Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12541 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION,TRAINING
AND TECHNOLOGY AND MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
(continued)

J. Dalton: I have some questions for the minister on the post-secondary side of his ministry. Before I get into those questions, I just want to put it on the record that the critic and I and others are thankful for the documentation that we received in the briefings. We found that particularly helpful. They zero in on some of the more significant issues that we'll be addressing as we go through the estimates.

The first thing I want to deal with. . . . In fact, I'll introduce this by reading into the record a comment that the minister made in response to one of the student's questions that my colleague asked yesterday. The minister commented that the funding for post-secondary had been substantially increased -- I believe that's the term he used. Well, in fact the increase for post-secondary is 1.48 percent. I don't know whether the minister feels that it's substantial.

However, the issue that I want to address. . . . We also know that we're dealing with a tuition freeze. The bill, of course, is coming up for second reading later today. I'm wondering, given the lift of 1.48 percent. . . . Does that properly addresses inflationary cost increases? Does it also allow for the 2,900 new post-secondary spaces that the minister has announced for this budget year? Those are the two issues I would like to address.

[1010]

In fact, what we did in this year's budget was achieve some savings in administration and in some other funding within the post-secondary envelope -- but it was not directed at institutions -- and redirect those savings to the institution. So the actual lift to the institutions themselves is in excess of 2 percent, almost 2.5 percent; I think it's 2.3 percent when you roll it all up together. So there was a funding lift in excess of 2 percent to the institutions. Within that, there was an adjustment to take account of increased costs of $1.5 million, in addition to the funding that was provided for additional student spaces. Of course, we provided substantially new funding for student financial assistance as well.

Now, if the member notes what's happened in other provinces over the last five years, he will see that there has been a trend line in other provinces to diminish support for post-secondary education, in some cases because of the pass-through of cuts from the federal government. Some of those provinces have gone down and have now started to come up a little bit, but from a lower base.

But in this province we have continued to increase funding year after year. This year we increased funding again. We fully funded the new spaces. We added additional funding to take account of the cost of living, and we reallocated within the post-secondary envelope to make sure that institutions received the amount of funding that is equivalent to a 2.3 percent lift in their funding by making savings in administration and other envelopes.

J. Dalton: The minister is in part repeating some of the comments he made yesterday, in that he's comparing this province to others, which is fair enough. We are, of course, part of a Canada-wide picture, and there's no question that some of our students go elsewhere for their education. Or maybe even a more significant factor is that sometimes we spend and invest a great deal of money in post-secondary education, and unfortunately, because of the economic circumstances, our trained B.C. students head elsewhere for their work experience and lifelong opportunities. However, I don't think we need to get into that debate here, because that's not going to advance the cause. I guess the other thing, as well, that the minister constantly wants to remind us of is that the federal government has downloaded on the province. But again that's an argument for another day.

Now, I want to look at the 2,900 new spaces, which of course are part of the funding envelope. In the documentation that the minister and his officials provided, the 2,900 spaces break out into: colleges and institutes, 1,150; the universities, 745; and then there are 100 spaces devoted to quick response. This is the one that I am wondering about. Can the minister advise the committee as to what quick response is?

[1015]

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today are members from Mrs. Buckler's grade 5 class from St. Joseph's Catholic School and their accompanying parents, and I would like the House to join me in making them feel very welcome here today. Thanks for coming.

In response to the member's question, first of all, with respect to the funding levels of institutions in British Columbia, I would also note that if one looks at a measure of per-capita funding across the country, then B.C., along with Quebec, is far and away ahead of other provinces. I forget if we're first or second to Quebec, but certainly our level of

[ Page 12542 ]

With respect to the question of the member on the quick response FTEs, these are student FTEs that are designed to allow institutions to meet the needs of communities that are suffering economic hardship. We know there are resource communities throughout the province that are having difficulty because of the downturn in lumber markets or, in the case of fishing communities on the coast, because of the difficulties in the fishery. What we've said is that we will set aside 100 student FTEs for institutions to generate programs that can provide a quick response to the needs of those communities in providing programs that will help people who are dislocated within those communities to get the training they need to get jobs.

It's something that's been done in the past and that we felt was appropriate, given the difficulties in certain communities. It's been welcomed by colleges, particularly within those regions that have been hard hit, because it enables them, on top of their regular complement of FTEs, to target programs that are particularly relevant and that address the needs of those who are hard hit within those communities.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that explanation. I guess two points: one, there are no quick response FTEs listed for universities; two, as the minister has said, given that this is 100 spaces across the board for the colleges and institutes, I would think. . . . Just for example, the Highland Valley closure comes to mind. Would it not be quite likely that those 100 quick responses could be gobbled up just in the Kamloops area alone, because of the economic downturn? Could I ask the minister, firstly, why is there no quick response on the university side? Secondly, are 100 spaces actually enough in this day and age to anticipate perhaps a larger demand in the college system?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the member should bear in mind that we have created an additional 2,900 FTEs across the system. That is in excess of what would be required to simply keep up with population demand, as I indicated yesterday. So it provides an opportunity for colleges and institutes to meet needs for students out of their base complement of FTEs.

The flexibility around the 100 out of that 2,900 is to allow those communities that are having particular economic hardships to have those hardships responded to by local institutions that can respond quickly to those needs. Given that those needs tend to be in rural, resource-based communities, the institutions that are best positioned to meet them are generally within the college system. So we have created this allocation within the college system, recognizing that the college system is perhaps best equipped in terms of flexibility and also in terms of proximity to meet those particular needs. I know that those colleges will be meeting those needs out of their substantial increase in FTEs anyway, but this provides an additional component, where the need is particularly great, for colleges to capture some increment in FTEs to add to the base they already have to address those concerns that arise in hard-hit communities that are affected by economic dislocation.

J. Dalton: I would like to move into some discussion about the space allocation and the increase in spaces as opposed to the actual courses that are available at the post-secondary level. I have some personal experience with this, having been an instructor for many years at Langara, where we had long lineups -- literally out of the building -- every September for students who were waiting in line, hoping to pick up even a mere morsel or two of courses which weren't even necessarily directly related to their lifelong objectives.

I don't know that that has changed these days. I might as well put it on record that my son's girlfriend, who is at Cap College, has become very frustrated, because she's not able to pick up the courses in any significant number to advance her post-secondary-education ambitions. Now, that doesn't mean it's happening everywhere, but I think that experience is probably being related around the province.

[1020]

Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a number of issues. Very quickly, we've really done an extraordinary job in increasing the participation rate amongst post-secondary students. In fact, as I indicated yesterday, enrolment has increased by some 10 percent in this province since 1992 and gone down by 4.4 percent in the rest of Canada, which gives the member a sense of the kind of commitment we've made in this province to increasing post-secondary spaces. Some 16,000 new spaces have been created in the last few years alone. For that reason, I invite the member to go to the colleges and universities that did indeed have long lineups for enrolment.

Certainly, when I first ran for office in 1991, that was a major issue. I think you will find that, by and large, those problems no longer exist. Now, that doesn't mean that students are able to get every course they want or that there are not difficulties in respect of certain institutional programs and the like, but certainly that problem, which was essentially a legacy of lack of investment in post-secondary education, has been significantly addressed.

That leads to the member's second question. One of the reasons we have a larger participation rate of part-time students is because we have a larger participation rate of older students. One of the reasons we have a larger participation rate of older students is because, in times past, governments didn't invest in post-secondary education, and students who should have gotten the education and had the opportunity when they were younger were denied that. So we're playing catch-up, and we're now reaching those students at an older age and bringing them back.

Last year we made a major step forward in that direction by eliminating tuition for adult basic education. We in this province lead the country in terms of having the most com-

[ Page 12543 ]

Another reason is that we have brought education to communities, and people therefore no longer have to choose between full-time studies and a job. In the old days people had to decide where they were going to go to pursue a post-secondary education. They had to leave their community, and were therefore almost forced to commit to studies full time. Many couldn't afford to do that, so they stayed in the community and lacked an education. Now people can stay in the community. They can pursue the education, and if, for economic or other reasons, they wish to do so on a part-time basis while earning some income -- perhaps they're raising a family or they have other responsibilities -- they have that flexibility.

So these are very positive indications. We're playing catch-up; we're providing flexibility; we're recognizing the needs of people who fell through the cracks or were ignored in the past. That's one of the reasons why we have the very strong representation of older and part-time students in our system, and it's a very, very healthy sign that we're seeing those students come back to our institutions and gain the education they were denied in the past.

[1025]

Hon. A. Petter: What we did last year was remove the tuition barrier that had existed for adult basic education at the college level. There was no such barrier at the high school level, but that meant that older students often had to suffer a stigma of going back to high school in order to get adult basic education, when they would have preferred, or it would have been more suitable for them, to go to college. There was this strange disparity in which people were making choices because of the tuition policy rather than in terms of what was in their best interest. The cost of removing tuition for adult basic education within post-secondary institutions, albeit it isn't post-secondary education, was $7 million. That was an amount we allocated last year; it's carried forward into this year's budget.

I'll tell you, it's the best investment that we could ever make in terms of providing access to adults, who are now going back and getting those basic high school skills. I would love the member to go out there and meet some of these people and see them. I'm moved to tears sometimes when I see a single parent who tells me that she felt unable to have an opportunity to get ahead until she was given the opportunity to get this kind of training in college. It really makes one feel worthwhile, as a legislator, to know that one can have that kind of effect on people's lives. And we in the Legislature have had that effect collectively, through our support for that policy. I hope the member does support it. It's the best investment we could make -- $7 million.

J. Dalton: That is true. In fact, I remember the testimonials in that regard that some of the students gave at the recent breakfast we were all hosted at. Certainly I do not quarrel with the opportunity for any person in this province to have access to education at the K-to-12 level or right through to post-secondary, whether that be in a bricks-and-mortar environment or over the Open Learning network -- whatever it may be.

I want to move on to ask some questions about the matching contributions to colleges and universities. When I read the description that was provided about these matching contributions, on the educational institutions side, it says "to encourage donations for scholarships, bursaries, equipment and library resources in colleges and institutes. . . ." Yet at the universities side, for matching programs, they're for establishing student bursaries and endowments but not for capital or scholarships. Why is it that the ministry has divided this -- separated the purpose of these matching grants to the colleges, on the one hand, which is different from the universities, on the other?

Hon. A. Petter: The rationale comes out of history, but it also speaks to a reality of differential fees between colleges and universities. Historically, this program was established by previous governments with a focus on universities, and it has been continued as such. But it also does respond to the fact that university tuition is higher than college tuition on average. I think that university tuition runs something over $2,200 on average, even close to $2,300 -- still substantially lower than Ontario or Alberta, I hasten to add. Increasingly, the gap is widening as those jurisdictions increase tuition, but it is nonetheless higher than what are very reasonable -- even more than reasonable -- tuition rates at the college level, which I think average around $1,500.

[1030]

With regard to the matching programs for universities, it provides for private sector cash or in-kind donations. Would this include corporate sponsorships? I'm thinking, for example, that Coca-Cola has a contract with UBC. Is that the sort of matching program that the ministry covers?

Hon. A. Petter: No, that's not the real thing. No, that's not the kind of funding we have in mind.

J. Dalton: Then I take it that the sort of program that this budgetary item covers would be charitable donations from estates, for example, and things of that nature. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, the member's correct -- individual contributions and the like that are targeted to this purpose, not commercial arrangements.

[ Page 12544 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that the institutions themselves have generated a policy on this, and we as a government have asked them to do so and to share those policies with us. I have certainly said -- from my point of view, on behalf of government -- that it is our policy that universities and colleges not enter into commercial arrangements that in any way compromise or impede the attainment of their educational objectives. Provided they are entering into arrangements that do not do that -- that are remunerative to the institution and don't undermine the educational objectives of the institution and the services to students -- then in principle I do not have a difficulty, provided they have a policy that covers that off and makes it clear that they are entering into those arrangements fairly and in a way that does not compromise their academic programming.

J. Dalton: No doubt this is a debate that we may be conducting this year in the Education ministry estimates as well, because of course more and more it's becoming a reality that our educational institutions -- K-to-12 and post-secondary -- do have to look to the private sector, I think, and there are obviously some pluses and minuses in that, as the minister has pointed out.

I want to ask some questions about student financial assistance. In one of the documents provided to us, the funding for student financial assistance is increased by 6.48 percent to cover anticipated increased demand for assistance. Can the minister explain why this increased demand is anticipated? Is that because of shortcomings in course offerings? Or is it because of the economic downturn -- if I may put it that way -- in the province? Or are there other factors that we should know about?

Hon. A. Petter: The principal factor is that 2,900 more students will be in the system in the coming year than in the previous year. We have to ensure that there is student financial aid for those students, so we can ensure that they get access at an affordable rate without going into the kind of debt they would have to go into if they were pursuing similar studies in Alberta or Ontario.

J. Dalton: Another factor here, and again reading from one of the documents. . . . Provision for future liabilities on student loans is mentioned with regard to the financial aid programs. What is meant by this provision for future liabilities?

[1035]

There are two major components. There is a risk premium that is provided to financial institutions who then handle the student loans, and that's a premium that's provided to them for their activities in administering those loans. The other is a loan remission program, which ensures that students are provided with remissions where their loans exceed a certain level, and which ensures, again, that students in British Columbia are able to pursue an education without incurring unreasonable debt loads.

J. Dalton: Does the ministry have figures as to what the average student debt load is? That would be my first question. Secondly, what is the repayment experience on these loans? That is, what outstanding liabilities are there that the government or the lending institutions are unable to collect from students on their loans?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me deal with the last point first, hon. Chair. I'm not sure this is the way in which the member wanted the answer. If it isn't, he can tell me. We issue about $150 million in student loans a year, and the risk premium is about 5 percent. With respect to the average debt load in British Columbia for a graduate from a four-year degree, that debt load after loan remission is about $15,000. Nationally, I think the estimate is that the debt load is $7,000 to $10,000 more than that on average. So it's a substantially lower debt load, although, I think, still unacceptably high.

We are working hard to look at ways in which we can further reduce that debt load within the province so that we can continue to make sure that accessibility is afforded to students -- for the reasons that I outlined at the beginning of this estimates debates. We need to ensure that we open the doors wider to as many students as possible and make education as affordable as possible without compromising excellence.

J. Dalton: Given the financial burden that obviously many students have to undertake during their post-secondary careers. . . . I might add that sometimes it's actually a plus to the students, as I commented earlier -- not being able to get full loans -- because at least that then frees them up for some part-time employment, if they can find it. That's another issue.

Has the ministry ever considered. . . ? This afternoon we're going to be debating the tuition freeze at the post-secondary institutions. Has there been any discussion in the ministry about entertaining, perhaps for those who successfully get to the graduation year, getting some reward -- tuition remission -- for the final year of graduation, instead of front-loading it, as we tend to do now?

I guess there's another factor built into this. As we know, there's certainly a high demand for post-secondary education. Yet we may not be doing the best screening process we could, if we are continuing to freeze tuition and yet saying to students: "As you go through the system, unfortunately, you're going to have to pile up some debt." Even $15,000, as the minister says, in this province. . . . I don't think whether that is or is not good compared to others is the issue. The fact is that for students coming out of university or college, that's a pretty heavy obligation that they have to deal with. I guess the irony, again, is that they may be going elsewhere to earn the income so they can pay that loan off. Has there been any discussion or policy consideration of other ways that we might address student financial assistance?

[1040]

[ Page 12545 ]

We've asked the federal government and now, through the Millennium Foundation, have asked the foundation to work with us and put those millennium scholarship dollars not into some new program that will only duplicate administration and become a complex element of the system. . . . But we could quite simply extend our bursary program so that third- and fourth-year students will share in the bursary, which will not then accumulate as debt. Bursaries, of course, unlike loans, do not.

Those negotiations are proceeding. I am optimistic that as a result of those negotiations and some of the support we've received from the Canadian Federation of Students and others for that objective, we may indeed be able to achieve an agreement. That agreement will see those federal millennium dollars not frittered away on some new initiative that duplicates but, rather, will allow B.C. to be a province that can provide a four-year bursary program that will have a huge positive impact on reducing debt loads, particularly for students in four-year courses.

J. Dalton: I want to move into some other aspects of the ministry. Can the minister advise us and bring us up to date on Tech B.C. -- where it's at with regard to program offerings and how it's working? I understand that Tech B.C. is a public-private partnership enterprise. If the minister can advise us where we're at with it.

Hon. A. Petter: Tech B.C. is in fact a publicly funded university, but the member is correct in thinking that it has objectives that are geared towards partnership with the private sector and towards, in particular, meeting some of the needs of an emerging high-tech sector while at the same time providing opportunities for British Columbians to fill those needs and gain employment and opportunities.

The status is that Tech B.C. has been offering programs this year. There will be a substantial increase in the number of student FTEs in the coming year. In terms of the development of the university itself, we've secured a site through agreement with the municipality of Surrey. There are discussions going on with the municipality and with others about the actual development of that site to make sure that it will meet the long-term needs of the university. The municipality also had as a condition of that development that there be some associated commercial development. We want to make sure that the development is one in which private sector companies will partner in research and in training. Some of the work that's going on -- the actual planning around the design of the facility and its relationship -- has not yet been concluded, but I hope it shortly will be.

I think the university is incredibly exciting in concept and will be hugely beneficial, because it will not be a university that simply comes in and provides a duplicative set of programs to other universities or indeed to BCIT. Its job will be to try to grow the high-tech opportunities by adding value to programs that are already there -- adding new graduate programs in a number of key areas that are of particular relevance to B.C. and the growth of the high-tech sector, taking programs that may exist in a number of different institutions and, in a sense, brokering with those institutions to articulate those programs into new degree streams.

[1045]

A lot of work is going into the development of those programs. There's been a lot of work with potential private sector partners and with other institutions. It's a very exciting concept. It is, I believe, something that's going to project us forward in terms of our future as a high-tech economy as well as our future as an education province that's responsive to that economy and to the opportunities it affords.

J. Dalton: Yesterday, in response to one of the questions put to him, the minister made reference to the career technical centres. Again, this is an issue we'll probably deal with in the K-to-12 as well. Is there a role that Tech B.C. may play in that regard -- that is, for high school students in grades 11 and 12 to be able to access Tech B.C. and therefore get some advance credit towards their post-secondary?

Hon. A. Petter: No, there isn't, but I can explain why and maybe make an analogy. The career technical centres are very much geared to providing a bridge between high school education and trades training. Now, some of that may be technical trades training, because what we used to think of as trades when I went to high school -- you know, automotive and carpentry -- are certainly no longer. . . . They're still valuable trades, but they're no longer what defines trades in their entirety. We now talk about aerospace maintenance; we talk about computer maintenance -- all sorts of other interesting areas. Certainly the career technical centres will include that, but because it's a bridge between high school and college or apprenticeship or an institute like BCIT, the role that's being played by the career technical centres will most often be a partnership between high schools and colleges, with some participation by ITAC, which will provide some of the college student FTEs.

Now, what the B.C. Technical University may do, as part of its function, is provide a similar bridge but farther ahead, if I could put it that way, between people who are currently in a college or university system nearing graduation or pursuing a program. Part of the goal of the Technical University -- Tech B.C. -- will be to capture some of those students and help bridge them over into more specialized training that will keep them in British Columbia and steer them towards exciting new opportunities and, at the same time, attract business to invest here to capture these kinds of skills. So you can think of Tech B.C. as providing a similar function. They will just provide it at a different stage in one's post-secondary education.

[ Page 12546 ]

The minister, of course, is familiar with the proposed private university in Squamish that David Strangway is putting together. What role, if any, does the government play in the development of that or other private universities?

Hon. A. Petter: I am aware of the proposal concerning the private university that Dr. Strangway has been the chief proponent of. I understand that he has met with staff, but I have not met with him in any formal way on this, and he has not officially made a request of government in respect of the university and its future. Thus far it's being pursued, as I understand it, as a private initiative. There are various options that a university would have in terms of its programming, and I take it that there has been some exploration of those kinds of options. But that's really the extent of my knowledge.

J. Dalton: Would that university not have to go through the private post-secondary aspect of the ministry, at least from the point of view of course offerings and -- if I can put it this way -- quality control? Although I'm sure that Dr. Strangway is certainly on top of the issues of what would be offered and where it would be appropriate.

Hon. A. Petter: The institution would presumably have to register with the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission and meet the requirements of the commission in terms of bonding and the like, at a minimum. In addition, if it wanted to offer degrees, it would have to seek legislative approval to do so. Or, presumably, it could offer degrees in a relationship with an institution outside the province and provide it in that way. So there are a number of options available to it, but at minimum -- the member is right -- it would have to meet the requirements that are set out in legislation and administered through the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission.

[1050]

Hon. A. Petter: The CEA negotiations were successfully concluded some time ago. There are some subsequent issues that fall out from those negotiations and that are being resolved at institutions, but I'm very pleased to say that the negotiations were successfully concluded.

J. Dalton: It's not a question, but I guess more looking ahead. . . . Hopefully, that will continue to be the case, because clearly the institute-by-institute bargaining was not terribly productive. In fact, for a number of years I served on the Langara bargaining team, which was fine within its own jurisdiction but obviously had some impact on the post-secondary system from a budgetary point of view.

Is there any initiative in the ministry dealing with the rationalization of course and program offerings? This is something that used to happen from time to time, particularly within the college system. Is the ministry happy with the current status of the offerings that are provided?

Hon. A. Petter: The ministry, by and large, tries to play a facilitative role. It encourages the institutions, in the case of colleges and institutes -- under the rubric or the fabric of charting a new course -- to cooperate and to ensure that they are meeting the needs through their various offerings. But we don't prescribe what those needs are. We encourage them to achieve that through collaboration amongst themselves.

J. Dalton: As far as I can detect, it would seem to be working, because we don't hear many concerns these days. But I do recall, certainly back in the seventies and eighties, that there was quite a bit of discussion and ongoing development in trying to rationalize courses and programs. Obviously the college system has matured quite significantly over the years. Things seem to be working out these days.

Just one more point I want to raise, then I'll pass things on to my colleagues. Can the ministry advise us as to what the status is, and what relationship does the Open School part of the Open Learning Agency. . . ? How does that fit within his ministry as opposed to K-to-12, particularly with regard to the funding of the Open School, which is a fairly new initiative within Open Learning? I think that it would probably be helpful for us to know where that fits into the post-secondary scheme of things, from the budgetary point of view.

Hon. A. Petter: The responsibility for the funding of that initiative and the program development, etc., would fall within the Ministry of Education. The member might want to raise that with the minister at the time of his estimates.

[1055]

The questions that I have for the minister today revolve firstly around the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission. I would like to ask: with the costs that are associated with this commission, which I understand originally were registration costs -- there is also bonding, and now the plan is for accreditation -- could the minister please detail the costs to small business with regard to all of those items?

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me say that this is the first chance I've had to be asked a question by this member in the House, and I want to say how much I appreciate the chance to respond to her and welcome her, at least in terms of my participation. Let me now go back to the answer.

The registration component is, I think, about $650. The accreditation procedure, which is voluntary, does enable institutions that become accredited to then have their students become eligible for student financial assistance. That is to be done on a cost recovery basis, although I understand that in fact there may not be full cost recovery at the present time. But that was the goal: to try to do it on a cost recovery basis.

[ Page 12547 ]

What the institution have proposed is that we do some kind of pooling arrangement, as is done with travel agencies, in which all the institutions would agree to post a smaller amount and then pool -- essentially an insurance pool. That would mean that each institution would be required to post a lower amount of money, but the amount of protection for students would be as great or greater than it has been in the past, because there would be this pooled fund. We certainly are looking very closely at that proposal. If we can, I hope we'll be in a position to act on that proposal in the near future.

J. Reid: One of the questions that these trainers put to me, which I couldn't readily answer, is the benefit back to them that they were to receive for this money that was required. Certainly we're looking at a supposed benefit to the students. But could the minister clarify what the benefit back to the training facilities is supposed to be?

Hon. A. Petter: I think what the accreditation procedure does is that it provides the institution with credibility. It provides the institution with something that it can, in a sense, market. Along with its programming is the notion that that programming has been accredited and has met certain tests as to quality. It allows the institution, therefore, to represent itself in a much more positive light by virtue of having gone through the accreditation.

But I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the advantage to the institution of having students eligible for student financial assistance. That means, from the institution's point of view, that they are going to be able to attract students more readily and be able to provide programs that are more likely to be taken up by a larger number of students, because those students will in fact receive the support that is provided through these programs. That translates into a pretty substantial benefit in terms of the economics of the institution by virtue of the fact that the students who can attend that institution can derive support from these programs for the tuition that then becomes the revenue that the institution relies upon.

[1100]

Hon. A. Petter: The goal of the accreditation program is somewhat different, I guess, or augments the standards that were required by the federal government in terms of aviation and safety. It is to provide students with assurance concerning the program from an educational perspective. I appreciate the member's point that where there is federal regulatory presence, maybe that can somehow be factored in. I'm not sure, frankly, to what extent the commission is able to take account of that in its evaluation of the program. Having said that, this kind of accreditation does, as I say, provide a substantial benefit in terms of marketing the institution and making the institution accessible to students. It will provide to the institution the member references, if it becomes accredited, a much greater measure of financial assistance to its students and therefore will give it greater security in terms of being able to continue and expand its programs.

I have a small institution in my own constituency which provides training to gardeners -- a horticulture centre. They're going through an accreditation procedure. It's less expensive for a small institution than for a large one, but it's a bit of a burden. But they see it as a very substantial advantage to them in terms of setting themselves apart and in terms of the quality of their programming, which happens to be high. They see it as a benefit in terms of being able to attract students who currently could not afford to take their program, because those students are not eligible for the full range of student financial assistance.

J. Reid: The success of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission -- the goals that they've set out in protecting the students or in improving the quality of institutions. . . . I would like to ask: how is that success being tracked? How is it being determined so that at some point in time, the costs incurred for industry -- and for students who have to absorb the costs of the industry -- or government, which is paying for those costs. . . ? At what point in time will we be able to evaluate the success of this program?

P. Nettleton: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Nettleton: It's a special privilege to have here in the House today a group of students all the way from the village of Tache, from Eugene Joseph Elementary School -- which lies within the Tl'azt'en nation and is just outside of Fort St. James, my hometown. The students are here for a number of days. I understand they're also going to the museum and the IMAX this afternoon. So I hope they have a great time. Please join me in welcoming this great bunch of students all the way from Tache in northern British Columbia.

[1105]

As I understood the member's question, she was asking about the bonding or the funding, which is a different issue

[ Page 12548 ]

Making sure the institutions are keeping that 75 percent level of revenue, which has been taken in but hasn't yet been allocated to programming, has been a challenge. At the same time, some of the institutions have felt that that requires them to tie up too large a share of revenue that they could put into programming. So it seems that the solution to those two problems may lie in some kind of pooling arrangement. We have been working with the commission and with some of the stakeholders to see if there could be a pooling arrangement in which an adequate form of insurance would be provided to better meet and guarantee students who have the unfortunate experience of attending institutions that don't deliver on their commitments for programming and at the same time enable institutions to not have to tie up as much of their funding, by making a smaller contribution to a collective pool. I guess I'll have more to say on that. It's really future policy, so I'm not sure I should be saying anything about it. I'll have more to say on it at a time when we're able to move forward and, I hope, in the near future act on this proposal.

J. Reid: The difficulty in this situation is that we're dealing with some very small businesses as well as dealing with larger institutional-type training facilities. When we put them all together, there's going to be requirements or disadvantages for those very small businesses. With those very small businesses and that aspect of this whole program and with that aspect of the commission, I'm wondering whether the business lens has come into play in reviewing this situation and reviewing the hardships placed on the very small businesses.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to delve into design issues and a matter of future policy. But suffice it to say that I think that small institutions will be perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of this kind of pooling arrangement, because they're often the ones who have the greatest problems in terms of cash flow. If the insurance fund were established on the principle that their contribution was prorated according to the number of students that they had -- which I think is what is likely to be contemplated -- they might be well able to provide the measure of assurance that government and the commission would require to protect their students, without having to tie up as much in the way of contribution or bond as they currently now do.

The idea is, in fact, to provide some relief to the institutions and some benefit to the students through pooling. My guess would be that the major beneficiaries of that arrangement would be the smaller institutions, who are probably having the most difficulty in terms of meeting the current requirements while continuing operations.

J. Reid: Do I take it, then, that this hasn't gone through the business lens viewing? Would that be a correct assumption?

[1110]

J. Reid: Another situation arose during this conversation with these trainers that seems rather unique but has implications for institutions. That is where an institution was providing training, where the individual was receiving training dollars directly and then was supposed to pay the tuition fee to the small training facility. Those dollars were coming from HRDC. What happened was that before this person received their dollars, the cheque went from HRDC and the dollars were intercepted by the family maintenance enforcement program. Upon investigation, the school found that it could submit a letter to the program for the release of those fees for tuition, except that only 75 percent of the fees was released and 25 percent was held. This places the school in a very difficult position of having to offer 75 percent of the training or else the student doesn't graduate, or else the training facility has to somehow cover those financial costs. In this situation I'm wondering what advice the minister would offer to the training facility in order to deal with this holdback of funds.

Hon. A. Petter: It's an issue I'm not familiar with. From the member's question, it sounds like it deals with federal dollars -- HRDC dollars. The policy of the family maintenance enforcement program is, I believe, administered through the Attorney General ministry, and she may want to raise it with the Attorney General. It has to do more with policies around how family maintenance enforcement protects the interests of those who are beneficiaries of maintenance orders and how that interacts with the federal program. I try to answer all questions, but this one's too far on both sides for me.

J. Reid: I appreciate that it's an unusual question, but it does have implications for training facilities, because I understand that this is policy. So a training facility then is placed in this difficult position. It doesn't matter where the dollars came from; they're gone. It doesn't matter what the programs are; the programs are in place. The training facility now is left to deal with the problem -- with receiving 75 percent of the tuition and having to offer a full course. Is there any help through the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission to offer any counselling back to training institutions? In this case, where should training institutions go for any counselling to resolve this kind of situation?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: My advice would be that I would encourage training institutions -- through their association or individually, but certainly through their association -- to

[ Page 12549 ]

J. Reid: Perhaps, now that the minister is aware of this situation, he could also take it into consideration in his own dealings with the ministries.

[1115]

Hon. A. Petter: What I'd suggest is that if the member wants to put in writing the concerns that she's raised with me, I'd be happy to act as a conduit and forward it through to the Attorney General ministry for resolution, although I must say that it sounds to me like the concern is one that is not unique to training institutions but to any situation in which businesses may be expecting to be paid and there may be the intercession of family maintenance enforcement on revenue that was anticipated by a business. It sounds to me like it relates to a larger, more generic problem that is outside my ken -- not outside my concern, but outside my ken. But I'm happy to act as a conduit between the institutions and the ministry concerned if the member thinks that would be helpful. My advice might be that there are often too many conduits and that maybe she would like to communicate the concern directly to the family maintenance enforcement people. But if she feels I can be helpful, I will be helpful.

J. Weisbeck: Yesterday we had an interesting discussion on flexibility and demographics. Part of the whole flexibility thing is being able to be proactive, and we have a classic example here in this province. We find ourselves in the position of having to go out and advertise, spending $200,000 to try to entice some nurses to our province. Obviously we have the facilities to train people. What sort of things are we doing to be a bit more proactive?

We know, for example, that our population is aging; we know that this is not just a short-term situation.We know that the need for nurses is going to continue over the next ten or whatever. . . . But here we are in a shortfall. Could the minister please respond and explain to me why this province hasn't been more proactive in some of our training programs?

Hon. A. Petter: There's always a balance that has to be struck here between government providing leadership, in terms of meeting certain needs, and trying to encourage or facilitate the institutions in doing so without compromising their own ability to set their programs through their boards or, in the case of universities, of course, through the senates and their policies.

Having said that, I think it's fair to say that the government has tried, in a positive way, to be proactive. Nursing is an area in which that would be the case. I understand that UVic has a collaborative set of programs with colleges to deliver nursing. The new university in Prince George provides a nursing program. Many colleges are starting to develop their own nursing programs, and I know that the Ministry of Health is certainly working closely with the college of nurses and with the institutions, along with my ministry, to try to identify training needs in order to ensure that those needs are met.

We've also, of course, done the same in respect of high-tech spaces, because we know there's a shortage of skilled workers in certain areas of high-tech. It's frustrating to me, and I'm sure it is to the member, that here we see all these jobs that are available and these students who need them, and we want to make sure that the two problems become a single solution -- if I can put it that way. We have -- and it hasn't been without controversy with the institutions, I might add -- targeted 700 spaces in this year's FTE complement to high-tech spaces -- almost a quarter of the total of new FTEs for students. Last year it was 500, so that's 1,200 new positions in the college and university system for high-tech training, because we want to be proactive. We want to say to the institutions: "Okay. There's a need out here; it's been identified. We want to challenge you to fulfil it, and we have some spaces to do the same."

[1120]

But one wants to be careful here; one wants to use carrots more than sticks. One wants to have institutions have the flexibility to meet these needs -- and to meet them with programming that is of high quality. In my view, collaboration and cooperation are the watchwords here, and we're working very hard with institutions to encourage them to be proactive, to provide a little guidance along the way -- I've given some examples -- and to provide some carrots, more than sticks, in terms of institutions that meet identified needs.

Another example we talked about earlier in debate is the quick-response FTEs, where there's clearly a need, in certain communities that are suffering economically, to have specific training programs targeted to individuals whose jobs may be lost or whose jobs may be in danger without further training. We've created 100 of those spaces as well.

J. Weisbeck: I didn't quite get the answer I was looking for. I was wondering whether or not you had created any incentives at all for universities to look after this nursing shortfall.

Hon. A. Petter: I think what happens is that in the context of discussions between the institutions and the ministry, the institutions identify their needs based on the demand that's out there, and then we provide funding, as best we can, to meet those needs. In the interplay of that discussion, yes, there's certainly been an awareness of the fact that there is a need to train more nurses. The allocation of student FTEs to the institutions reflects that need, along with others. It's one of the reasons why we're seeing these institutions now able to increase their programming, to try to enhance programming in the area of nursing in the ways that I already described.

[ Page 12550 ]

Hon. A. Petter: We haven't targeted FTEs to nursing in the way that we did with high-tech FTEs. But I think that it's fair to say that some of the demand for spaces by various institutions reflects the fact that those institutions themselves see the need and wish to respond to it, and we're seeking spaces in order to accommodate that.

So no, it's not a case where the province has said: "Okay, we want to see so many additional nursing FTEs." As I say, one has to be careful when doing that. Institutions have a strong sense of their own mission, their role and their ability to respond to the community. I don't hesitate to talk to them about those needs and, where necessary, to provide some further direction, but I do believe that carrots and inducements are better than sticks and efforts to regulate -- those kinds of responses. I think that we see, through the kind of program that UVic is bringing about and some of the new nursing programs that are emerging at the college level, that in fact the institutions themselves are responding. And because we are adding a large complement of new student FTEs, they have the capacity to meet those needs.

J. Weisbeck: My concern is. . . . I guess it happened a short while ago with this year 2000 problem, when we saw that there was going to be a need out there. I don't think we acted very proactively, in the sense that I think we had one course going at Camosun to train 24 students to work with the Y2K problem.

I just think we have an opportunity to look out there and to. . . . Nursing and high-tech are not the only two fields out there. I think, as we emphasized yesterday, that when you start working with the demographics of this province. . . . Our population is changing, and I think that we should certainly take that into consideration when we start looking at training programs.

Last year I brought up the concern about libraries. We did quite an extensive little study, calling all the various librarians across the province. They obviously had a number of issues. I just want to know whether the ministry has responded to any of these concerns and what the sort of current status of libraries is in this province -- that is, university and college libraries.

[1125]

Normally, libraries, along with other elements of institutions, are funded out of base budget. But because of this very specific expansion of mandate, we did provide additional funding to accommodate the increase in library resources at Malaspina University College, Okanagan University College and University College of the Cariboo. I think it was a $2 million allocation.

That allocation was to end at the end of the last fiscal year. The institutions came to us and said that they accepted the fact that the allocation would not continue. On the other hand, they felt that for it to simply terminate would put an undue burden on them, and they said that they would like some chance to be able to phase out of that targeted funding. We went back, we considered the matter, and we responded by providing an additional $1 million this year towards library resources, which has been distributed amongst Cariboo, Malaspina, Okanagan and Kwantlen colleges. I must say that I met with the university college presidents. At the time, we let them know of that decision, and they seemed very pleased that recognition had been given, and I'm glad we were able to recognize the need and respond to it in that way.

J. Weisbeck: There's been some concern over central services. Some people feel that it's a very large draw on resources. I wonder if you could just comment on the various central services.

Hon. A. Petter: We're just struggling over here as to exactly what the member means by central services. Maybe he could define that for me.

J. Weisbeck: One of them is central marketing. There's a number of other ones. I'd like to have the full list; I just know of a couple of them. C2T2 -- is that. . . ? Yeah, that's the second one. I think there are a number of other ones as well.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll read a list of agencies that do provide support. The Centre for Education Information Standards and Services, or CEISS, the Centre for Curriculum Transfer and Technology, the Contract Training and Marketing Society, the Post-Secondary Employers Association, the B.C. Council on Admissions and Transfer, and Commonwealth of Learning are all, I guess, things you might describe as central agencies or central services. The major ones, I think, are CEISS and the Centre for Curriculum Transfer and Technology.

In both of those cases the budgets were cut by half a million dollars in this year, so that we could provide more resources to the institutions by asking for efficiencies from those institutions. Having said that, they do provide very important services -- CEISS, for example, in terms of support for the institutions in terms of their administration and technology, and in the case of the Centre for Curriculum Transfer and Technology, support in respect of those matters. But their budgets have been cut in recognition of the fact that if we are going to allocate scarce resources, we want to allocate more to the institutions. Therefore we asked these institutions to pare back.

In addition, there is the question of contract training and marketing; I believe there is a budget allocation in respect of that as well, as the member indicated.

[1130]

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that the reason the program wasn't transferred to Tech B.C. is that it doesn't fall

[ Page 12551 ]

J. Weisbeck: I guess the concern by the gentleman who wrote this letter was that they're unable to secure mainstream funding for this program, so in light of that, they are probably going to end up losing the program. I wonder if you'd comment on that.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, that's a decision of the board of UBC. Tech B.C. is not there to be the repository of programs that the board of UBC chooses not to fund. It's there to fulfil its mandate.

J. Weisbeck: I'd just like to move on to skills centres. This discussion was prompted by a concern of some of the rural colleges that the community skills centres were competing with them. So I'm going to be referring to two documents. One of them is "Community Skills Centres of British Columbia in Review," and this is obviously put out by the skills centres. Basically it talks about a number of concerns they have. One is on policy clarification. They appear to fall sort of in the crack between public post-secondary and private post-secondary. Their second concern is about core funding. Obviously their mandate initially was that over five years they would become independent, but now they're, of course, asking for a commitment of $200,000 per year. The third concern is that they would be able to still have access to matching program funds.

The second document. . . . First of all, I want to ask one thing: who are they accountable to at this point in time? I said that they seem to be falling in the cracks -- in between these two institutions. Who are they accountable to at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, they're accountable to their boards. In respect of provincial moneys that are provided to them, they're accountable to the province to ensure that they dispense with those moneys in a manner that's consistent with the conditions that are attached to those fundings. But I think the simpler answer is that as institutions they're accountable to their own boards.

J. Weisbeck: The second document I'm referring to is the "1998-99 Community Skills Centres Policy Review Report." It's a draft copy from a committee that was put together to look at the concerns of the community skills centres. This report looks at some of the strengths of these facilities as well as some of the challenges that they currently face. One of the concerns basically was that the post-secondary system was concerned with. . . . There are a couple of things: overlap and duplication, their financial viability and their accountability to government. Apparently what has happened in a lot of situations is that the CSCs have moved away from their original mandate of brokering into actually delivering programs. I know that. . . . I was speaking to a couple of outlying presidents. They're very concerned about that, because obviously they're competing for the same students.

[1135]

We've talked about two options here: one to move to the right to be independent and, secondly, one to move into the college system. But what about having the option of moving into private post-secondary? Has that been considered as an option?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, let me say. . . . I'm curious as to whether that would be the member's recommendation -- to wind down the community skills centres and have them replaced by private post-secondary institutions.

J. Weisbeck: Absolutely not. No, I'm not suggesting that they wind down. I'm just saying that this is one of the suggestions that is offered in this draft report. I'm certainly not suggesting that. I'm just trying to think of how we keep them viable, how we resolve those concerns of the post-secondary institutions out there who feel they are having to compete with these particular institutions. Obviously they have extended beyond their mandate at this point.

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for clarifying that. I was about to jump up and down.

The community skills centres were established because there was, I think, a perceived need -- and a real need -- in many communities that was not being addressed either by private institutions or by the colleges or indeed by the school boards in those various communities. The community skills centres provided a forum for trying to deal with some of those skills needs and to try to broker training, as the member says, and ensure that those training opportunities were provided. They were funded on a time-limited basis and, of course, in many -- or in most -- of their cases that funding has come close to its conclusion.

The question now is what happens with those centres into the future. I think the experience with community skills centres has been various. It's been different in different communities. In some communities, the centres have become hugely important parts of the community training system. In some communities they have become closely aligned with colleges, in some communities closely aligned with school boards, and in some communities with both. In some communities, they have retained some degree of autonomy. The question is: how do we maintain the positive and the dynamism and the energy that these centres have generated? At the same time, how do we integrate them into the larger picture of training facilities in the province?

That's what the report that the member refers to is designed to help us to decide. That report has gone back to the

[ Page 12552 ]

It seems to me that the goal of government right now -- and I'd be very happy to hear the member's suggestions as to how we do this -- is to look at these centres and try to work with them in maintaining their role within communities and strengthening that role, but in a way that is affordable and is not duplicative of other institutions. My personal view is that that means we're going to have to accept that the responses will be different in different communities. In some communities, the relationship with colleges works well; in some communities, it doesn't. In some communities, the ability of skills centres to broker programs is successful; in other communities, it may be less so.

I think it's going to be a matter of working through with the centres themselves -- with the excellent work that's been done by Mr. Heywood in respect of the report that he is in the process of developing on an interim basis with us and with the skills centres -- to, hopefully, come to some decisions that will maintain the skills centres, but on a basis that, as I say, doesn't duplicate other institutions, carries forward on the mandate that they have, captures the success and projects that into the future.

[1140]

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to pre-empt the outcome of this process, but certainly my inclination is to look at this on a community-by-community basis, in the sense that, frankly, I am impressed at how different the skills centres are around the province and how, for the most part, those differences are reflective of local priorities and needs. I agree with the member. One size does not fit all. So I will be looking at the report and at the future of skills centres with a clear understanding of those differences in mind.

J. Weisbeck: The other day, there were a few student questions I was asking. For the rest of this morning, I think I'll just continue with these until the break.

The second question I asked was from Jennifer Burnett. I didn't feel as though I got a very good answer. She was talking about larger class sizes. I think this is fairly apparent across a number of institutions -- that as the dollars are decreased, the class sizes are larger. Also, of course, programs are disappearing. I don't think I got an answer on that point.

Hon. A. Petter: I think that the answer I gave yesterday related to the fact that we have increased funding at the same time as keeping tuition levels down, but let me enlarge on that a little bit. There's no question that some of the institutions have been under pressure in terms of class size and efficiencies. The reason for that relates back to the decisions of the federal government three or four years ago to reduce substantially the funding they provided to post-secondary education. In this province, that reduction, I believe -- on an annual basis -- equates to about $100 million, a very substantial amount indeed, which I know the post-secondary institutions would be very happy to get back. I may say that I think the time has come for the federal government, having now made some moves to restore health care funding, to restore the post-secondary education funding that they cut. Perhaps in this coming year we can help to draw that need to their attention and have them restore some of that funding.

Having said that, different provinces respond to those cuts in different ways. Some provinces respond to those cuts by passing them through to the institutions, and the institutions pay a huge price for that. In this province we took a different course. In this province we said to the institutions: "We have a growing demand by students for programs. That demand won't go away. If we don't pass through the cuts from the federal government -- if we replace that $100 million by cutting elsewhere and by transferring it over to post-secondary education -- and save you and keep you whole from those federal policies, will you agree to continue to meet the demand over that two-year period of cuts?" They said they would.

We as a government incurred incredible pressure in terms of cutting elsewhere and transferring to the post-secondary budget to make up for those cuts. The institutions played their part by transferring resources and doing various institutional rearrangements. Those included, in some cases, increasing class size in order to accommodate the pressure for additional students, on the understanding that they would not incur the cuts that were being visited on institutions in other provinces and that the federal government had visited upon this province but we were not passing through. For two years there was this period.

In the last two years -- last year's budget and this -- we've now reverted to restoring funding, in the sense that every new student that gets added to the system gets full funding. Full funding, as I mentioned yesterday, is less than the actual cost of the increment of that student, so that full funding helps the institution meet additional needs. We've also added a component to funding to recognize the cost of living, because we're telling institutions not to increase tuition.

I think some of the enlargement in class size, and the difficulties, were a direct price that was paid by the institutions and by British Columbians for the reduction in federal dollars. But it was a much better price than the price that was paid, in my view, by other provinces that passed those cuts through, where we saw actual reductions in the numbers of students and increases in class size at the same time.

[1145]

[ Page 12553 ]

J. Weisbeck: This is from Frank Costa, also from the University of Victoria.

"My first question to Mr. Petter is also about classroom spaces. How are the 2,200 -- 2,900 minus 700 -- spaces supposed to help students, when these spaces will not even increase class space by one student per class in all universities and colleges across B.C.? Despite the supposed creation of 16,000 new spaces since 1996, students are still seeing long wait-lists, classes that are cancelled and entire portions of departments phased out -- for example, the public administration courses in the department of political science at UVic.

"This government has increased the number of students in attendance, forced institutions to lower their base admission standard and frozen tuition fees, while maintaining the same amount of funding as in previous years for fewer students.

"My question is with regards to standards. What kind of standard is being maintained in B.C.'s advanced education system under this regime? Some students have been forced to remain in school for an extra year because of the wait-lists, which inevitably increases their debt load. How is the tuition freeze going to help the next generation of students in the long run?"

But if the student is suggesting that institutions are only worthy if they are elitist, if they exclude those students who want to get in to get education, I categorically reject that vision of education. That may be a vision which is acceptable in other provinces. Regrettably, they are elitist, based on one's ability to pay, not on one's academic standing. But in this province we believe -- and I think most parents and kids in this province believe -- that education is not something that should be a market commodity that's only available to the few who can pay. Nor is it a commodity that should only be available to those who, because of their home environment and background, happen to be privileged enough to have already demonstrated a degree of excellence that others could demonstrate if only they were given the chance -- but they haven't been given that chance. We believe in a universal vision of post-secondary education -- that we should not have a society of haves and have-nots based on lack of access to either academic or other post-secondary training.

I invite this student to compare this province's record to any other province in terms of standards, participation rates and tuition access and to judge the commitment that this government has made against that of any other government. I'm confident that any fair measure will show that we are indeed established as the education province in this country, not just in the public's mind but by virtue of the statistics, the facts and the experience -- although I will give credit to Quebec, which has a long history of making commitments and investments in education as well and which has also resisted much of the tide that has been running in the other direction elsewhere in the country.

Hon. Chair, with an eye on the clock and on my friend's finger which is pointed at the clock, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[1150]

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. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:13 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY

L. Stephens: Is the minister going to make an opening statement?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality for 1999-2000. Before I begin, I would like to introduce the staff members from my ministry who are here with me.

I have my deputy minister, Val Mitchell; my assistant deputy minister, Linda Martin; and the director of finance, Scott Seivewright. As well as the staff who are with me today, I would like to recognize the dedicated work of my ministry staff, my ministry employees, who know that the mandate of this ministry is one of social change and who are very committed to that mandate. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the women and men in communities throughout B.C. who support the work of this ministry. They really are the leaders of this change, and everything we do is a result of the work being done for us.

[1015]

[ Page 12554 ]

Our mission is to make a positive difference in women's lives. In 1999-2000 our goals include: working for a safer, violence-free future for women; supporting initiatives to build economic equality and economic security for women; and promoting women-centred health care. We will meet these three goals through three strategies. One is through the delivery of programs and services to address violence against women. Another is through our work with other ministries and agencies and through public education initiatives.

Today, in preparation for our debate, I will briefly review what we have done in our Stopping the Violence program -- the area that consumes most of my budget. I will also review the work we expect to do in the coming year.

The vast majority of the ministry's budget is dedicated to supporting those who are breaking the cycle of abuse, through programs for women and children who are leaving violent and abusive relationships. Last year, more than 15,000 women and children were directly served by transition house programs and services -- and it's very unfortunate that that number would be there.

Through memorandums of understanding, we help fund assaultive men's programs, programs to address aboriginal family violence and sexual assault centres. We form new partnerships with individuals, agencies and communities, and together we introduced a range of strategies for taking action on changing the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that allow violence to continue.

The two symposiums on violence prevention that we held last year led to several prevention-focused partnerships throughout the province and resulted in three new initiatives for my ministry. The first initiative is the violence prevention pipeline. The pipeline, which is on the ministry's web site, provides information on prevention projects throughout B.C. It also includes links to other prevention programs in Canada and in other countries. Individuals or groups wanting to start prevention programs can check out this site to find out what other communities are doing and are engaged in.

The second initiative was the building a Safer Future awards program. It was my pleasure to be in partnership with the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses and the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs to develop an awards program. That was a way of recognizing and honouring those who have made a significant contribution to stopping the violence against women. On April 23, we presented 14 women and men -- from youths to seniors -- with awards for their work on building a safer future for B.C. women.

The third initiative was our "Live Violence Free" campaign. Ending violence requires a number of things, including tough laws, strong enforcement and a commitment to change the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours that allow violence against women to continue. In January we launched our ten-year "Live Violence Free" campaign, in partnership with the B.C. Association of Broadcasters. This call to action has been supported by television and radio stations, which are donating $50 million in public service air time, as well as by newspapers and volunteers. Individuals and groups have given of their time, talent and skills to help change our beliefs and build safer communities throughout B.C.

[1020]

In the next year, my ministry will continue to work in partnership with communities and other ministries to address our mandate. In 1999-2000 my ministry will spend $31.4 million, or 83 percent of our budget, on violence-related services. The remaining funds are dedicated to our cross-government work on the issues of violence, economic equality and women-centred health services. Under our prevention-of-violence-against-women mandate, we will continue to work with the Ministry of Attorney General to ensure that the reality of women's experience of violence is reflected in their programs and policies by supporting sexual assault centres and community-based assaultive men's intervention programs; maintaining our presence on the VAWIR -- or Violence Against Women In Relationships -- policy committee and the wife-assault coordinating committee; and retaining active involvement on the RCMP-led committee on training for response to wife assault and criminal harassment.

We will continue our partnership with the Ministry of Education on violence prevention by expanding the "Live Violence Free" information kit into schools and developing sexual assault information for senior secondary schools. We will be working with the Workers Compensation Board and the Ministry of Labour on a three-year project to develop policies and information material on sexual harassment and workplace violence. Each of the points I have just mentioned is simply a highlight of the work we are doing in the area of violence prevention.

Some of our initiatives for economic equality for the year 1999-2000 include continuing to advocate for equity participation in a number of areas, including major highway construction projects; providing advice to the Ministry of Labour on programs or legislative initiatives, particularly as they affect immigrant women and domestic workers; and our agreement with the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture to increase women's access to business startup information.

Within the ministry, we are looking at the financial information needs of senior women and considering a public education project to inform them of their financial rights -- and that's being done with the Ministry of Finance. We are planning work with the Human Rights Commission to research implications of issues related to retirement income for women.

We are collaborating with the Ministry of Advanced Education to examine communication opportunities for attracting more women into high technology programs. We'll continue our work with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission to increase awareness and opportunities for women in non-traditional trades, and we'll be exploring part-

[ Page 12555 ]

[1025]

Health care, our third pillar, has traditionally been structured to reflect men's health needs. In fact, there has been little attention paid to the medical issues that women face, and that's why we have been working with the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health and the women's health bureau. But our health emphasis for 1999-2000 will be educating women on health issues and developing a public education information strategy for increasing acceptance of diverse body types and continuing to advocate for protection of women's reproductive rights -- and we will continue to protect abortion service providers. We will be identifying the health issues that women face as a result of violence.

Before I close, I would like to just mention one more very significant partnership -- one that recognizes the connections between social policies and women's lives across Canada. As a member of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women, I carry a responsibility to share our knowledge, our strength and our resources -- and likewise that is done with us. I'm proud to say that during the last fiscal year, B.C.'s "Money Smarts for Young Women" package was reproduced and used in a number of other provinces in Canada. Last year, the province of Manitoba released a "Keeping Safe" pamphlet for women that was based on our "Keeping Women at Work Safe" materials. So we do a lot of collaboration.

We have set a standard for public education on women's issues, and we will, in 1999-2000, be taking the lead on three new federal-provincial-territorial projects: stalking, an economic equality framework and the Canada Pension Plan reforms.

There's one additional point I would like to make, and that is on how well my ministry has managed its fiscal responsibilities. Last year we worked with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to consolidate our human resources and information systems branches. This consolidation, in conjunction with many other cost-saving initiatives, has resulted in a 24 percent reduction in operating costs since the 1996-97 fiscal year, which in turn allowed us to increase our program contributions.

In closing, I want to reaffirm my commitment to expanding our partnerships with communities, ministries and my federal and municipal colleagues. Working together to ensure that women's rights are enhanced and protected from the backlash that results from the shifting balance of power towards equality is a goal.

I look forward to this debate of our estimates, and we'd be pleased to answer your questions.

L. Stephens: I want to thank the minister for her opening remarks and to welcome the staff that are here to help us through this. I want to say that I appreciate very much the briefing that I received. It was very comprehensive, and I think we should probably move through the estimates in a rather organized and timely fashion, because a lot of the issues around numbers that we sometimes spend a lot of time dealing with. . . . That's not going to be necessary to do at this point in time.

[1030]

The economic concerns and opportunities that the minister talked about. . . . There are concerns about jobs and unemployment, job security and taxes and the provincial economy in general. In the conversations that I have with people around the province, and in talking with women specifically. . . . When they talk about economic opportunities, they're talking about post-secondary education and skills training. These areas are important for women as well, so I'd like the minister. . . . We will be talking about this a little bit later, to find out whether or not the minister has been talking with her cabinet colleagues about providing some of these kinds of opportunities for women.

Access to health care is probably number two on the list for women -- that I have been able to ascertain. For them, the issue is funding of the health care system and whether or not a better management of existing funds is the problem. The stress on caregivers is another huge problem for women in the health care sector. Women are usually the ones that are left at home to care for either their children or their aging spouse, and the regionalization of health care has continued to add to that burden for women.

The community social services to women and children and seniors is another high priority area that the government needs to address. Of course, the personal safety and the legal and justice issues, including family law and custody and access, continue to be an ongoing problem for a great many women in the province here.

Those are some of the areas that we're going to talk about. We're going to talk about the federal-provincial-territorial initiatives that the minister mentioned and see whether or not there aren't some other areas that the minister needs to have a certain level of involvement in. But we are going to go through pretty much as the briefing is laid out here. We're going start with the programs delivered directly by the ministry, and the transition house programs are at the top of the list. As the minister said, the Stopping the Violence initiatives make up 83 percent of her budget, to the tune of $31.4 million.

In the transition house area, first of all, there are a couple of perhaps broad parameters that we need to establish. So I'd like to just ask the minister: how many transition house beds are available in the province today, and how many women and children were served in those transition beds last year?

Hon. S. Hammell: While we are getting the detail on the number of beds, let me put it in context for you. In 1991, when we came in, the transition. . . . I'll go through transition houses, safe homes and second-stage houses. Those three

[ Page 12556 ]

[1035]

Hon. S. Hammell: Oh, it's 647.

L. Stephens: I want to talk a little bit about some of the difficulties and some of the funding issues around the transition houses. But I think what I'll do first is talk about what some of the changes are that are happening today in the transition houses, and some of the difficulties that they're facing. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. I know she's familiar with what is happening out there. The Community Social Services Employers Association and the unions are trying to negotiate an agreement here, and I've received a number of faxes from transition houses that are very concerned about being able to provide the service that's required of them.

I wonder if the minister would perhaps give me an indication of how many houses are being affected around the province. How many do we have closed? I'm aware that we have closed four. Maple Ridge, the two Surrey houses and Burns Lake have closed, and I've heard that Nelson is closing or has closed and that Kamloops was closed and now they're open. What's the status of these transition houses that are trying to provide this service?

Hon. S. Hammell: Of the 62 transition houses that are out there, 13 of those are unionized and therefore involved in the negotiations. But there is a backup in whatever community you're in, and there always has been a backup. For example, when I spent a fair amount of time. . . . I think it was actually early spring -- sometimes time blurs, right? I spent two days in particular in the lower mainland visiting the transition houses and talking to the people, learning how they dealt with some of the issues that may come up sporadically.

One issue obviously was: what if a house is full? What do you do then? They actually have quite a sophisticated network that they work within themselves, of moving. . . . If one house is full, then they move them to a. . . . They transfer the call or the information to the next nearest house. They work as a team, which is really reassuring. I mean, if one house continued to be full all the time, then you would say: "I'm sorry, you can't. . . ." You know, there's no room to help. But with other houses that aren't full. . . . It would be tragic. So they have this fairly sophisticated system.

When all else fails, there's a backup system through the Human Resources ministry to move to safe placements in a motel or some other place. So although there is some change going on and there are some houses that are down, people are working to meet the needs of women, regardless, through looking after each other.

[1040]

Hon. S. Hammell: In the community social services sector, wages for front-line staff -- i.e., residential workers -- have increased from about $10 in 1991 to $14.45 an hour in 1998. That's an increase of about 44.5 percent. Negotiations are currently underway, which we all know. The result of those negotiations will determine our behaviour in the future.

L. Stephens: How involved is the minister in those kinds of negotiations? This is an issue that really does impact on the whole raison d'être for this particular ministry. As we all know, the wage gap and the equity issues for women in particular -- but not just exclusively for women, in this particular sector -- are of a serious nature. So how involved is the ministry or the minister in these particular negotiations, to try and resolve some of these issues?

Hon. S. Hammell: I sit on the Public Sector Employers Council, and my deputy sits on CSSEA.

L. Stephens: So the minister would have ongoing information on what is happening in the sector and is aware of what the issues are and the bargaining and all of that sort of thing. It was unfortunate that the bargaining negotiations broke off, but it is good news that they are back at the bargaining table as of yesterday. This has been going on for quite some time -- since 1997, I believe -- and there's still not any resolution. The issue, from what people are telling me. . . . I know that all of us are getting faxes and letters and phone calls at our constituency offices from individuals in the community services sector, whether they're in transition houses or community living or child centres -- or anyone from the Children and Families side. And it's always the same thing, always the same question. It's always about the equity issues. People living downtown and working downtown in an agency are paid $15 or $16 an hour, and somebody out in the valley or up in the Okanagan is getting $13 for doing exactly the same job.

[1045]

[ Page 12557 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: I hear the concern, and I share those concerns with the member opposite, but I will not be commenting on the bargaining process. It is underway. My comments are: I wish them all well, and I am anticipating and am hopeful for a settlement.

L. Stephens: I want to reiterate to the minister in the strongest terms possible that, again, there were promises made and expectations expressed. That segment of our society that is the least able to defend themselves or to advocate for themselves finds that. . . . Through forces beyond their control, a large percentage of these individuals' lives are being severely disrupted -- not just the workers in this sector but also the people they serve. I want to say to the minister that from my perspective -- and from that of ministry responsibilities, which I'm sure we will be bringing forward in the estimates of other ministries that are responsible for the other parts of this group of people within this sector -- this does need to be resolved as quickly as possible. I want to encourage the minister to do everything in her power to make sure that in fact people are treated equitably and fairly.

With those words on that subject, we will move on and talk about funding generally to the transition houses. I ask the minister whether or not there is a formula. What I've heard is that. . . . People in the transition houses are telling me that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason as to how these transition houses are funded -- that it's just who you know, what you know, whether or not you get your request in early or if there's someone there who can advocate for you. As the minister knows, there's an awful lot of requests for funding. Is there some kind of formula or some kind of process that people can go through to be sure that their requests are not open to the whims of the regional directors or the ministry itself?

Hon. S. Hammell: It has nothing to do with who you are and where you are; it has more to do with time and how you came to a place. We inherited -- and I think we've gone through this in other estimates debates -- the transition houses from Social Services and Health; they all gravitated to this ministry. They came from where they were and how they were funded, so we have, over time, been trying to rationalize that. Part of that process has been having the system where you collect more information -- you're able to see where pressures are and respond to some pressures. Some of the differences are in terms of wages; some are in terms of costs. It is in fact not formula-driven in a very clear and scientific way. What it is is that we have inherited the houses, and we have added some houses. We are, within our limited resources, trying to move on to a system that is more rational.

[1050]

Hon. S. Hammell: In 1993.

L. Stephens: In 1993 the ministry inherited these transition houses. This is 1999, and it seems to me that this is not a new problem that has befallen the ministry. So I'd like to know why this wasn't done sooner and what is in progress to address this particular issue.

Hon. S. Hammell: It is being done -- perhaps not as quickly as we'd all like, but there is more rationale being applied to the system -- and we will have some ability to respond this year in terms of that issue. We're working on it, and we will continue to do that.

L. Stephens: What I'm asking for are the specifics. I'm told by the transition houses that there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how the funding is allocated and that they believe that there should be a formula of some kind to be able to access this funding -- keeping in mind that there are variations in the regions around the province. It's certainly more expensive to do business in the north. Their costs just for transportation, heating, telephone and all that sort of thing are much higher than they are down here. So, again, I'd like to ask the minister what the specifics are that she's looking at or has decided. . . . I would suspect -- I would hope -- that some decisions have been made as to how your ministry is going to work through these funding allocations. Would the minister comment on some of the specifics?

Hon. S. Hammell: I shouldn't leave the impression that there is no rhyme or reason -- I mean, I do want to be clear. The transition houses were funded originally by other ministries. They gravitated to us, and we've picked them up from where they were. I think most transition houses would want more money. Many of them are involved in fundraising to supplement activities within the house. But when we allocate new funding or open up a new house, we consider the level of staffing, the number of beds, the actual costs in terms of servicing that house, and other sources of revenue. We consider wages and a potpourri of issues that end up making our decision on how much that house will get. In the meantime, we have the MIS system. It indicates to us where there may be extra pressure, and we are then able to respond on need as well as on formula.

L. Stephens: There isn't an overall picture of the transition houses. It appears to me that it is still a one-on-one. A transition house comes and says: "This is the staffing I have. These are the beds that I have. These are the services I provide. I want this much money." Would the minister comment on whether or not the transition houses. . . ?

I know the reporting. I know that the transition houses do reporting through their MIS systems. Are there business plans that the transition houses provide -- the safe homes and the second-stage housing -- to lay out exactly what they do and what their funding requirements and proposals for services are for the coming year? Is there some kind of comprehensive business planning with the transition houses so that they in fact are able to plan their operations and the ministry is able to plan its funding priorities, so that people aren't feeling that it's so unorganized and disorganized that there's no rhyme or reason or that it's at the whim of whoever takes the application or whoever they speak to in the ministry?

[1055]

[ Page 12558 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: There's a very comprehensive contract that is renewed each year with the transition houses. We have also gone through a process of implementation of standards around the transition houses. But the key driver, in terms of funding, is need. So you have the contract, you have the projections, you have the past history, and you have what amount of money is brought forward from the ministry. It's a very standard process that we go through. It's not ad hoc, nor is it at anyone's whim. There's a standard contract, and that's how it's produced.

L. Stephens: There are the contracts, and there has been ongoing contract reform. First of all, is that process complete? Is the contract-reform process complete?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, it is.

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell the committee how many contracts the ministry holds?

Hon. S. Hammell: For transition houses, there are 86.

L. Stephens: Is there X percent for these contracts per year? Are they three-year rolling contracts? Do they have to come back for contract funding every year, or do they have it for a two- or three- or four-year period?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have completed contract reform, and we are now piloting five houses with a three-year contract.

L. Stephens: And these three-year contracts, I would presume, include a wide range of terms and conditions. Do these contracts include a core funding amount, perhaps divided into operational and service delivery?

Hon. S. Hammell: Contract reform emphasizes organizational capacity, service quality, performance measure and service outcomes. It also emphasizes financial management, reporting and audit, monitoring for quality insurance and service outcomes, and external program evaluation every three years. If you want a copy of the contract, I'd be happy to get it to you.

L. Stephens: The issue here is core funding and project funding. What many of the houses are telling me is that it's very difficult to get operational funding -- core funding -- and the ministry prefers now to do project funding, which is just to fund projects. Would the minister clarify that, please?

Hon. S. Hammell: All the transition. . . . Let me help make sure that this is really clear. The transition houses have core funding. Core funding is the contracted amount of money they get for the service they provide; that is not project money. Project money would be in A Safer Future for B.C. Women, where you take on a prevention program that may do work with your community around preventing violence. You can do that. A transition house can take on a prevention program, but it has absolutely no impact on their core funding.

[1100]

L. Stephens: I'm just going to read a little bit. This is from the Nelson and District Women's Centre. There's a long list of cc's here, so I know that the ministry has received a copy of this. This is not unusual. I have a whole stack of faxes and letters here from transition houses around the province, and they all say the same thing -- that is, the lack of adequate funding for the women's centres in British Columbia.

They talk about the forced closure of the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre and that some of the regional coordinators believe that only a few of these centres are experiencing difficulty. She goes on to say: "Virtually every women's centre experiences some level of financial constraint at all times. All women's centre staff we've ever spoken to put in unpaid hours simply to complete the work that needs to be done." She says later: "This is. . .the kind of 'pink-collar ghetto' we as feminists are working to eliminate." Now they find themselves in that pink-collar ghetto. Is there any review being conducted by the ministry of the core funding levels for the women's centres and the women's transition houses around the province?

Hon. S. Hammell: I think it's really important that we understand the difference between a women's centre and a transition house. They are not the same at all. What you are talking about is women's centres, and they are not transition houses. Women's centres serve women in the community, but they do not have beds. They are not for women fleeing abusive relationships. The transition house is a place where women can actually find refuge, and it's a safe place where they can go when fleeing an abusive relationship.

A women's centre is usually open during the day and is serving the community of women, and often their focus is equality around economic issues. The Kamloops Women's Resource Centre has reopened. They ran into a cash flow problem, largely based on some kind of confusion around the money they were receiving from the Lottery Corporation -- or the casino corporation. Anyway, we worked with them. I think the centre was closed for about a week, but we worked with them and got it up and running again.

We core-fund women's centres. The federal government used to do that also, and they've withdrawn all core funding. We have not withdrawn our core funding from women's centres. If I recall, our core funding is around $41,000 and 50 cents -- or something like that.

[1105]

Hon. S. Hammell: It's $41,778 to 38 women's centres throughout the province. Yes, I believe they would like more money. Am I going to make a commitment to give them more money? No. Do they often supplement the core funding that I

[ Page 12559 ]

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: . . .so be it -- right? But there's a difference between women's centres, which is what you're referring to there, and transition houses -- a world of difference.

L. Stephens: Yeah, there is a difference between women's centres and transition houses. But you can interchange the two, because I get letters from both.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: I get letters from both is what I'm saying. I get letters from both the centres and the transition houses, talking about the funding issue. Now, we can talk about the funding issue, and it comes down to choices of where you spend your money. That's true with people as individuals, and that's true with government. That's true with organizations of every kind. Where do you spend your money? What are your priorities? Where do you think it's the most important. . . ?

I'm suggesting to the minister that perhaps this government doesn't have its priorities straight. I'm suggesting that perhaps this minister could make sure that her colleagues are well aware of that. I'm sure they are already. But I would just reiterate that again. Instead of spending lots of money on fancy advertising. . . . There's an awful lot of money that could be redirected from advertising to services for people. That's what we're talking about: services to people.

If we want to talk about money gone where, there's $7 million to the Nisga'a campaign. There's -- what is it? -- a $9 million advertising budget of the government alone. There is all kinds of money that the government is spending that does not provide services to people, in my view and in the view of the opposition; it's simply a propaganda campaign. So it does come down to making choices and where you spend your money. It's absolutely true that there is a finite amount of money, and it's all taxpayers' money. You have to be accountable for it, and you have to spend it where it's going to do the most good. What I'm telling the minister is that I don't see that happening here in the Ministry of Women's Equality, when we talk about women's centres and transition houses. I've got all kinds of letters and faxes and phone calls from people around the province saying that there's a lot of need out there. There are a lot of problems out there, and we're not able to serve those people.

On top of all of that, what is making things so difficult these days is the economic situation in the province. There are a lot of communities that are in dire straits, particularly the forestry-dependent towns and cities around the province. There are added pressures there. What we need to do is look at perhaps making some different choices and making sure that these people -- women and children -- who are under such stress and, in many cases, in extreme danger are in fact looked after.

I will leave the minister with that. This isn't the first time she's heard it; this isn't the first time her government has heard it. But they will continue to hear it until we see some indication that they are in fact making better decisions in looking after people in the province.

Has the ministry done any analysis on what it costs to run a transition house or second-stage housing in the province? Has the ministry done any kind of cost-benefit analysis at all on how to. . . ? Is there a better way? Can things be done a little differently to provide that service in a cost-effective, efficient and effective way?

[1110]

One of the houses I visited in Maple Ridge. . . . Only a portion of their budget came from this ministry. They had a thrift shop that the community supported; they had a walk that the community supported. The community is out there supporting transition houses and the work they do in the community. The transition houses and the women in our community support the "Live Violence Free" initiative that this ministry has partnered with the B.C. Association of Broadcasters, because they know it brings, over ten years, $50 million of free advertising. Nowhere else. . . . None of us could afford to do that on our own to raise the issue, to bring the issue into the consciousness of the community and therefore to build some more support in the community for stopping violence. If your solution is to spend money on transition houses and not to support a broad-based public education program, I think your choice is misguided.

L. Stephens: Let's talk about the women on the street for a moment. Let's back up even further than that, to the Ministry of Women's Equality. This is a freestanding ministry -- the only one in Canada. What the minister needs to know is that the Leader of the Opposition has said repeatedly and publicly that in fact it would remain a freestanding ministry under a Liberal government.

Interjection.

L. Stephens: The Minister of Fisheries is doubting that. Obviously the Minister of Fisheries has not been paying attention. If he had been paying attention, he would have known that in fact. . . .

A Voice: They only hear what they want to.

L. Stephens: They only hear what they want to. The Minister of Fisheries is not aware of his facts. The facts are that this would remain a freestanding ministry. The leader has said

[ Page 12560 ]

The second point is that the women on the street -- the women that were issued cell phones, which the minister was talking about. . . . What we're saying is that if the government is serious about protecting these women, get them off the street. Ninety-nine percent of the women on the street are drug-addicted or alcoholics. If you want to get them off the street, what you need to do is provide the treatment centres and the treatment programs for them.

I have -- and the minister may or may not be aware of it -- a report done by the city of Vancouver, and the report is for public discussion. Report No. 1 is "Downtown East Side: Building a Common Future"; No. 2 is "A Program of Strategic Actions for the Downtown East Side"; No. 3, "Background Paper on Drug Treatment Needs in Vancouver"; No. 4, "Housing Plan for the Downtown East Side: Chinatown, Gastown, Strathcona." These are all public consultation reports that were done on the issue of the downtown east side and the social problems that we find down there.

Very clearly, what this particular report sets out -- and a number of others that have been done -- is that we need to have those kinds of facilities. So for the minister to say that cell phones that are preprogrammed to 911. . . . If I can criticize here a little bit, the ministry, I think, did a poor job of communicating that cell phone program. A number of people thought that those were in fact regular, ordinary, garden-variety cell phones and that people would be phoning customers and standing on the street corner and calling all kinds of people. That, I think, is a valid criticism -- that the ministry did not accurately communicate the program they were trying to initiate.

[1115]

So to simply say that issuing cell phones to women on the street is the be-all and the end-all is not accurate at all. I believe, as does this opposition and the leader, that that money could have been better spent looking at how we can provide services to those women so that they are not on the street in the first place.

The community support, and talking about advertising campaigns. There are areas in this ministry, such as posters and a whole bunch of other little odds and ends, that I would say are perhaps not as critical as services for the women, the front-line services. I'll be asking -- and perhaps I can ask the minister now: how much money does her ministry spend not on the television media but on the print materials for her ministry in the education programs? That's like the posters, the pamphlets -- those kinds of things.

Hon. S. Hammell: Before we do that, I just want to go back to a few comments. It is very easy for some of us to walk in other people's shoes, imaginatively. It's also easy to put things in my mouth or other people's mouths. Be very, very clear that the $3,000 spent on preprogrammed cell phones was what the women in the downtown east side, who are in a legal trade, asked us to do to help protect them. You and the official opposition may not think that is a good way to spend the money and to help those women, but the women who are on the streets doing the job believe it is so. You can choose to say that you know better -- then so be it. You can choose to stand in that position, and so can the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said that we would be better off spending this money on health care or on children.

In fact, you are correct, hon. member, that some of these people are children that are in the sex trade. We are spending some of this money in trying to protect them in a very little way. This is not a panacea; this is no guarantee for protection. It is something that women feel that if they had they would be just a little bit safer, because 60 to 120 times more women who work the streets are murdered than women in any other field that is going on in the country.

This is not about prostitutes; this is about murder. Giving the women who are in the most dangerous work just a little bit of safety and a little bit of protection is such a small thing to ask for -- or to expect some kind of sensitivity and some kind of support from the opposition, instead of an attack on the people who are trying to respond to the wishes of those people who have had 21 of their colleagues disappear. So be it. We make our choices, and we live by them.

[1120]

Within our mandate we are very aware of the issues in the downtown east side and agree 100 percent that there's no quick fix, and you have to be in on some of the long-term issues. But you have to do some of the small stuff that makes the everyday life of some of these women a little bit safer.

The Chair: I'll remind the members that all comments should be directed through the Chair.

L. Stephens: In the minister's conversation, she makes my point. She absolutely makes my point that what we're talking about is health care services for women and for children and safety services for women and children. Again, I will just reiterate that I believe that cell phones give women a false sense of security. They can very easily be knocked away, taken away -- and not only that, the whole world now knows that they have them. The whole world knows. Anybody that's out to do any harm to any of these women absolutely knows that nine times out of ten, there's a good chance that they're carrying a cell phone with them that's pre-programmed to 911.

[ Page 12561 ]

L. Stephens: The minister says: "So maybe they won't do it." Well, I would suggest that that would not deter anyone who is intent on doing harm.

Again, I simply want to reiterate, the opposition. . . . This is a difference between the opposition and the government. The opposition does not believe that these kinds of band-aid solutions are what are required. The government has to look at the hard issues here -- and that's what's happening on the downtown east side, what the concerns are, what the issues are for women and children -- and do something about it. Cell phones don't cut it; that's not going to give a long-term, lasting solution to what the problems are on the downtown east side.

The other issue that a lot of the transition houses bring up is 24-hour staffing. This is something that seems to be ongoing. Has the ministry costed out what that extra would be for the transition houses they fund? What kind of extra money would be required for 24-hour staffing?

[1125]

L. Stephens: Do I hear the minister saying that she is considering core funding houses for 24-hour staffing? The transition houses believe that the core funding they receive from the ministry should include 24-hour funding. Those who feel that this is a serious enough issue have gone to the communities to find that extra funding, if they can, and then provide that 24 hours. What I'm asking the minister is this: is she considering making 24-hour funding part of her contract commitments with the transition houses and funding transition houses for that 24-hour service?

Hon. S. Hammell: I believe that having a 24-hour service, especially in the busy transition houses, is an important part of the service. I will work -- and am working -- towards that. That will be done over time.

L. Stephens: There were six transition houses that received an increase in funding over this past year. Will those transition houses in fact be looked at in light of what obviously appeared to be increases in their costs? It doesn't appear that it was something extraordinary that happened in these transition houses; they just could not function any longer with the kind of funding they were receiving. Those were the ones that received the extra $60,000 in emergency funding. Could the minister talk about whether or not that has prompted her to take another look at the kind of funding issues that her ministry is faced with in the transition house programs?

Hon. S. Hammell: What we did was take the resources we had available and assign them to the houses that were the most needy. Using the MIS program, we could identify those houses that had the highest occupancy. Those were the houses that received the extra funds we had available.

L. Stephens: I understand that, and I can appreciate that -- that in fact this does happen from time to time. My question is whether or not the ministry is in the process of looking at how they're funding. Again, that'll go back to the original question that I asked about the funding and how transition houses are funded -- the criteria that are used to fund transition houses and whether or not those criteria are in fact appropriate, whether they deal with the realities of today, the realities of operating transition houses today and the extra costs that are associated with them today.

So I wonder if the minister would comment on that, because we see instance after instance of areas coming up in the transition houses where it just seems that it's very disorganized -- that it's very much whim and catch-as-catch-can as far as what is funded, when it's funded, how it's funded and to whom it's funded. I'd just like some comfort -- and I'm sure all the people out there in the transition houses would like some comfort -- as to some stability, something that they can count on, some kind of assurances that they're not going to be living hand to mouth, which is what they're all telling me they do month to month. They're all in very serious circumstances.

[1130]

There is a traditional base at which the transition houses are funded. There is no reduction in that base. There's only been an increase, in terms of this $10,000 to the six transition houses last year, because we had a set of resources that we were able to allocate to them.

We make a judgment in terms of wages -- what the wages are, what the cost of living is in the area, how many beds the transition house has and what the use of the transition house is. Through the MIS system we are now able to identify more clearly which houses are under the most pressure and therefore can respond to the needs that are actually in the community.

L. Stephens: In the area of the community, when transition houses go out and fundraise in the community, what kind of an impact does that fundraising activity have on the funding from the ministry? If those communities are able to fundraise and do, do they receive less money from the ministry than those houses that do not receive community funding?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: It is clear that there are communities that, because of a lack or an inability or the fact that they are where they are, are not able to access community funding to supplement what they get from the ministry. They are in fact having

[ Page 12562 ]

I see in the funding that an additional $200,000 has been allocated to transition house programs this coming year for additional pressures, additional options that the minister may have to put money here or there or wherever. Could the minister talk a little bit about that $200,000 and what the criteria would be for allocating funds from that particular pool of money?

[1135]

I mean, that's an interesting question. It sort of goes back to: do you have core funding for schools and then in, say, south Langley, where they can perhaps -- I don't know the area as well; I'll use south Surrey -- fundraise more easily than they can in north Surrey, do you therefore supplement the school where. . . ? You know, you have all those kinds of contradictions. So if you're suggesting that as a criterion, it's certainly one that, you know, I'm not saying I would accept, but would take into consideration.

I mean, we have received the transition houses in a historical way. We did not create them. We created them with whatever base they came with, and we look at the issues that I've gone through with you in terms of how we fund them, wages, where they are in the province, how many beds they have, what their costs are and what kind of service they are actually providing -- what the MIS says they are bringing in in terms of people staying overnight. We are looking at that as the base for allocating any extra resources that we have. But I'm sure we will refine that with input from the community, and perhaps the suggestion that I think I hear you making may be one thing that we should take into consideration.

L. Stephens: What the minister heard was not what was intended. The reference to communities fundraising. . . . The question was, and perhaps I was being too oblique: if transition houses do a good job of fundraising in their communities, are they penalized by the Ministry of Women's Equality in their funding? That was the question, and that is the concern: that if in fact communities are able to fundraise because of where they are, are they penalized by the ministry for programs, and is their funding lower as a result of that?

Hon. S. Hammell: The answer continues to be no, but I thought I heard you suggest that perhaps there were places that could not fundraise as well as others, and ask: is that taken into account and are they given extra funds? You did not say that. Fine. I thought that's what you said.

L. Stephens: No. Again the minister did not understand my remarks. The issue of fundraising is that if communities are able to fundraise, they not be penalized by government ministries.

I'll ask the question about the extra $200,000 that is set aside for transition houses again. Is it for programs? Is it for wage supplements? Is it for whatever?

Hon. S. Hammell: There are two purposes for it. One is to address the areas of most pressing need, and the second is to address inequities.

[1140]

Hon. S. Hammell: The areas of most pressing need are where the transition houses are almost at or near full capacity. The corrections -- or many of the corrections, or the inequities, that you've been alluding to -- are to make corrections where we need to, given the historical context that we receive the houses in.

L. Stephens: The inequities that the minister keeps referring to, which go back to 1993. . . . When does the minister anticipate that those inequities will be resolved?

Hon. S. Hammell: As we receive new funding.

L. Stephens: All right. Inequities and pressing needs and $200,000 in extra funding. That would say to me that the ministry needs to go back and look at their formula, their process, for how they fund these transition houses. The minister has said that they're doing that. I believe the minister said that that's what they are doing. Again, I would just like to ask if the plan is in place. I'm not talking about money right now, because the minister has just said: when the money becomes available. There has to be a plan in place to implement these changes. Has the ministry developed the plan? Does the ministry have the problems identified and an action plan in place to deal with them?

Hon. S. Hammell: We know where the most pressing needs are because of the MIS system, which was a plan that we put in place to tell us where the most pressing needs are. We understand the areas where, from a historical perspective, there are inequities.

L. Stephens: Could the minister just say a simple yes or no? "Yes, we have identified it; yes, we have a program; and yes, we are working to fulfil that program, and we anticipate having that completed by 2001, 2002" -- whatever the number is. Is there a target that the minister is working for to resolve these inequities?

[ Page 12563 ]

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could re-answer. What was the date? I'm asking for a date. What was the year -- 2003? Is there a date that the minister has planned for? A simple question.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. member, we have received $200,000 this year, and that money will be used to address the most pressing needs and to correct inequities that we have historically inherited. As we receive more money, we will continue to make adjustments.

L. Stephens: The fact of the matter is that there is no plan. The minister says: "When I get more money, I'll work at it." Okay, that's fine. I have an answer, and the answer is that there is no plan. There is no course of action.

The counselling programs that the ministry delivers have been an ongoing issue as well, with changes, along with program standards. . . . Perhaps the minister would first like to tell the committee what has been happening with the changes in the counselling programs, and then we'll do the program standards.

[1145]

In the counselling programs, the counselling services are for women who have experienced sexual assault, violence in their relationship or childhood abuse, and these services are offered through community-based agencies, including transition houses, women's sexual assault centres and other women-serving organizations. They are found throughout the province, and there is a total of 79 contracts in that area. And there is an umbrella organization that is involved in overseeing, and that is the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs. We provide that umbrella organization with some core funding.

L. Stephens: According to the estimates here, that's $4.5 million in funding. Perhaps the minister could elaborate a little bit on what that $4.5 million is spent on.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time. . . .

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. What I'll do is answer this question, and then we should probably adjourn.

We have 12 programs on Vancouver Island, and we have 26 programs on the mainland. In the Okanagan area, we have 15; in the Kootenays, there are nine; in the Cariboo and the northeast, there are 14 programs; in the northwest and the Nechako area, there are three. That makes 79 programs, for a total of $4.592 million and some-odd cents.

Noting the time, I suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada