, one of the key presenters was a woman who had a lot of prevention information around drugs and alcohol. We are looking at ways in which the prevention experience in the drug and alcohol movement can be applied to the prevention of violence against of women.

L. Stephens: Prescription drug abuse is another huge issue that primarily involves women. Has the ministry done any studies or been in conversations with groups to try to find some information to use to come up with a policy or solution for what can be done to help these women?

[3:15]

So again, yes, we have supported work that is in the community. We ensured that this video got aired and assisted in that process. It has been on numerous times now. So that is the work we have done around that in that area.

L. Stephens: Can we anticipate some programs coming forward or some kind of directive or protocols to help deal with this issue, perhaps for doctors or for hospitals? Is there anything coming forward to deal with this?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have done nothing more in that area than support that program. But through Pharmacare and the work around drugs in terms of the medical system, there is ongoing work that touches in this area.

L. Stephens: We'll leave that one.

I want to talk a little bit about HIV and AIDS. It's fast becoming an enormous problem for women, particularly those who are drug users and particularly in the downtown east side of Vancouver and also in the north. There's a significant number of people in Prince George, for instance, who are struggling with HIV/AIDS. When I was in Prince George and talking with the women's groups there. . . . There's a difficulty around the people who are in transit -- going into the north and coming back down to Vancouver again. What they told me was that people had to be sent down to Vancouver for their medication, for their HIV treatment, and the costs associated with that were quite significant. So again, I wonder if the minister has done any studies -- or what she has done -- in regards to women and HIV in the two areas of the Vancouver area and the remote parts of rural British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hammell: For many of these questions you will get significantly more detail when you work with the Minister of Health. But I want to just sketch in a few of the issues, a few things around this issue. Over the last few years we have learned more about AIDS. Children and women, many of whom are aboriginal, have fallen victim to this disease. HIV and AIDS prevention and education funding by the Ministry of Health has increased from $1.4 million in 1990-91 to $7.4 million in '97-98. The Minister of Health has appointed a provincial AIDS strategy advisory committee, and their report is in draft form and expected to be released sometime this summer.

Our government is also working closely with the federal government to ensure that the national AIDS strategy fits into the provincial plan and that B.C.'s share of national AIDS funding is proportionate to our needs. Nine of the 17-member strategy advisory committee are women, including women representatives from the Positive Women's Network, the High Risk Project Society and the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. I have asked my staff to work with their counterparts at the Ministry of Health to provide feedback on the

[ Page 7401 ]

L. Stephens: Are any aboriginal women involved in developing a provincial AIDS strategy for women? Do they sit on any of these advisory groups?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: Counselling programs. Are there counselling programs available from this ministry for people who are suffering from being HIV-positive?

Hon. S. Hammell: Through Peggy's Place.

Can I just take a moment? I want to read into the record answers to some of the questions you asked me yesterday. The total number of women and children served in transition houses is 13,358. The total number of women receiving day services is 3,849. And the total number of beds in the province is 629. The total not served for lack of space is 4,521.

L. Stephens: I didn't hear the first number, the number of women served. I heard 15,000-something.

Hon. S. Hammell: It's 13,358 women and children. I can give you the regional breakdown if you want that. Do you want that now?

L. Stephens: Yes, please.

Hon. S. Hammell: These are beds by region. There are 111 on Vancouver Island; the southwest is 241; the Okanagan is 79; the Kootenays is 33; the northeast is 104; the northwest is 40 -- for a total of 608.

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for that information.

Peggy's Place is the only facility where the ministry provides counselling for HIV in a facility. Through the education programs, are there any organizations that the minister gives grants to that deliver any counselling programs in a facility other than a transition house?

Hon. S. Hammell: That type of request would not be eligible for a grant; it would be more of a core funding kind of issue. Our counselling is specific to women leaving violent relationships. As an aside to that central issue of ours, women who come to our counselling services may also have AIDS. It isn't a question that we would ask as part of our understanding of this person necessarily, nor would we record that kind of information.

L. Stephens: What kinds of issues around elderly women is the ministry involved with? As far as safety is concerned, are there any issues that the ministry is involved in? I want to know what kinds of initiatives the ministry has developed that deal specifically with older women.

Hon. S. Hammell: Women of all ages are eligible to receive support at the transition houses. So that is available for women who are leaving any kind of violent relationship -- be they young or be they old.

We also keep in touch with a network, an organization that supports elderly women, and that's the B.C. Coalition To Eliminate Abuse of Seniors. They received a grant, through our grants program, for a project called Seniors Working To Prevent Violence. This project will assist senior women from the Iranian community to learn about violence against elderly women and to develop leadership skills. These senior women will be supported to offer presentations focusing on preventing violence against senior women in their community. The project will result in educational materials which are appropriate for multicultural communities.

The second example is the Abbotsford Association for Healthy Aging. It received a grant for Partners Through the Years, a project educating young people about elder abuse and seniors' rights. They are working with students and teachers in elementary and secondary schools in the Abbotsford area to increase awareness of ageist and sexist attitudes which affect senior women and to help young people develop skills to prevent elder abuse from occurring.

L. Stephens: What were the funding amounts for both of those programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: The one for the Abbotsford association was $18,000, and the one for the B.C. Coalition To Eliminate Abuse of Seniors was $33,000.

L. Stephens: Is there any other advocacy work the ministry is doing in relation to senior women? It could be on a variety of issues: pensions, housing, financial security, safety in their homes. A lot of senior women are concerned about the home invasion issue; that's very much part of Vancouver people's lives anyway. What's the ministry doing to deal with some of these kinds of issues?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to focus in on the question around the Canada Pension Plan. This is an issue that I have actually put a fair amount of energy into, especially at the federal-provincial-territorial level. Phase one of the changes in pensions that were driven by the federal government could be influenced most effectively at that level. So there were two areas at which it could be influenced, and certainly one was not more effective than the other.

We partnered with the Ministry of Finance to do work around this issue. One of my officials worked very closely with the officials of the Finance Department and continues to do so, because we have moved into phase two.

[3:30]

This is actually a very, very important issue, because so many of our older women do live in poverty because of a lack of decent pensions. There's a little twist to the pension pay-out that I think is particularly offensive in the sense that the contributor to the pension plan. . . . If the contributor's spouse dies, the contributor maintains 100 percent of the pension; if the non-contributor's spouse dies -- i.e., the contributor -- the spouse receives 60 percent of the pension. That is a significant difference. Our argument is, and continues to be, that those

[ Page 7402 ]

L. Stephens: I think it's probably well known that when the changes were first announced, they certainly weren't in the best interests of women -- the pension changes that were anticipated. I'm not sure whether it was the provincial ministries. . . . I certainly know that Status of Women Canada were on it right away and trying to highlight what those inequities would be. I'm pleased that the provincial ministers are also advocating to make sure that some of these changes are made. This is still ongoing. When does the minister anticipate there being some kind of resolution? Or what is the next time when the federal, provincial and territorial ministers will be getting together to discuss this particular issue?

Hon. S. Hammell: Our officials are participating in the financial officials' meetings, but the timetable is largely driven by the federal government. I cannot give you that information, because I don't know if they know.

I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to speak and offer some comments in the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates. As I've sat back and listened during the times I've come into this committee room, one comment that I've heard consistently from the minister is that this is a ministry that doesn't deliver services or programs in the sense of other ministries. As the minister stated moments ago in one of her comments, it's a ministry that engages in policy discussions around the province. I just want to say, before I ask my questions, that that statement actually causes me some concern. If the mandate of this ministry is to go around the province engaging in policy discussions, it would appear that this ministry acts no more than a select standing committee that goes around the province and receives public information and then develops policies from that public information. That's what our select standing committees are for. It's distressing to hear that we have a freestanding ministry which is supportable that takes on that kind of role. It fails to accomplish, I think, what the public perception is -- that is, assisting and providing an opportunity for equality in many areas.

So as we go through this section, and as I pose some of my additional questions to the minister, I'm hopeful that some of these things can be cleared up and that the ministry will perhaps embark upon a different path. Clearly I don't think it has served the province well. It has not necessarily served the women in this province well, in the sense that we have a freestanding ministry that engages more in discussion than it does in actual delivery of any program.

I'm also concerned about the fact that what I've heard in the last two years here in this precinct and during the estimates is that a number of interministerial discussions take place. The difficulty is that not all ministers who should be engaged are at the table for some of these discussions. In particular, this morning I was in Committee of Supply B discussing second reading of Bill 11, which is the Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998. I'm curious whether or not someone from this ministry has been involved in those discussions. When we're trying to empower women, when we're trying to help them to have access to capital -- as we are with all small businesses -- if this is a ministry that advocates that, if this is a ministry that is supposed to provide that much more opportunity because there have been barriers, then I would hope that this minister or one of her ministry representatives would have been at that table in the drafting of that piece of legislation. There should have been a component in that piece of legislation that specifically dealt with women in business.

But not just on that piece of legislation. There should be discussions with the Small Business ministry throughout the year. We have a small business forest enterprise program in the Forests ministry -- which, I'm sure, is geared more to the male populace than it is to women; I could be wrong. It would appear that that's what's happening there. Do we have specific programs like that in place where this ministry should be at the table and be more involved?

So those are some concerns that I have. I hope that as I am able to participate in this ministry's estimates, those things may become more clear -- because they're not clear in my mind. And if they're not clear in my mind, then I'm sure there are people out there who have been watching as well and wondering what it is that this ministry is actually doing in terms of advancing the economic stability of women.

We were speaking about the issue of pensions; this minister was referring to. . . . I know it deals particularly with the Canada Pension Plan. I'm very familiar with that, not only from my past professional life but also from recently when constituents have come in to speak with me. I know the difficulties with that plan. When it was first introduced in 1961, it was not designed to meet the needs of where we are now. I don't believe many pension plans, at their inception, were ever designed to deal with survivor benefits or death benefits, whether they be for children or spouses, or disability benefits -- things of that nature. That's perhaps why the costs are running amok and out of control. Unfortunately, those who are going to be suffering most are those who are going to be dependent on them. Generally speaking, because the survival age for women is higher, we are the ones who are most dependent on that.

Leaving aside the federal side of this, some years ago -- about three years ago, I think -- this government introduced changes to B.C.'s Pension Benefits Standards Act. I note that in one of the many publications of the ministry, there is reference to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which is a provincial initiative. Because this ministry has mentioned it in the statement in here, "Women have greater economic security through changes to the B.C. Pension Benefits Standards Act," I wonder if the minister can advise what those changes did to provide greater economic security.

Hon. S. Hammell: This has been a fairly lengthy discussion here, so maybe we can take it bit by bit.

First, it is really unfortunate that you don't understand the working of the ministry. Perhaps what I can do is offer you a briefing, because you've come in and made a statement -- it isn't my statement, it's yours. So be very clear that is what has happened.

The bulk of the program area of this ministry, and I've said this before a couple of times during these estimates. . . . Maybe I can review it again for the benefit of the member opposite. This ministry has a budget of $37,449,000, or somewhere in that ballpark. Of that money, $30 million is program money, and 82 percent of the budget goes out the door to direct services to communities. All of our program area

[ Page 7403 ]

I'm just going to mention to you a component that is not in my ministry; it is somewhere else. If you have followed the information around the arrest of the person who has been accused of murdering the family in Mission, the government spent a million dollars following up that case. They were determined to signal very clearly that this kind of crime is unacceptable and that violence against women not only in an outrageous example like that -- a horrific crime -- but violence against women in general is inappropriate, unacceptable and a criminal offence.

This government has taken a two-pronged approach to it. Let me help you understand the part that this ministry plays within the government. I don't think it's much of a mistake or surprise that the Ministry of Women's Equality has assumed the program area and the responsibility for many of the programs that assist women once they have been assaulted or are trying to work their way through having been a victim or a survivor of assault or violence. We fund, throughout this province -- and we have done a fairly lengthy description of them -- transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing; sexual assault centres; and counselling for women who have experienced abuse. We formerly funded the program Children Who Witness Abuse, which is now moving over into Children and Families. We fund assaultive men programs -- programs for men who assault. We have, despite a very tight budget, managed to increase our transition houses by two this year. We have taken a slight decrease in our budget, but because we have made administrative savings, we have managed to push out two more transition houses: one on Saltspring Island and one in New Westminster.

I actually find it somewhat offensive to suggest that this ministry and its work with the women's community throughout this province means nothing. I think the ministry works hard. We worked very hard with Ishtar, the transition house in Langley, plus the transition house in Alberni, to assist women who are working on the front lines, dealing with some of the most horrific abuse that you can imagine, to provide safe places for women to land, once they have made that decision to move. Often that decision involves taking their children and leaving a situation that they have known and become very familiar with.

[3:45]

That is the major program work of the Ministry of Women's Equality. We also do significant prevention work, but I'll talk about that in a minute. Our province and our government has decided that we will financially support, through our transition house program, women who have been victims of abuse. I'd just like to mention that our transition houses are higher per capita than in most of the provinces in this country. Actually, I would like to find a few more statistics, because the ones I've got make it look very strong and very well supported.

Once we look at the support side of the equation, we have to turn and look at the justice side. The Attorney General is largely responsible for the delivery of the justice system, so this ministry does not deliver the justice system programs. But this ministry works with the Ministry of Attorney General to ensure that women's voices are heard in the justice system. To a large extent, historically and traditionally, the justice system has been largely male. That is slowly changing, but if you look at it, it is still largely a male presentation.

We have worked very hard in establishing the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, which demands a charge and a move to prosecution by the Crown counsel if the evidence is available. The Attorney General has just made an announcement where we have improved the B.C. protection order registry. We train police prosecutors and other justice system staff on the law of criminal harassment. Our ministry has, at times, provided funding for training of police around the VAWIR policy, as well as criminal harassment. Along with the Attorney General, we introduced B.C.'s first weapons amnesty. We partnered in a cellular phone program to high-risk women. Both the Attorney General and myself have asked the federal government to increase the maximum sentence for stalking from five to ten years. We have asked that the unconditional sentencing on violent offenders be done away with.

So we have a very strong support system. We have a strong justice system that insists that sexual assault or wife battering or wife abuse is a criminal offence. And now we are taking a very proactive approach around prevention. A lot of our grants are around prevention grants. We try to partner with communities to stretch those prevention dollars; we try to engage our community in prevention activities. We understand that this government, this ministry and the women's community will not eradicate or eliminate violence against women. If we are to have a community that does not accept the notion that somebody can have power over and be violent against another individual or human being -- and largely in this poor power relationship between men and women -- then we must engage both men and women throughout the province in prevention activities.

Most of our ministry's money is involved in prevention. We play two other roles, two other priority roles. Although we occasionally do work that is off the table, we focus our attention around economic equality. We know that women make 74 cents to the average man's dollar. We know that it took until April 8 of this year for women to have made as much as men made in the past year. So we engage in a number of activities, largely through partnership within the community, to move the economic equality piece along. Believe me, I do not for one minute think that this ministry will close that economic equality wage gap within the next couple of years. It has taken 30 years to close it 15 cents. We are in a long, slow process, but I think it's incumbent on all of us who believe in fairness and equality to get on board and to do what we can individually to push that piece. I wish I had more money, more staff, more influence -- more of everything -- to close that gap. Our

[ Page 7404 ]

The other area that we as a central agency look at is the area of health. We work largely with the Ministry of Health; we work in tandem with the Ministry of Health.

Those two areas are our central agency role -- which the member described as a standing committee role, which is rather peculiar. In those two areas we work on influencing government. We work as a partner with the community. We know that our goals are ambitious, but that does not mean that we don't keep pushing at the rock.

I just want to add to the very specific question you asked around pensions -- if I can find it. Part of it has to do with part-time work. The Pension Benefits Standards Act legislates pensions for part-time workers, portability of plans between different employers, shorter vesting periods and minimum survivor benefit requirements.

I. Chong: To the last point first, I have the exact newsletter, I guess, that the minister has, and that's what I have read here. But I was looking for more than that. I was looking for more information on greater economic security, because these things alone don't necessarily provide greater economic security. I was hopeful that if there was more that was designed in the plan, the minister could in fact elaborate on it.

First of all, I want to go back to the minister's response to my questions. It's unfortunate that she misunderstood. I did not come into this discussion, into these estimates, totally unaware of what the Ministry of Women's Equality is. I have been following that. I have the business plans for the last two years; I have read through some of the reports; I read the newsletters that the minister provides throughout the year. So I am very much aware of what the ministry states as its role. The problem is that I did not make the comment that the minister stated earlier. I wrote down what she had said earlier. She said that her ministry is engaged in policy discussions around the province. That comment that was made was in response to another comment that was offered to her when we were looking to see where her programs were. When the minister was trying, perhaps, to defend what her actions or limitations were, she made that statement. I wrote it down, because it struck me as peculiar. If necessary, I'll check Hansard and see if it was taken out of context. If so, I would apologize, but at the time it did not sound very comforting to me, and that's why I compared it to a select standing committee. That is in fact what happens in a select standing committee -- you engage in discussions around the province. As I say, if it was taken out of context, I apologize to the minister; but if it wasn't, then I am very concerned about where we're headed.

I recognize that the minister has stated that a large portion of her ministry has to deal with violence, but in the business plan the issue of economic equality is mentioned time and time again. I fully agree that we have to narrow the wage gap, and I appreciated the fact that the minister gave me some idea as to how many years it takes to narrow that gap. That's essentially what I would like to find out, because the minister is privy to that kind of information; I'm not. I don't have all those reports and all those statistics, but she has staff, she has resources and she has people available. If she can give me an idea what her ministry is doing in terms of narrowing that wage gap, how many years she anticipates it will take and what specific programs or policies she would like to bring forward to her colleagues so that they can reduce the years that are required to reduce that wage gap, I would appreciate that.

Raising the minimum wage in itself is not a way to deal with the wage disparity between men and women. If that is what this government and this ministry is using as its primary focus in dealing with that wage disparity, then I am concerned that it's going to take that much longer. But if there are other initiatives -- something much more substantial -- that they are looking at, whether that may be in earlier intervention in the high schools. . . . I know there are some programs available, but if there's something more specific to move us towards the target of closing that gap, then I would ask the minister if she could share some of those with us at this time.

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the suggestion that there may have been something taken out of context. I think probably it was, and maybe I'll also look at the Blues tomorrow to see that. If there's just a misunderstanding, so be it. We'll just move on.

I do want to talk, though, about the wage gap. I want to put it in a bit of a historical context. The first time that a snapshot was taken of the wage gap was 1967. It was actually done by a professor from a university back in Ontario somewhere, who later went on to be a parliamentarian. Her name was Lynn McDonald. She took the first snapshot, and she found that in 1967 the wage gap was, at that time, 58 cents to the male dollar. Since then sporadic snapshots have been taken of that wage gap, and now it is a regular statistic that is given to us by Statistics Canada.

In 1997 the wage gap was 73 cents. If you take a look at those 30 years and you realize that you've gained 15 cents, you can extrapolate and say that for the 27 cents that's left between 73 cents and a dollar. . . . If you double that because it's half a cent per year between '67 and '97, we could close that gap in the year 2051. I think that's just a little too long.

[4:00]

Hon. S. Hammell: Not many of us will be around here.

There are efforts to deal with the wage gap. This is an area that we've taken a lot of interest in. Certainly I cannot say to the member. . . . I just don't have that crystal ball that would tell us when that wage gap will close. We were at a discussion around the economic indicators, and if you look at young women and young men who have a university education and no children -- in fact, they are single -- there's very little wage gap. So you could then say that if women stayed single and got a university education, the wage gap would be eliminated in one generation -- but so would the rest of us! One of the biggest impediments around the wage gap for women is the decision to have a family. I just think that is one of the things that we have to take into consideration as we look at this piece.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Many factors explain the wage gap and some explain the narrowing. In 1997 it was 73 cents. It's now something like 73.8 cents -- I round it up to 74 percent. What we've seen over a long period of time is a continuing narrowing of the gap, although it does make me shudder to think how long it appears to be taking.

[ Page 7405 ]

I agree with the member that we have to do more than just raise the minimum wage. We have to get women to look more at science and technology and at moving into many of the non-traditional trades. When they leave school, our young women have to be able to look around and see the world as their oyster, where they can actually go anywhere and do anything. They can fly planes, they can be police officers, they can be firefighters, they can be doctors -- actually, a lot of medical students are now women.

There is a lot that we can do, but let me just go back to something I said earlier. Hon. Chair, I can go on at length, but I don't want to do that unless the member has another particular question. Let me just reiterate that in this area there are no programs. We do not have programs in any area other than violence against women.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: But she asked specifically what programs or policies are in this area, and so I am responding directly to the question. I'll leave it there, and if the member has further questions. . . .

I. Chong: I guess perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "program" in conjunction with the word "policy" in the question. That's what I was trying to refer to, because that is what this ministry does. It does engage in discussions to develop policies and perhaps encourage new pieces of legislation and develop something to deal with the wage gap.

I won't go into that much more, other than to say that it will be a sad day. . . . We've just extrapolated that it took 30 years to narrow the wage gap by 15 cents and it would take perhaps another 50 years. . . . I know I won't be around to see it, and I certainly hope that I will be around to see economic equality. On this side of the House, we all do believe we can accomplish that. But whether there are any targets this ministry would have and that a part of her ministry would focus on -- that is what I would challenge the minister to provide an answer to. The difficulty, I understand, is getting jobs for people. That's a big problem in this province, because we're losing jobs. Time and time again, we've heard we're losing jobs to our competing provinces and to the States.

With that, I'd like to move into the specific question. Contained in other government policies, legislation and announcements, there's reference to jobs, and the odd time there's also reference to jobs for women -- in particular, in the minister's own newsletter that came out. There was a statement, and I'll quote it. It says: "An equity component in the new jobs and timber accord for women, youth and aboriginal people is expected to create new forest jobs, many of which tend to pay better than jobs more traditionally held by women."

That particular quote would lead a person to believe that the jobs and timber accord is trying to focus on jobs for women. With that, I would like to know whether the minister had been invited to ensure that her ministry had some opportunity to provide input before that statement was made, or whether any of her staff were in any interministerial discussions regarding that, or whether there were any discussions before this announcement.

Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes. Let me just expand for a minute and put a bit of a framework around this area. Some of our work is around policy; let me give you two examples of that. One that you've referred to is the minimum wage. We would have been involved in that discussion. You may not be aware that 60 percent of those people earning minimum wage in the province are women. You probably do know that.

The other area around policy would be. . . . An example I could give you would be the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, where we worked very hard to ensure that there was equity. It was an underrepresented mandate within that commission. I'm sure you know as well as I do that very, very few women occupy seats in the apprenticeship programs and that we have an interest in seeing that number increase. Again, that's a long-term goal. That mandate was established in the legislation and is part of the activities of ITAC.

So we have the policy area. We have another area that we're active in, and that is around public education. I'm not sure whether you're aware of our Money Smarts program; I can share that with you. That is a particular public education program that we launched not only here in British Columbia but. . . . It is being shared across the country.

Hopefully, we will receive sometime this summer -- or, at least, no later than the fall -- the work that Ontario is doing around resources for women entrepreneurs. Again, we will share that. We are also developing our own guideline. Those are two examples of public education.

The third area that we're active in is targeted initiatives. One is obviously the bursary program, which provides direct assistance to women. You may not be aware that there's also a program in Advanced Education and Technology. That's through the federal government. It's doing some funding that targets women who are working on their doctorates and women working on doctoral programs that are non-traditional.

Another example of a targeting initiative would be the welding program -- the women welders at BCIT, where we have it. We are into our second graduating group of women who are being trained as a unit out at BCIT to work on the fast ferry program. Once they've got those skills, they will then proceed to work the fast ferry program.

Just to review: there's the area of policy, there's public education and there are targeted initiatives. We work within those three areas.

L. Stephens: I want to pick up on what the minister has just said, and I want to go back to what she was talking about a little earlier -- about working with women's organizations and transition houses. She was inferring that we didn't think that was valuable and that this side of the House thought it meant nothing. I know the hon. minister doesn't believe that; at least, I hope she doesn't believe that. Perhaps that was an unfortunate statement that she made, because I can assure the minister that that in fact is not the case.

What the minister is misunderstanding is that we are talking about women's issues. I've said this before, and it looks like I'm going to have to say it again: this is a wide-ranging discussion. Yes, there are policy areas; yes, there are

[ Page 7406 ]

I again want to draw the minister's attention to her remarks in Hansard yesterday when she talked about health being one of the ministry's focuses for this coming year. She says: ". . . to advocate for gender equality in women's health services and to advocate for safe access to health services for women."

We've tried to have an orderly discussion around these health issues. . . . They're important. I'm sure the minister knows they're important; I'm positive she understands they're important. Where she does not have direct services in health, we can certainly talk about making sure that women's voices around health care issues are heard. I've just got a couple more questions on the health issues, because it's extremely important to women. I know the minister knows that -- that health is probably second to the issue of violence.

We were talking about seniors' issues before we talked about pensions and some of the economic issues. As soon as we finish these health things, we're going to go on to the rest of the economic issues. We were talking about seniors. One of the big issues for seniors is housing -- seniors' housing and special needs housing for seniors. Again I'm going to ask the minister if she will simply comment on whether or not she has made sure that women's voices are heard, through her, at whatever table is appropriate, on the issue of housing for seniors and special needs housing.

Hon. S. Hammell: Maybe we need to think through some of the comments that are going back and forth here. First off, I have what I said, and I do know exactly what I said. I want to go over it just so that we -- you and I -- both agree that what I said is what we understand I said.

[4:15]

Women are in every single corner of government. Like any other area of government, we have to prioritize our particular work. We have nine people in our policy area, and we will sit at as many tables as we feel we can in terms of our work and our priorities.

Housing is a very important issue, and one of the reasons that there's. . . . Let me give you an example of where the ministry is active in the housing area. Bridge Housing is a project that is being developed in the downtown east side. Not only have we supported the housing project, but a second-stage housing unit is to be added to that project. So yes, we have some priorities around housing.

What I have to say -- and I want to be about as clear as I can on this issue -- is that this province is now the only province left in this country that is building social housing. When the federal government moved out of the partnership with the provinces on social housing, this is the only province that stayed in the game. Obviously there are needs within this province that are difficult to meet, not only when you have the support of the federal government but when you're left to do it on your own and to respond as best you can; then you have to narrow your list. We have some activity in the housing area. Obviously I'd like to have more, but I'd also like -- and I wish on stars -- the federal government to get back and active in the social housing area in our province.

L. Stephens: The question was: what is this ministry advocating for seniors housing and special needs housing?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me go over this. We provide housing for women who leave violent relationships. We are not the Ministry of Housing, nor are we the ministry for seniors. There is a B.C. Housing project in Kitsilano for single senior women, and there is housing -- within B.C. Housing -- for women and disabled people. I would suggest that for the specifics, you direct that question to the Minister of Housing.

L. Stephens: Again, we're going to talk about a lot of things and not just what the minister wants to talk about. We're not just going to talk about what the violence programs are or what the educational programs are that you have. All I'm simply saying -- and I'm going to say it again -- is that women want their voices heard. And it is through you, minister, that those voices are heard. On behalf of all of these women out there, I'm asking the question: what is the minister doing -- and what is the ministry doing -- to advocate on these issues, on their behalf? All I want to hear is: "Yes, I'm doing it," or "No, I'm not doing it," or "This is what our policy people are working on," or "Yes, I understand that this is an important issue, and yes, I understand that it affects this group and that group and this area of the province and that area of the province."

I would like some understanding, first of all, that the minister recognizes that these are important issues that affect a great many women's lives and that she's prepared to talk about them outside of her line ministry functions. Again, this is the Ministry of Women's Equality, a freestanding ministry that should talk about these issues that affect women. I couldn't agree with the minister more when she says that women's voices need to be heard. What I want to hear from her is: is she in fact making sure that, through her, these women's voices are being heard at the different tables and in the different ministries of this government?

With that, hon. Chair, we're going to talk a little bit about economic issues. Not only were health issues identified as one of the priorities of the ministry. . . . We had a lot of difficulty talking about those issues. We're now going to move on to the economic issues that this minister also says is a priority area of her ministry. We've talked a little bit about pensions. I want to move on now to the B.C. 21 projects. I want to ask the minister if she has done any funding or a partnership with B.C. 21 projects, how many there are, and the dollar amounts.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

[ Page 7407 ]

I am actually very proud to say not only that we have a Ministry of Women's Equality that focuses on women's issues in particular but also that I work with a government that supports the ministry and supports the work within the ministry -- unlike the position of the members opposite. In the last election, policy was put out that they would eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality and that the Leader of the Opposition would be responsible for the activities of Women's Equality.

I encourage the member opposite to raise women's issues with every minister, because each minister has responsibility for those issues also. As I said before, women are in every facet and every part of the community. We have our priorities, which we work on. We are not at every single table that is found in government. We have our priorities, and we work very hard on those. Again, those priorities are violence against women, women's health and women's equality.

L. Stephens: Again I'm going to say this: we're going to talk about other issues aside from the ones that the minister has identified as the priority issues. That's what estimates are all about; that's what they've traditionally been about. So perhaps I may ask the Chair to instruct the minister as to that fact. Again I'll ask the minister to answer my question on the B.C. . . .

The Chair: The minister rises on what matter?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd just ask for clarification. Can I just ask the Chair to assist me? If the question is about another ministry, is that in order?

The Chair: A minister is responsible for their own ministry and for that particular vote that we are in fact debating.

L. Stephens: In regard to the minister's responsibilities, the minister has said time and time again that her ministry sits at tables of other ministries of government. Time and time again the minister has said that. Time and time again the minister has talked about the gender lens that is used by this ministry to review the policies of other government ministries. Time and time again this minister has said that this is a central agency of government that oversees other ministries' policies and procedures to make sure that they are gender-balanced. What I'm asking the minister has nothing to do with other ministers' responsibilities. What I'm asking the minister is what she is doing in her ministry that deals with these issues that impact on women.

The primary responsibility for a number of these issues is in fact the responsibility of other ministers. I couldn't care less about that in these estimates. All I want to know is what this minister is doing about these issues that affect women; it's very simple. And I would like to know if in fact this minister has any kind of partnership or agreement or arrangement of any kind with B.C. 21 projects. Are any of the organizations that she is involved with, that her ministry is involved with. . . ? Do any of these organizations. . . ? Does she assist B.C. 21 project funding in any way? Yes or no.

Hon. S. Hammell: Not this year. But last year my ministry provided $400,000 in B.C. 21 grants to nearly 250 B.C. community agencies to gain access to the Internet. These agencies included multicultural organizations, transition house societies, band councils and organizations serving people with disabilities.

L. Stephens: Hallelujah! Thank you. That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm asking. That's all I'm asking -- that kind of information.

Are there any other grants that will be given this year?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: Not this year. Can the minister tell me why there aren't any grants going forward this year?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are just not the resources available, and we are continuing to finish up the work around this one. That's about as much as we're doing this year: finishing this but nothing new.

L. Stephens: On the Internet project, was that phased money? Was it a lump sum right up front, or is it going to be phased over a few years? Do you have money in this year's budget, if that's the case?

Interjection.

L. Stephens: It was a one-time lump sum. There is no ongoing funding to the Internet program. Thank you very much. My colleague from Okanagan-Penticton would like to ask a question.

R. Thorpe: I've been asked by some women in my riding to bring forward this specific question, and I would appreciate an answer to it. These are individuals that unfortunately have disabilities but who are trying to help themselves. They are involved in some entrepreneurial programs to attempt to enhance themselves. I would like to know from this minister what her ministry is doing to ensure that these people, first of all, have access to these programs and, secondly, what the ministry is doing to ensure that the programs that they do have access to are in fact working.

[4:30]

R. Thorpe: Thank you for that gesture. I ask this minister to pursue, on behalf of some of these individuals -- and I believe it's a program through Human Resources. . . . Individuals who are taking these entrepreneurial programs are

[ Page 7408 ]

I would ask if this minister will undertake, on behalf of some of these women that I'm making reference to, to pursue this matter with Human Resources to ensure that deductions are not taken off the gross revenue on these programs but are taken off the net revenue. I would ask an undertaking from this minister to do this quickly and promptly. I also ask the minister if she can communicate what action she plans to take and when I can expect an answer.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm not clear whether you mean the Human Resources ministry here or Human Resources Canada.

R. Thorpe: In B.C.

Hon. S. Hammell: Okay. I'd be quite delighted to work. . . . But can I ask you to ensure that the people you're referring to get hold of me, because I need to work with the people and have the problem described in a conversation with them.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister has much more experience in this area than I do. As the MLA for Okanagan-Penticton, these types of situations come to me and to other MLAs because individuals find it very difficult to come forward and deal directly. They are concerned about what may or may not happen.

In these particular cases, I've been asked by these folks if I can represent them. I would be pleased if the minister's staff would like to meet privately to address this, but at this point in time, I'm not going to ask that those people identify themselves and move forward by themselves. This is not a unique situation to the community of Penticton. People are being penalized in this way throughout the province by the Ministry of Human Resources of the government of British Columbia.

L. Stephens: I want to talk a little more about the B.C. Benefits program. We've talked with the Minister of Human Resources in this area and pointed out some of the difficulties around it. I know that the Ministry of Women's Equality has said that they want to make sure the impacts of B.C. Benefits on women are monitored and that they are part of a B.C. Benefits longitudinal research project, an interministerial working group led by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

I would like the minister to perhaps talk a bit about the B.C. Benefits effects and impacts on women as she knows them to be today. Have there been any other findings that would lead her to change her mind or to make some recommendations on some possible changes to B.C. Benefits and how it impacts on women?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'll just take a number of pieces here. My ministry's involvement with B.C. Benefits includes consultation on the design, implementation and evaluation process for B.C. Benefits, and staff participation on interministry committees. We also provide policy advice, and we monitor regulation changes. We will continue to monitor government legislation, policies and programs around this area to ensure that women's concerns are being considered.

We have advocated for a number of policies, and I'd just like to describe them for you. We advocated that policy exemptions be made where violence is a concern. For example, the family maintenance program requires recipients to assign their maintenance rights to the government for action. This can be postponed or stopped if there is concern that it would result in danger to the recipient.

A dangerous-assessment checklist was developed to help family maintenance workers assess the potential risks to violence for their recipients. When the new policy on the family maintenance program was introduced, all family maintenance workers received a half-day of training on the dynamics of violence, as part of their overall training.

We work with a bridging program which helps women with a history of abuse make the transition from dependence to independence through employment and personal management training. Last year more than 600 women participated in this program. I don't know if you're very aware of this program, but this is one program that it works with some of the women who are probably the most traumatized and have been in very difficult situations. It works with those women to help them gain confidence and some employment skills. This is often a long and difficult journey that these women are making.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the minister for that information. It's very helpful when we have information like that. It makes things move along much more quickly and easily.

We talked a bit earlier about widening the gap, and I think that part of that widening gap has to do with women on social assistance. There has been some analysis done, and this is the one from SPARC. They've made a comparison of monthly support allowances, 1982 and 1987, and it's in constant 1997 dollars. It shows that in every single category there's a shortfall. In fact, the amount of money has been reduced since 1992. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

For a single person, it's reduced by 44 percent. For two adults, it's 40 percent; for a single parent with one child, by 13 percent; a single parent with two children, by 10 percent; and two adults with two children, by 11 percent. The actual amount of money for two adults with two children is $73 a month.

Now, that may not be a lot of money to many of us, but it certainly is to people who are on income assistance. I wonder if the minister would comment on this. I think this is an extremely serious situation, and I want to know if the minister is aware of the disparities here, the amount of the reductions that have occurred as a result of B.C. Benefits and whether or not she has been advocating in any way to find some resolution to this.

Hon. S. Hammell: First, I want to acknowledge the concern of the member opposite. I think it's valid. It's one that's troublesome. It doesn't matter who you are, if you're dealing with issues of poverty, it's difficult. We continue to work, and we continue to worry and to look at areas where changes can be made.

To date, we have not been able to make significant changes. In the design of B.C. Benefits, there was a conscious

[ Page 7409 ]

Let me turn a bit of the coin around so that I can shine the light on places where we have been successful. In 1997, 225,000 families with children -- 45 percent of all B.C. families -- received the B.C. family bonus. That's a program within B.C. Benefits. A preliminary study -- and let me underline that, because I don't want to suggest for a minute that this is final -- that was contracted by the Ministry of Human Resources estimated that the B.C. family bonus program has reduced the depth of poverty by 19 percent for working-poor families and 25.5 percent for single-parent working families. Oftentimes those single parents are women.

L. Stephens: The B.C. bonus for working families. . . . It appears that the money that went into the B.C. family bonus was taken away from those on income assistance, those who aren't working. Many of the social advocates who come to my office on behalf of income assistance recipients are very pointed in that charge -- that, in fact, that's exactly what's happened. The amount of money in Human Resources hasn't changed; they've just moved it around. They've taken it from the people on income assistance and given it to the working poor in the form of the B.C. family bonus. People who are the most vulnerable, the ones who are on income assistance, are in much more dire straits than they were in 1982. It's pretty difficult for people to look at 1982 with a former administration that many people feel was not socially responsible and then to come to 1997, with a supposedly social democratic and principled government, and find that in fact people's income support has been reduced from 44 percent to 11 percent. I would encourage the minister to do what she can to highlight this issues for her colleague and to suggest that there be ways found to make some redress here. I'm sure, for instance, that there are places where all the money that came in from superstumpage could have been spent. Some of it perhaps could have been spent providing at least an equal amount to what people received in '82 -- at least a status quo there as opposed to reduction. That, I think, is a big issue for this particular minister to be aware of, because, as she knows, many of the people on income assistance are women. Certainly there can be children involved too.

[4:45]

What the minister could perhaps say to her colleague is that there needs to be some rethinking about training programs to make sure that people are brought into the training programs as much as possible. Now that the federal-provincial training agreement is going to be finalized and take place, I think there's an awful lot of opportunities to partner with Human Resources Canada in making sure that people in British Columbia have early and appropriate access to training programs in the province.

Hon. S. Hammell: First off, I have had personal discussions with the Minister of Human Resources. There are a number of concerns we share, and they're not unlike your concerns. I will continue to do that.

Also, I take your advice and information on the training programs and will follow up with the minister.

L. Stephens: I have a question on pay equity. Last year the budgeted amount was $86.6 million. What is the amount for pay equity payments in the current budget?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's under negotiation; it's part of the current negotiations.

L. Stephens: One of the line items on the budget was CSSEA. Could the minister talk about her ministry's involvement with CSSEA?

Hon. S. Hammell: As the budget says, we contribute $204,000 to the operation of CSSEA. CSSEA is one of six employers' associations representing employers in community social services, health care, public schools, colleges, institutes, universities and Crown corporations. CSSEA coordinates human resource planning and labour relations within the community social services sector, which is where our transition houses, safe homes and second-stage houses are. We sit on the board of CSSEA. We will contribute $204,000 to the cost of membership dues for member agencies. Those are the dues of the transition houses, second-stage housing, etc., that we pay on their behalf.

L. Stephens: On the issue of CSSEA and the contract negotiations, which I understand are grinding slowly and are virtually at a standstill, one of the issues raised is that there are the resources at CSSEA to try to move this forward -- not speaking so much in terms of a contract settlement, but the actual resources needed to reach the kind of resolution needed to reach a contract settlement. Can the minister talk about what kind of stages are happening there? And are there any changes?

Hon. S. Hammell: I actually can't comment on the member's comments, because that issue has not been raised with me nor my ministry. If that is so, then I'm sure it will come forward at some point.

We're not the only ministry, obviously, that contributes to CSSEA. There's the Attorney General, Education, Children and Families, and Human Resources. There's a cluster of us that work with CSSEA. I'll be alert to that, now that you've mentioned that possibility. But I'd just like to mention that we've reduced our central core ministry, and we've kept our contribution to CSSEA at the same level. So we're all trying to work with a little less.

I. Chong: At this juncture in the estimates, I want to discuss a little bit more what I alluded to earlier, and that is economic security and economic equality for women. What I'm looking at, for the minister's benefit, is the business plan developed for '96-97 and for '97-98. Although there are some

[ Page 7410 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: That strategy was developed in concert with Employment and Investment, and it has been signed off and integrated into Employment and Investment's activities. Let me give you one example of it, and that's the HCL, Highway Constructors Ltd. Let me get my notes because I want to say this correctly. Traditionally, women have not participated -- and more than women; underrepresented groups, we would sometimes classify them as -- in highway construction. Through E&I and the employment strategy, we ensured that women had opportunities in government-supported projects. For example, women worked 6.5 percent -- it's pretty meagre -- of the hours worked on the Island Highway construction project. But the industry average for women is less than 1 percent. The story is better on the high-occupancy-vehicle lane construction program. So far, women have worked 10 percent of the hours worked on the HOV project.

So although these are not huge gains, they are significant when you look at where we started. It also includes other groups that have traditionally been underrepresented, and when we look at those, the numbers go up significantly. An example, for the Island Highway project, would be including aboriginal people up and down the project.

I. Chong: While I appreciate part of the comments the minister made, I'm somewhat confused, and perhaps she can provide clarification. In 1996-97 the business plan stated in the "Economic Security for Women" section -- and if the staff want to refer to it later, it's page 13. . . . The first thing mentioned there is to implement a comprehensive women's employment strategy in partnership with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I understand that. That's what I'm trying to get at: the heart of that.

Two or three bullets further down, there is mention of opportunities and of ensuring that there are guidelines and monitoring tools in place to promote equity for women in government, capital infrastructure projects such as fast ferry construction. So I understand that that is another component. Those are the areas that the plan is designed to do: to have guidelines, to have monitoring tools. But in terms of an employment strategy, I'd like to find out a little bit more -- whether that itself has been transferred to the Employment and Investment ministry. If that's the case, then I'll have to accept that. If that isn't the case, then where would this ministry's role be with that, bearing in mind that we want to deal with women's economic security and equality?

Before I ask the minister to answer it, I'll move into the 1997-98 business plan. Under that business plan, it also considers integrating a job strategy for women into the B.C. government's job strategy. My conclusion -- and I'm hoping I'm wrong -- is that what happened in 1996-97 was that the women's employment strategy fell into the Employment and Investment ministry, and they renamed it B.C.'s job strategy and left the women's component out. If I'm wrong. . . . I see the minister shaking her head. I'll give her the opportunity to provide that clarification.

If they are two distinct programs, that's good. If the original employment strategy program no longer exists or has been transformed into some other program, I would certainly like to know if it was successful, if it was effective. If there were some measurables, what were the outcomes? If it's been moved somewhere else because it has grown into such an expansive program, who is now taking charge of it? How will this ministry continue to play a role in ensuring that women's voices are not missed on issues that concern them in terms of a women's employment strategy?

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the question. They are two different things. The women's employment strategy is more broad-based and is being implemented and integrated into activities of government. Let me be very specific on three that I'll give you. One strategy was to increase the number of apprenticeships -- the work around ITAC and ensuring that in the legislation ITAC had a mandate to develop, as part of their business plan, underrepresented groups having access to apprentice seats. That's how you follow it up. Women's Equality sits on ITAC as part of its regular work -- that's the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. That's one example.

[5:00]

There were more recommendations. They continue to be part of our work, and we continue to look at how successful. . . . Some were not successful. We have some strategies, and we haven't been successful on all fronts.

The part that you read from the other plan was an example from the jobs and timber accord. There was a component in there around encouraging women to take a more active part in the forest industry. Their participation is something like 8 percent; it's very, very low. Forest Renewal has had bursaries to try to encourage people to get involved in certain aspects of that. Half of those bursaries went to women.

That is not the total picture, but that's what I can describe to you right now. When we get employment strategies that are more one-offs or single pieces on their own, that's what the second description was referring to.

I. Chong: That does clarify it somewhat. There's nothing to link these two, and they both speak of a strategy.

Going back to the women's employment strategy and these three examples that the minister gave, the minister also mentioned some recommendations and some ideas not being successful and moving on to others. Does the ministry actually have a report showing these recommendations as the women's employment strategy? Is there something published that lists the key issues in some areas, so that we can look back and see which ones were successful and which ones were not?

I ask that solely for the purpose of looking at the measurables -- taking a look at the outcomes of what was anticipated

[ Page 7411 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: There is no report card on how well we're doing, but in fact I think that's an excellent idea. We will get you the information that we have, and we will proceed to look at how we can develop a sort of measurement of how each one of those activities is. . . . Just to be clear, we have reported out in various ways. But it's not in a concise way, like: "Here are the ten recommendations, and here are the results of each one." They're more integrated than that.

I. Chong: If the minister would be able to allocate some of her staff resource time to it -- not too much, because again, we don't want to burden the system -- it might prove helpful. When things are spread out as much as they are or when others are dealing with it, we fail to see the whole picture. If you want to be successful in anything you do, you have to take a look at the sum of the parts as opposed to the parts individually.

I'd like to move on to another area that was also listed in the '96-97 plan. It just piqued my curiosity. It said: ". . .introduce approximately 5,000 women and 145 women-serving agencies to the Internet through the government's electronic highway project." I can't boast that I'm computer-literate either. I tell you, coming from a DOS environment into a Windows environment months ago was a bit nerve-racking, but I do feel that it's a valuable approach to take. If we are to afford women the economic security -- economic equality in terms of wages -- then we have to ensure that they are comfortable with this. Perhaps like most women, we're sometimes nervous about this big box that appears out of nowhere.

What I would like to find out from the minister first of all is: why was the figure of 5,000. . .specifically chosen to be introduced to the Internet? Was there in fact a specific reason? Were there some time lines? How far are we along on that? Again, I'm looking at measurable outputs now. The accountability of some of these programs, I think, will add more credibility to what the ministry is doing. In order to be supportive, we want to ensure that they're on the right track on some of these things. So if the minister can provide us with a little bit of background on that, I would find it helpful.

Hon. S. Hammell: This question was canvassed, but just slightly, around the B.C. 21 projects, and that is the Internet project. Nearly 250 B.C. community agencies were able to get on to this, and they made a commitment to train 40 people. So we just multiply that and get about 5,000. That project is ongoing; it continues to be out there. The grants allow the organization to buy Internet software, a computer modem and Internet connection and training for one staff member. In return, each group was to train another 40 people. As a condition of the grant, organizations are required to report back on the number of people trained, and we don't expect to have all that information in. It wasn't ready, set, go, and everybody charged off at the same time. It was more staggered as organizations got organized to get onboard.

What I want to do is read a quote, because I think it's important. We have heard from some women who have been trained as a result of this program. The project manager of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Vancouver Island wrote me a letter saying: "So many physically disabled people all around the world use the Internet as their link to the outside world. We are glad to be able to provide access to our clients, and have designed a Web home page, which describes our services and programs. We're already receiving e-mail from those with MS in other parts of North America." It was a program that allowed people to reach out to each other, as well as develop the actual skill of the software.

I. Chong: It would be a good idea if we could get some of those figures. I will rely on the minister to provide that whenever she is able to make those available to us -- hopefully before the year 2000, anyway. We may be on to another training program such as Y2K, but that's another topic for another day.

I would also like, in the same vein -- addressing employment opportunities for women -- to canvass another area. It is an issue that was raised last December by one of my constituents who wrote to me and who I responded to by way of a telephone conversation. She apparently misunderstood my conversation and then promptly wrote to the minister, thinking that I had forgotten about her concerns. The minister wrote back to her, and then I contacted her again. It's a roundabout process, but I contacted her, when she originally wrote to me, to explain to her that I would like to raise these issues in the ministry estimates. Since she wrote to me in December, I knew I wouldn't be getting back to her until now. But she took it upon herself in February to write to the minister and forward a copy of her letter. The minister wrote back to this constituent on March 26. I think I could mention her name; it's Cora Smith. I don't know if the minister recalls that letter. Then my constituent wrote back to the minister on April 20, so I don't know if the minister has had time to take a look at the letter. She forwarded me a copy of this, wanting me to be kept up to date on these concerns. She does raise some curious points or suggestions. She was somewhat disappointed with the minister's response, and I can understand that, because the minister wasn't able to give her anything concrete. In fact, the minister referred her to the recruitment access office coordinator, thinking that she was looking for a particular job to job-share.

She was concerned about employment opportunities for women who have been out of the workplace for a number of years. She raises the point that the issue of day care services comes up for women wanting to get back into the workplace. People can't put their children into day care, and that's why they are having barriers to employment opportunities. But in her case, that wasn't the problem. Her children were teenagers, so she could leave them. She wasn't looking for day care support. All she was looking for was employment opportunities and jobs which would -- I wouldn't say cater to her hours -- but in a sense cater to the working moms out there who have to deal with children in school who have practices after school. So their hours need to be condensed.

Her point was that in the civil service we have so many women who work here, so surely some of them would dearly love to have opportunities to work perhaps 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. and consider taking the summer months off to be with their children and have the university people come in and fill the void. This way it would provide training and opportunities for youth, and it would allow the working moms to be able to handle the responsibilities of home and of their business life. Too often we see that women have to make choices. Having been out of the workforce and coming back

[ Page 7412 ]

I guess she was writing to see whether the government was willing to take the lead on an issue such as this and whether the government had had any discussions around these things. The government is such a large employer, so if the public sector moved to this, it might influence the private sector and have them come on board. We all know that it was the public service that were the advocates of flexible days, flexible hours and those kinds of things. I think it moves that into the private sector environment as well.

If government were able to do something similar without it being more costly to implement, would government consider this or even the idea of it? That was the gist of her letter. I thought they were reasonable questions she raised. I had not thought of them, not being a working mom myself. But when she raised them, I thought about it and how that applies to a lot of my friends who are working moms. It applies to a lot of the neighbours in my neighbourhood who I see having to juggle these kinds of things. I thought that it would be a good opportunity to have the thoughts of the minister here in these estimates and see whether this is a policy area that she could engage in and if she could see whether the government would in fact advocate something like this.

Hon. S. Hammell: First off, I do recall the letter but I don't recall my answer. I do recall the letter, because I do think she raises some just super issues. We, for example, in our ministry are job-sharing in the minister's office -- though not right now. That was to allow two young women with young families to work those kinds of hours. Now, one of them went on to full-time work and the other went on to a job-share position within another ministry. Also, my deputies at one point were job-sharing. Again, things change as people's needs change, and they make different arrangements.

We are working on a job-share registry so that we can register and be able to match up people who job-share. We have also partnered with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to create a book and to make sure it's available to people within government and employers across B.C. It's been distributed, and I imagine you have it. It's called "Meeting Women's Needs: Rethinking and Examining Women's Training Needs." But you make an excellent point, and I think that not enough work is done in this area. We do need to recognize that oftentimes the responsibility for children falls to women and that they need special consideration, not only from government but from the private sector. We need to respond to those unique needs if we are going to welcome women into the workforce and benefit from the skills that they have to share.

[5:15]

I'll leave that for a moment, because I think what the minister has responded to is about all I can expect. I'm sure that Cora will be grateful for the fact that we are moving in some ways to address this issue, but unfortunately it is just within government as opposed to the entire working sector. I know that's always a difficult issue. But if it is something that is successful and is not onerous or does not cause extra red tape or regulation and the business community sees that it could work for them and that in fact there might be savings in terms of human stress, then the business community will likely take it up. They sometimes wait to see what government does, because unfortunately a lot of what government does affects how they run their business as well, with the hours of operation.

Interjection.

I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I'm just asking the minister whether they're taking on this project to see where it leads, in terms of whether it can be successful and not onerous.

I don't believe it's a good idea to legislate every opportunity in the small business world. That is why they are called free-enterprisers. They also want to introduce ideas which they bring out first, and then government can also look at following their lead. So it doesn't always have to be top-down; it can work the other way, and I think it would be better if that did occur.

But back to the job-share registry for government employees. That was in the plan for '97-98. Can the minister advise just how far along we are with that? Is that now being developed in every single ministry throughout government, or is it just with Employment and Investment and the Ministry of Women's Equality? How successful has the minister been in being the advocate for this with her cabinet colleagues, to ensure that they in fact invoke this pilot project in their ministries?

Hon. S. Hammell: It's still in the development stage.

I. Chong: So it's still in your business plan, and I haven't got your business plan for '98-99, for obvious reasons, I'm sure. I would imagine that this will be appearing in your business plan for 1998-99, with a target date or some sort of accountability as to the success of getting all the other ministries on board. Can the minister at least give me some idea as to what she would like to see in terms of reporting back on this issue by the end of 1999, perhaps?

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to see it operational by the end of this year.

I. Chong: In dealing with economic security for women, I'd like to ask about and touch on a few other areas. What I have seen in your business plan are the statistics on what the pay comparisons or wage parities are between men and women. It does seem that the younger women's percentage as a percentage of men's income is generally higher. . . . As you move up the ladder, it decreases. For example, in the '96-97 business plan we saw that in the 15-to-24 age bracket, women's incomes were 85 percent, which is actually very good. When we move up to someone in the 35-to-44 range, that drops right down to 58.2 percent. Given that the minister

[ Page 7413 ]

I know the minister has issued publications, and some have been targeted to youth and to young women. I don't know whether the statistics here are part of that success rate or whether it's that young women now are refusing to take less than what their male counterparts are receiving. But we see clearly in these statistics that we do have some serious problems in the 35-to-44 age category, the 45-to-54 age category, where it's only 50.2 percent, and the 55-to-59 age category, where it is 41.5 percent. Those are very alarming statistics, and the fact that the ministry's business plan publishes these things. . . . What more has happened with them, if anything, in terms of focusing on some of these? Does the minister feel that she can develop assistance in this area?

Hon. S. Hammell: We sort of touched on this a while back. Part of the reason those statistics are published is to inform and to make sure that people are aware of the conditions that are there, although I think most people know that intuitively. A lot of the change has to occur in social attitudes, behaviours and just general cultural rethinking of people's relationships. Economic independence and economic security are something that our young women have to consider right off. But it is an extremely difficult and complex issue. We try to work at it on a variety of fronts. But if you take the age group, the one that is the most severe, that is probably where you have the least. . . . People who have been in the workforce have often returned to the workforce after a period of raising children. As you move on in age, some of the commitments women make to family have a significant impact on their ability to earn a wage that's comparable to men who have never left the workforce.

Let me give you an example of this. This is one I was told personally by a woman in Trail who went into non-traditional work in the smelter when she was a young woman. She worked in the smelter for about six years and then left the smelter to raise a family. I think she stayed out about six years and then went back to work. She then had a work record of another 15 years. The smelter was being downsized, and you had to have 18 years' seniority to hold on to your job. The six years prior to her leaving work did not count with the 15 years that she worked after she had come back, having had her family, and therefore she was to lose her job. That was a direct consequence of having made the commitment to raise a family and be part of that part of the community.

These are serious issues; they are very complex. Not only do we in government have to understand some of the pressure points, unions and small business have to understand some of these consequences. I don't have a magic bullet; I don't have a way to fix it. I just think we all have to keep pushing at it. We do what we can, given our resources.

I. Chong: I guess that if we had all had a crystal ball, we would all have known where we would be sitting now.

It is a difficult issue to address, and I recognize that. I'm looking at this to be a role for this ministry to play in a more vocal sense, I guess. This ministry -- and this minister -- are the advocates for women's equality and for women's economic issues, and if we don't make those concerns heard more often, then people do begin to think that you've solved the problem, and they walk away from it. Then we find out a year and a half later, when the statistics come out, that nothing has changed -- or that in fact it has gotten worse.

I would encourage the minister to continue to be the voice for women in that age category -- 35 to 59. . . . I'm fitting right in there, and I'm going to have a look at my own statistics. It is not as well known as it perhaps should be. People think that it's always youth who are the ones having difficulty keeping up to their male counterparts, but in fact it is that middle-income-earning group. We need to make sure that we don't let it slide any further.

I'll leave that for the moment. I would like to ask the minister, though, about what role her ministry does play in assisting women in another category, and that is businesswomen -- women entrepreneurs. Is there something specific enough helping female business owners to expand their opportunities? I don't know if that's by way of publication. . . . I do have a number of publications for all the ministries that I keep in my constituency office, but I have not come across something particular. . . . Is the ministry working on something new, developing something new or looking to introduce something new?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd just like to reassure the member opposite that every time I can, I raise my voice around the issue of the wage gap and the need for women to take advantage of other job opportunities, to broaden their horizons. I've also made a particular attempt to get to young women, because a change will be made when women start embracing all possibilities in terms of employment and dealing with some of the systemic issues that cause them to fall behind in the later years.

Regarding entrepreneurs, I have the Bank of Montreal's study on women in business in Canada. I think I have an extra copy, and you may be able to get it. . . . The statistics around women and business are outstanding. Women are everywhere in terms of business and being entrepreneurs. They are responsible for the start of more small businesses than their male counterparts. Women who are heads of businesses are growing more and more in number.

Just a few things that we've done. . . . We're doing two things, one in-house. We're working on resources for entrepreneurs in-house. As well, Ontario is working on that at the FPT, which I've mentioned a number of times. I have put some support around the organization called Uniquely B.C., and Barb Mowat, who encourages entrepreneurship with business in British Columbia. A lot of those businesses are of women. Often they are home-based, and they get not only. . . . I can provide financial support. But Barb puts forward outstanding personal support around these organizations as they are developing their skills in the workplace.

[5:30]

So you're absolutely correct; it is not common knowledge. Women need to share that information with each other and work together to ensure that women have all the opportunities they need. But women are very active in business, being very successful. There are probably all kinds of reasons we could articulate as to why. If you don't have that publication, I will get it to you.

[ Page 7414 ]

In looking at that, I would be curious to see how B.C. compares to the rest of Canada, if that's what we're looking at, because I do recall in the news of late that we have seen that women. . . . When they profile the top ten women in Canada who are running some of these large corporations, I don't know how many of them are B.C.-based. If we are falling behind other provinces, again that gives us pause, to think about what we are doing in British Columbia and if there are barriers to expansion in the small business community. That relates to women in the small business community as well. I know that the minister has heard from this side of the House time and time again how things such as government red tape and regulation, our high income taxation and unfair labour codes -- not getting into those issues. . . . But if those are areas that affect small business, they certainly would be areas that affect women entrepreneurs as well.

I would like to ask, though, in particular. . . . I understand that there used to be -- this was not in this minister's ministry, and I understand that -- a women's business advocate in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Recognizing the need to find administrative cost savings, I understand, that position was let go. This was probably about two years ago, before my time here at the House. But I was wondering whether the minister at that time was able to, I guess, assess the impact that this person had -- whether we have fallen behind as a result of letting that go or whether it was not as functional as it should have been. Essentially, I'm looking to see whether the minister has any reason or opportunity to revive that position, whether she feels it's a valid position, or whether it's just no longer in the cards because of the economic reality of the day.

Hon. S. Hammell: Economic reality is more of the answer. But I did work with the advocate. I went to a number of events that she was at. I think her work was absolutely outstanding. She did a superb job. I cannot believe that her impact -- the loss of her -- was not felt in some way or another. On the other hand, I think that of all the sectors that are ready to fly -- where women are ready to help themselves and get on with it -- women in business is one of them. In government there are times when you make tough choices. That was one that I believe was very tough.

I. Chong: No doubt it was a tough decision. It certainly is a shame. We've seen sometimes in hindsight -- which we all have 20-20 -- that some structural changes within ministries can in fact harm our economic viability. We already had seen that in the Ministry of Environment in their Crown Lands area. I would hope that it would not be the same in terms of encouraging women to start up their own businesses. I guess time will tell -- and when we hear next that there is a problem in that area.

One last area I would like to touch on in terms of women entrepreneurs and a problem that they face -- that all small businesses face -- is access to capital. Again, if we're going to talk about women's equality, we always have to recognize that some of the barriers that women have are the same barriers that everyone has. If we're going to be equal, sometimes we're going to have equal barriers. I don't know whether it's easier for men to get access to capital than it is for women. What I'm curious about -- and I alluded to it earlier -- are the changes to the Small Business Venture Capital Act that were introduced through Bill 11 earlier today.

The Minister of Small Business was very encouraging. He felt that this would be a very good program and that it would bring in more businesses. Again, time will tell whether that happens or not. What I'm curious about is whether this ministry has been able to have some influence on some of the discussions that went on when that bill was being drafted. In particular, I don't know whether there was some earmarking of a certain amount of that for women entrepreneurs. If that was the case, then I certainly would like to know. More specifically, if this ministry issues reports throughout the year for women who want to get into business, for women to be involved in various things. . . . Does the ministry include this in their publications to inform women who are expanding or looking into larger businesses that they should be looking at these things that government has in place for them?

I ask that because what I found out last year, for example, was that when the Ministry of Housing introduced a booklet for first-time homebuyers, they forgot something very fundamental. It had to do with people having to look into whether they live on protected sites. It ended up being a difficult issue for someone in my riding. I'm concerned that when a ministry such as Women's Equality issues a publication, they also bring to the attention of women the various programs that are in other ministries. This is where the interministerial discussions are very important.

As I said earlier, I found during these last two years that there doesn't seem to be a well-coordinated effort. Maybe you're getting there, and if that's the case, fine. But people are falling through the cracks because interministerial discussions are not occurring frequently or comprehensively enough. This particular one that was introduced this morning would, I felt, certainly be something that should be enhanced for women entrepreneurs who are looking to access capital. So could the minister give me some idea on what she thinks.

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me see if I can be succinct. We would be involved in those kinds of discussions at the cabinet table. When you raise the issue of making sure that women have equal access. . . . It's a good issue to raise, and it's an issue that I will follow. We will ensure that that opportunity is reported in our resource guide for entrepreneurs.

I. Chong: The resource guide is coming, so I'll wait for that.

A Voice: Imminently.

I. Chong: Imminently. Hopefully, before the end of the year.

Another area I do want to quickly touch on, as well. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:39 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada