Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

[ Page 12565 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I have a series of introductions today. First of all, sitting in the gallery is Ian Kydd, consul general for the United Kingdom. He's accompanied by four officials from the United Kingdom who are responsible for welfare-to-work policies and are here studying the policies of the British Columbia government: Mark Neale, Heather Kempton, Nancy Braithwaite and Martin Betts. Also, Renee Saklikar from my Youth Office is with them. They're visiting British Columbia to share ideas on what the Blair government is doing in Britain and to listen to some of the changes we've made in the last few years in Welfare to Work. Would the House please make them welcome.

It's also my privilege to introduce Jason Op de Beeck, a grade 10 student attending Arbutus Junior Secondary School in Victoria. Jason is here from a career and personal planning class, and he's job-shadowing me for the day.

Hon. J. Kwan: It's a pleasure to recognize in the House today staff from the fire commissioner's office and members from the three firefighters associations in British Columbia.

Representing the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association of B.C. are Mac Gregory from Castlegar, Bob Haddow from Okanagan Falls, Jim Nelson from Warfield, Les Schumacher from Smithers, Rick Stark from Duncan and Mike Walsh from Gibsons. Representing the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. are Murray Bryden from Saanich, Bill Musgrave from View Royal, Jack Preston from Oak Bay, Glen Sanders from Shawnigan Lake and Frank Thoresen from Victoria. Representing the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association are Bob Brett from Vernon, Terry Ritchie from Burnaby, Paul Bruce from Victoria, Stan Lajoie from Victoria, Darren Hughes and Matt Clayton from Oak Bay, and Mike Burgess and Rob Heppel from Saanich. And finally, representing the office of the fire commissioner are Rick Dumala, Grant Lupton, Gordon Anderson, Al McLeod and Virginia Katan.

Would the House please make them all feel very welcome.

M. Coell: I have four friends in the legislative precinct today: Murray and Bernice Duncan and Bill and Eva Doyle. Will the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: It's my honour to introduce some fruit growers from the Okanagan who made their presence known at the Legislature this morning: Al Clark, Gord Ivans, Pete Steeves, Nicole Ackerman, Sheila Ackerman, Mike Sterling, Brian MacDonald, Gerry and Sandy Shaw, Robin and Shelly Holitki, John Duncan, Penny Gambell and Russell Husch of the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association. I hope the government listened to their concerns this morning. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today we are fortunate to be joined in the Legislature and in the legislative precincts by people who are very important to us here. Our executive assistants, who represent us ably in the riding, are here improving their skills in order to be better able to represent us back home.

Hon. G. Clark: Meeting the ministers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah. "Meeting the ministers," the Premier says. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: The Minister of Finance mentioned it, and I just wanted to mention that my executive assistant, Pauline Carroll, is here. Also with Pauline is Nicole Normand from my office here in the precincts, and her friend Lee Ann Dunseith. Would the House please make them all welcome.

E. Conroy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the mayor of Trail -- one of the most bustling communities in the constituency of Rossland-Trail -- Mr. Jim Nelson, and his wife. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was pleasantly surprised to see Chief Musgrave from View Royal in the gallery today. He represents a fine tradition of volunteer firefighters in the Western Communities -- in his case, View Royal -- and he's done an outstanding job. I was glad to see him here; I don't see him here all that often. So I'd like to give him a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm pleased to present amendments to the Fire Services Act. This bill gives formal recognition to two very important medals issued by the B.C. fire commissioner. The B.C. long-service medal is awarded to firefighters who have helped keep communities safe for 25 years. The second medal is the medal of bravery. This medal is awarded to firefighters for acts of courage beyond expectations in the normal course of his or her duty.

British Columbians rely on firefighters every day. Whether they're professionals or volunteers, firefighters place their lives on the line to keep our families, homes and businesses safe from fire hazards. The medals we are recognizing today demonstrate our deep appreciation for their courage and sustained commitment to our communities.

I'm very pleased that the B.C. fire commissioner, Rick Dumala, and representatives from the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association and the Volunteer Fire Fighters Association of B.C. have joined us in the gallery today for the introduction of this important legislation.

Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 60 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 12566 ]

[1415]

Oral Questions

EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY
AND FOOD PROCESSING

Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us why, after suffering for years under the NDP's high taxes and excessive regulations, they have to be insulted by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who calls them chicken because they have to do business outside B.C.?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: I am going to pretend like the rhetorical part of that question wasn't in there and respond to the issue. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. . . .

Hon. C. Evans: . . .having actually to do with the producers in the room. It is true that the tree fruit sector is suffering huge stress, as the hon. member describes it, having to do largely with the effects of heat on the 1998 crop. Actually, this morning I met, as did the Premier and several other ministers and MLAs -- probably half the folks on this side and quite a few on the other side -- to talk about (1) how to deal with the stressed-fruit issue, (2) how to deal with the difficulties around whole-farm disaster insurance, and (3) how to deal with the future of the replant program. I hope the hon. member actually cares about these issues as much as he does about the politics he wishes to dump on top of it.

B. Barisoff: If the minister and particularly the members on that side of the House thought a little less about politics, they'd pay a little bit more attention to the farmers.

According to the Packaging Association of Canada, in addition to 21 food and beverage companies that shut down last year, 30 more are on the brink of shutting down or leaving the province this year. If the food processors go, the farmers won't be far behind.

Will the Minster of Agriculture tell us why the NDP has done nothing to reduce regulatory and taxation burdens on the agriculture industry and farming families across British Columbia?

Hon. C. Evans: I guess the hon. member can be forgiven for having to read his question. If he actually dealt with these issues on a day-to-day basis, hon. Speaker, he'd have been part of the ten-point plan for the environment and the deregulation of that sector that we've been working on for two years with the Ag Council. He'd have been part. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let's hear the answer.

Hon. C. Evans: . . .of the review. He'd have been part. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the answer, please.

Hon. C. Evans: I hope the producers in the room notice that the questioner was not shouted down while he asked his question. The hon. member, hon. Speaker, might have observed or taken part in the review of labour standards and how they affect the agriculture sector. The hon. member might have noticed when fuel taxes went down for farmers or when we changed the regulations around wineries. But the hon. member hasn't paid a single bit of attention -- hasn't asked a question in two years -- and last month, when I asked him to go with me and all the other agriculture ministers to discuss Canada's response to the GATT, the Leader of the Opposition wouldn't even let him attend the meeting.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: And your question, member?

M. de Jong: My question on behalf of all those orchardists, all those people who rely upon the food-and-beverage-processing sector in British Columbia, is: how many more are going to have to leave this province, driven out by this minister's and this NDP government's policies of overregulation and overtaxation?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let's hear the answer.

Hon. C. Evans: Every person who writes to me as Minister of Agriculture, as the hon. member addressed me. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 12567 ]

Hon. C. Evans: . . . in my office in Victoria receives an answer from me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Time's a-wasting, members. Come to order. The minister has not completed his response.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, unfortunately, I have a volunteer in my office in Nelson who decided that the way to deal with annual reports and materials that come in from interest groups all over the province was to write the letter that the hon. member read. I informed that individual and the staff she worked with that the response was inappropriate and asked them to phone or write to every single person in the province who received that letter, with an apology and an explanation. I do not pretend that what this person did on my behalf was justifiable, but the hon. member knows -- and everybody else here doesn't know -- that he's holding up a piece of stationery with my MLA signature on it and not my ministerial portfolio.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I seek the minister's forgiveness. Heaven help me, I thought that he had a responsibility as both an MLA and a minister. That apparently is not the case.

Look, there are two certainties. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

M. de Jong: There are two certainties in this Legislature, Madam Speaker. One is that businesses will continue to flee this province as long as that minister and that government are in power, and the second is that nothing this minister or that government does is going to change the first fact.

The question to the minister is: how many more businesses. . . ? How many more people who depend upon the food and beverage sector in the province of British Columbia are going to find themselves living in Alberta or Washington or Portland, before he gets it through his head that the government's policies of overtaxation and overregulation are responsible for driving them across the border?

Hon. C. Evans: I actually am responsible and answerable to the farm community. It is the farm community who asked me to deal, first, with regulatory regimes around the environment; second, with the regulatory regimes around labour; third, with the regulatory regimes around fuel tax; and fourth, with the regulatory regimes around winery distribution. We did every single one of those things, in spite of the fact that when there aren't farmers in the gallery watching, they don't ask a single question. They don't care about these issues.

[1425]

WCB REGULATIONS AND SMOKING-AREAS EXEMPTION

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is no. I'm happy to advise the member that there is no new, cosy relationship between this party and the tobacco industry.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: My supplementary question is to the Deputy Premier. Surely this minister, who has demonstrated his sympathetic understanding of the problems, will intervene on behalf of British Columbia smokers. For example, I very sincerely believe that people in long term care facilities should be allowed to continue to smoke in their rooms or suites, which are in fact their homes. Can the Deputy Premier advise this House on the action he's decided to take on behalf of those British Columbia seniors who can't reasonably be expected to quit smoking?

Hon. D. Miller: I've ignored the advice of my colleagues who've told me to butt out. Let me try to offer some opinions on this. I am -- as most people in this House know -- unfortunately, a smoker, and I'm not particularly proud of that. I think the efforts undertaken by my government and other agencies to dissuade particularly young people from smoking ought to be supported as strongly as we possibly can, because I don't. . . . It's clear, as well, that. . .

The Speaker: Minister, complete your answer, please.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .increasingly people who do smoke have to be more and more aware that it's not just themselves they are harming, but others around them. I think these are very tough issues to grapple with. I don't think there's a perfect kind of policy that deals with it all, and I would hope that the WCB, in looking at it, can balance the interests of employees and the general public in terms of tailoring their policies. Their mandate. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .and I worked in a pulp mill -- is to prevent workers from being exposed to noxious gases.

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: It's a tough issue, and. . .

The Speaker: Minister. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: . . .I hope they can resolve the problem.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you very much.

[ Page 12568 ]

EFFECT ON GOVERNMENT REVENUES OF
SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS' JOB ACTION

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think that this ministry is saving any money at all. It's interesting. This issue has been going on for several weeks -- a month or so -- and this is the first question that we've had from the opposition benches regarding this whole issue. This is a very important one, and one that I would like to see solved very soon. The parties are negotiating right now. We're very hopeful that they'll come to some agreement and get back to work. These, as you know, are people who are working very well. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .on behalf of people. So we're very hopeful that we'll see a resolution.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

First supplementary, the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: It's a fact that this government is banking money as a result of this strike. It astounds me that the minister is not clear on exactly how much money. I'm asking for a commitment today from this minister. Will she commit that every penny saved as a result of this strike will be returned to programs for children, for women and for families and not go to a cabinet minister across the way whose boondoggles, in terms of fast ferries, pulp mills, SkyTrain. . . ? Will those dollars -- every single cent -- be returned to women, children and families across this province?

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .a budget that protected our services, the members opposite said that we should be cutting more, we should be reducing services and we should be eliminating government programs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it's impossible to hear the minister with everyone talking.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, hon. Speaker, we're not doing that.

Petitions

The Speaker: Member, member. That's more than. . . . We have enough information about the petition. Thank you very much.

Ministerial Statement

STATE OF TREE FRUIT INDUSTRY
AND OF AGRICULTURE IN B.C.

I have decided to use this time to explain to all hon. members how agriculture could be booming in sales and jobs and growth while, at the same time, fruit, grain, hogs, ginseng and other commodities might be in free fall and how the people who produce them might be in need of assistance and, in the case of the BCFGA, even angry. On the one hand, food sales both domestically and for export continue to grow faster than any other resource sector in the province. On the other hand, as we know, world commodity prices are in chaos.

The apple industry is an excellent example of the current situation. They are dealing with a 50 percent devaluation of wholesale prices for their 1998 fresh product and a phenomenal tenfold decrease in the price of juice. No industry, of course, could withstand such pressure alone -- especially an industry that was reeling already with the elimination in this decade of 100 percent of federal and provincial support systems, loan programs and cost-of-production allowances that they used to receive in the sixties, seventies and eighties.

Two years ago the leadership of the BCFGA told me: "What we need in British Columbia is a disaster program to help us in times of absolute market failure." We did what they asked for and put the program in place in time for 1998.

In 1998 the BCFGA said: "What we need in British Columbia is re-engineered crop insurance." Again we did what they asked and put that program in place for this year. In 1998 the combined pay-out for crop insurance and the whole-farm disaster program was $16 million for the tree fruit industry alone. This year we almost doubled the funding for our disaster program, thanks to a $10 million lift from Canada's disaster funding. Two months ago we mailed out 1,000 applications.

[ Page 12569 ]

I have received, as of yesterday, only 49 applications for this year. I beg hon. members of both sides of the House to encourage your eligible constituents to apply. Even if your objective or theirs was to prove that the program didn't work, the only way to prove that is for 1,000 applications to come back in for analysis. It is estimated that the tree fruit industry didn't make use of approximately $2 million in the program last year, because only 300 growers applied.

[1435]

B. Barisoff: This government has turned its back on the tree fruit growers and broken its commitments at every turn. It's time we recognized the importance of the agriculture industry to our economy and our job creation. To compete and win in the global economy, tree fruit growers and all farmers must have three things: lower costs, lower taxes, and less regulation and red tape -- a long-term provincial strategy to become and stay competitive. Farming is not just an economic value; it's a social value. The ALR was created to protect and preserve our agricultural land. Most British Columbians support that objective.

If government is going to continue to tell farmers what they can and can't do on their land, then it must work with the farmers to make land viable and productive -- an effective and affordable crop insurance program. Farmers understand that crop insurance assistance must be within the taxpayers' ability to pay. But they also need and deserve an insurance program that delivers and helps when it's needed, in a timely and efficient manner. The NDP's changes to the crop insurance program have left tree fruit growers hanging in the wind because of bureaucratic bungling, red tape, payment delays and funding cuts that are completely at odds with all their election promises.

On this side of the House, we would address all of these challenges and create a solid, competitive foundation for the tree fruit growers and all farmers that would work over the long term. Farmers don't need or want handouts. Farmers want and deserve the right to make their land productive for their families, their communities and all the workers who depend on the jobs they create.

On this side of the House we would listen, but the government must start to listen also. When it makes promises, it had better be prepared to keep them. On this side of the House, we wouldn't make promises that we couldn't keep. We won't promise money or funding that's beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay, as takes place on that side. But we would work with the farmers, and public servants, to make their industry strong and competitive forever.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair has, in the past -- and in the recent past -- sent out information about ministerial statements and the replies to them. I wish to commend those guidelines and those statements to the members of this House. The replies have been way too debatable and political, and I'm afraid that's not in the traditions of this chamber. I wish to draw that to everyone's attention and encourage all members to read those guidelines again.

[1440]

Orders of the Day

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT
(second reading)

This act is important for what it does, but it's also important, in my view, for what it represents in terms of a general direction for post-secondary education policy in this province. I want to enlarge a little bit on some comments I made yesterday at the opening of my estimates debate, because this act very much speaks to the commitment that this government has made about maintaining and enhancing access to post-secondary education, which in this day and age is basic education -- education that British Columbians need if they are to succeed in an increasingly competitive, knowledge-based economy; education that parents are worried that their young people may not have access to and that if they don't have that access, they will not have the opportunities that they as parents had. It's a worry that is well-founded, because of the direction we've seen taken in other provinces.

I think it is very much the case at the end of the twentieth century that the future of post-secondary education -- the choice we make about post-secondary education -- will help to determine the future of our whole political and social development in the next century. The central question that we have to ask is: in a society in which people are becoming increasingly detached from their traditional places of work and from traditional patterns of work, are we going to provide people with the tools in order to succeed in a new economy in which knowledge is the most valuable commodity and the greatest determinant of one's ability to get ahead?

[ Page 12570 ]

We're seeing the same concentrations of wealth and power. Those who command wealth and power in this revolution are not the Andrew Carnegies and the John D. Rockefellers. They're the Bill Gateses and the Ross Perots. But the same phenomenon is taking place. We see from all the statistics that emerge not only in B.C. but across Canada and around the world that there is a growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, as individuals become increasingly dislocated from their traditional patterns of social life and work, and become increasingly vulnerable as we move into a more atomistic society in which those individuals will rise or fall depending upon their access to knowledge.

[1445]

If people's ability to get access to education is determined by the market, then we will end up with a modern-day debtors' prison, the debtors' prison of those who don't have education and can't get it because they can't afford it. They can't afford it because they don't have the knowledge and skills in order to get the jobs that are required in order to earn the income. We've got to avoid that future.

We have a huge opportunity. We have a technological revolution with huge potential to grow society, to produce benefits. The question is: are those benefits going to be widely shared? Are they going to be widely enjoyed? Are we going to ensure that we will retain a prosperous middle class and that those throughout society will share in that prosperity?

Or are we going to let the chips fall where they may? If we do, those chips will fall in a way in which we see an increasing disparity of wealth and power, an increasing division between the haves and have-nots as the doors to post-secondary education slam shut and the only way to get through them is by pulling out one's chequebook or one's credit card. Those who won't have access will be those who'll become increasingly left out of the benefits that society has to offer.

That's really what this debate is about -- tuition -- because, regrettably, we see what's happening in other jurisdictions and other provinces as increasingly they rely more and more on market determinants for access to education. The trends we see in provinces like Alberta and Ontario, which the opposition members are always so quick to point to as examples that they would like to emulate, show that there have been huge increases in tuition within those provinces. The average cost of post-secondary university training in Ontario is now $1,500 more per year than it is in B.C. In Alberta it's $1,300 more per year. For a working family's kid to go and get a post-secondary education is starting to become unaffordable. The differential for a professional program in Ontario is in some cases going to be as high as $8,000 or $10,000, as tuition fees rise in excess of $10,000.

What that means is that the hope of someone from a middle-class or a lower-working-class background to become a doctor or a lawyer is going to be taken away. Their opportunity to become a beneficiary of those skills or other professional skills will start to decline, as will the opportunities for everyone, as these gaps continue to grow. That's what this is about. It isn't just about tuition; it isn't just about education. It's about whether or not we're going to retain our commitment to the twenty-first century and ensure that there is an opportunity for everyone, that equality of opportunity really means something and that people have the tools to take those opportunities and translate them into real social equality in our society.

If we say to students, "We're sorry, we can't guarantee you those skills; you have to come up with the money first," and, "We're sorry you can't come up with the money because you've got to have a job that's dependent upon those skills," then we are no better than the keepers of those debtors' prisons portrayed in Dickensian novels, who locked people away till they could pay off their debts. That's something that this government and this province should never do.

That's what this debate is about. It's about freezing tuition for a fourth year, but more fundamentally, it's about ensuring that we keep the doors to knowledge open, that we take the principle of universality that pioneers in the twentieth century built into the K-to-12 system and do no more than say that that principle should now be applied to what is now basic education. When we developed the universal public education system, basic education was thought of as K-to-12. It's no longer K-to-12. No kid out there, no parent out there, no sentient human being out there believes that someone can get a well-paying job, a good-paying job, in society with a K-to-12 education. Everyone recognizes that there's a need for more.

[1450]

[ Page 12571 ]

J. Weisbeck: I rise to speak to Bill 59, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. This is the fourth consecutive year that this government has frozen tuition fees. I still don't understand why a tuition fee freeze has to be legislated. I can only assume that this is one of the few positive things that this government has done, and they would like to get the photo-op maximum out of it.

I've always been very curious, as well, about how the government bases their decisions, how they brought this piece of legislation forward. In 1996, I asked the then Minister of Education, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, whether there had ever been a study on the impact of tuition fees. I asked: how many people actually stay home because of tuition fees? The minister responded that the last detailed, extensive and exhaustive study that was done was the Orum report, which I believe was issued in 1993. I checked the Orum report, and it states: "Post-secondary institutions should be free to set their own tuition fees. It is recommended that all post-secondary institutions be allowed to set their own tuition fees within a context of a comprehensive financial aid program that includes both government and institutional components." Obviously that didn't answer my question on the issue of access and fees.

Having said that, for the fourth consecutive year we will be supporting the tuition freeze, and contrary to what government has been saying and would like the public to believe, we have always supported the tuition fee freeze.

We recognize that tuition is a barrier to attaining an education, but it is only one of many barriers. We must make every attempt to remove those barriers, to allow our population full access to education to be able to function in the new millennium. I agree with the Minister of Education: it is the best investment governments can make, and that includes health care, because the more educated people are, the healthier they are. Therefore it obviously pays to get people more educated.

[1455]

"Higher fees are a proven barrier to access. So my first choice for a solution to enhance accessibility and maintain quality is therefore to keep fees as low as possible, as long as government funding is adequate to compensate -- for example, to bring total revenues at least up to the national average. If this is not done, I have to reluctantly accept that the freeze on fees should be eliminated, and B.C. universities should be allowed to maintain quality equal to at least the Canadian average, never mind those universities in the U.S. and other countries."

There's no argument about the importance of keeping tuition fees affordable. Unfortunately in this case, there are a number of concerns created by not making up the funding differential. Dr. Strong, in an article recently in the Times Colonist, made a comment that "over the last four years, enrolment has increased at the University of Victoria by 2,000 students, while money from government has gone down 10 percent. We've cut $9 million from our budget over the same time period, and our class sizes went up 20 percent. Tuition fees imposed by the provincial government since 1995 have delighted students, but they have led to the elimination of some courses and programs." Anita Zaenker -- she's the University of Victoria's student society director of academics -- made the comment: "What we're finding is that very few electives are being offered, so students' options are being reduced."

As I say, we have always supported this tuition freeze, but it's obviously short-term thinking, unless they do balance the ledger. You can save a couple of thousand dollars in tuition fees, but unfortunately, you may have to take an extra year of university, which could be another $8,000 or $10,000. But the true cost to a student is losing a year of income.

I know that there was a questionnaire sent out from the minister's office asking students about what their feelings were on tuition. It was basically a propaganda questionnaire. The questions were very, very limited. I think that they were just basically asked: "Do you believe in tuition fee freezes?" Obviously every student would like to save themselves some money. I think, to be really honest, that if you were to send out a questionnaire, you should probably ask the question: "Are you in favour of a tuition freeze if you take longer to complete your education?" Or: "Are you in favour of a tuition freeze if you end up losing a year of salary?"

This truly isn't about tuition fees at all. This is about maintaining a post-secondary system in our province that is functional. I have an executive report from Okanagan University College. They talk about the college being at a critical juncture in its development. They say:

"Provincial funding mechanisms and decisions are in large part responsible for a significant gap between what OUC receives to educate a student through tuition and provincial funding and the actual costs of providing that education. The gap has been growing and the problem has been exacerbated by a three-year-old tuition freeze and other factors beyond OUC's control. The difference between revenue and expenditure makes offering increased access impossible, although there is clearly a demand for it. Waiting lists for programs and courses are measured in the hundreds and thousands. People want the product OUC offers, just as the development of our region depends on it."

[1500]

[ Page 12572 ]

The tuition freeze has created a situation of inequity within similar institutions. While an academic degree student at OUC pays a maximum tuition of $705 per semester, at UBC he or she would pay $1,147.50, and at Malaspina University College he or she would pay $945. The result is that some institutions have more operating funds to invest in their students' education.

We all know that there are huge challenges in the post-secondary education system. There has been a prediction that as the children of the baby-boomer generation reach university, there's going to be a very large increase in the population of universities in the new millennium.

The students are concerned. Jennifer Burnett from the University of Victoria says that if education is supposed to be one of the NDP's top priorities, "how can Minister Petter justify maintaining tuition freezes and the current level of funding, combined with the increases in the total number of seats available across the province, while wait-lists grow longer, class sizes are increasing, and courses and programs are disappearing from colleges and university calendars?"

David Cox, he's the vice-president of the OUC student association in Kelowna, says:

"Now the government is cutting back further its support on this institution. Currently, there are approximately 1,000 more students than OUC is funded for. Tuition covers only a small part of running an academic institution; the rest must come from the private and public sectors. OUC has a strong fundraising campaign, but cannot compensate for the cuts. Services and classes would be lost at OUC just as society's demand for educated citizens is increasing."

"Canadian universities are on the cusp of a crisis. . . .

"It began with an erosion of research equipment and staff, including post-doctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians, together with our weakened position to recruit and retain top faculty. . . . Important research increasingly is done elsewhere. . . .

"This problem is serious. Canada's investment in research and development is half that of the United States. . . .

"Canada's research universities, whether large, mid-size or small, operate on about half the revenue per student as do comparable universities in the U.S. . . .

"Those [universities and] institutions have the resources to recruit and retain outstanding faculty and graduate students. It's difficult for Canadian universities to compete."

He's saying that over the next decade hundreds of faculty will retire from our universities across North America. This sets the stage for a major escalation in the war for university talent. We should see this not as a threat to our academic institutions but as a great opportunity for building upon and renewing our strengths.

Yesterday during the estimates the minister made a comment that as some of these older professors are retiring, and with some of them obviously making the maximum salaries that institution would offer. . . . He was jumping up and down with glee, saying: "Now we'll be able to hire a new professor that's coming onto the market, somebody that's younger, somebody that we can pay less for, and as a result we can put some of that money back into the system." Well, I think Dr. Blaney makes it very, very clear that that simply is not going to work. We must -- to maintain the level of education, the level of instruction in our system -- be able to attract and retain good quality staff.

This is not about tuition fee freezes. This is about maintaining a system that's functional, that's competitive and that's world-class. I know that the government has made comments bragging about the fact that they want to have the cheapest system in the country. I would recommend to them: let's have the best system in the country, rather than the cheapest.

[1505]

It is true that a tuition freeze only deals with one of the barriers for access to post-secondary education. There are others, and I'll deal with this in a minute. But I think it's a fundamental psychological barrier to entrance for many people of modest or middle-class families in terms of their decision to proceed to university or to colleges or indeed to any post-secondary institution.

It is, I think, important to remember why we've embarked upon this direction in British Columbia with the fourth consecutive year of a tuition freeze. This direction is completely contrary to every other province in Canada with the exception of Quebec, which has had a freeze for even longer than us. It's because of a philosophical commitment on the part of the government for access to post-secondary education.

About a hundred years ago governments in North America decided collectively -- of whatever political party; society decided -- that it made sense to provide a free education for all young people. Now, that education in those days was defined initially as basic literacy requirements, and even then it was haphazard at best. It wasn't really until the 1930s and the 1940s -- the postwar period -- when people in the west generally, but particularly in North America, embraced the concept of universal public education paid for by taxpayers. The reason that society did that was obvious to everybody during the debates, and it is obvious today -- that is, that one must have basic literacy skills. You must have a basic education if you are to get a job in the modern economy.

In the forties, of course, those jobs were largely in manufacturing, and there were growing industries. Unemployment was less going through the sixties, and people felt that a high school education was critical to individual success. Much of the debate -- even when I was going to high school in the seventies -- revolved around this notion that you needed a high school education: "Stay in school; get a high school diploma, because if you don't get a high school diploma, you will not get a decent job. You will not be able to be successful." That was what society expected and society debated. Even in families, there was a lot of debate about getting your grade 12 education rather than quitting and getting a job.

Frankly, when I was growing up there were people who quit in grade 10 or 11 and got a job. But they went through a free, publicly funded education system -- for them -- and they made their choices. Today in 1999 it seems appropriate that we revisit this question of public education. Because if the

[ Page 12573 ]

I ask fellow legislators here and the people of British Columbia. . . . I think it's obvious that it is no longer the case that getting a high school education is a sufficient guarantee of success in the modern economy. You must have more than grade 12. You must have trades training or apprenticeship, you must have vocational training or you must have university or college. You must at least have some kind of post-secondary education to be successful -- to get a job.

[1510]

That is why, in British Columbia, the foundation of what we are trying to accomplish is very simple. It is to ensure that same philosophy of a publicly funded education system is there beyond grade 12. The great motivation -- morally and philosophically -- for those people who came before us, who agreed with public education from grade 1 to grade 12, was that education was the great leveller. It was the great way to provide equality of opportunity. No matter what your income was, you could get an education. No matter what your income was, you would have more or less the same equality of opportunity to be successful. This is the Canadian view. This is the Canadian dream -- and very much the American dream: that you could be successful. It didn't matter what your parents did, you would have the opportunity. You would have greater opportunity to succeed because our public system of education gave you that opportunity to succeed, no matter what your income was.

Now that dream, of course, is frayed at the edges in many parts of Canada and the United States. Just because people had a publicly funded education, people knew instinctively that there were other barriers -- social barriers, economic barriers -- to success. But the essence of this notion of upward mobility was very much at the core of public policy from grade 1 to grade 12. It's very much at the core of what we've tried to do in British Columbia over the last four years.

Our tuition fee freeze has meant that more people of modest means can go to college, that more people from working-class and middle-class families can get ahead, that the access that they need to be successful is there for them, as with other policies that we've introduced -- like making adult basic education free so anybody can get a high school education now in British Columbia no matter what their age is, and they can get it paid for by the taxpayers. We're the only province in Canada to do that.

Similarly, the tuition freeze is an attempt by government -- by us -- to carry through on this philosophical commitment and to carry through on what I think is the Canadian dream, still, for many people in our country. That is to provide that access, no matter what your income is. Are we there yet? Of course not. There are still fees for universities and colleges and vocational institutes and apprenticeship training. There are still fees, and those fees are still onerous for people from modest backgrounds, but we are making great progress. With those tuition fees, we said -- and I've said in this speech already -- that it's a great barrier to entrance. Well, if we've frozen fees for four years, we should have seen an increase in enrolment.

An Hon. Member: And we have.

Hon. G. Clark: Have we? The answer to that is unequivocally yes. Look at these numbers. Between 1993 and 1998 -- the last three years of which have been a tuition freeze -- the enrolment rate in British Columbia colleges and universities increased by 16 percent. How does that compare to the national average during the same period? Enrolment in the rest of the country increased by 0.6 percent. We've gone from the second-lowest participation rate in universities and colleges to the second-highest participation rate in universities and colleges in the last four years.

[1515]

Now there are those, including on the other side, who have just made the point that a tuition fee freeze is not sufficient. I agree with them; it's not sufficient. That's why we've increased funding every year in the last eight years, with $250 million more annually going into the college and university system. We're funding the increased enrolment -- 16,000, hon. Speaker -- and that's why the costs are going up to coincide with a tuition fee freeze. As we freeze tuition, it is inducing more young people to go to university. The support must be there, and the spaces must be there.

It wasn't that long ago -- and perhaps I've been here too long, hon. Speaker: 13 years -- but I remember that for the first five years I sat in this chamber, every September there were lineups, blocks and blocks and blocks of lineups in the rain, trying to get into college and trying to get into university. Those lineups are gone. In fact, the grade point average required to get into university or college has been reduced. That's a good thing, because we're opening up access. I know that I went to university at a time when it was the most accessible in the history of our province, and I know how difficult that would be today for someone of the same background as me.

Now, in addition to providing more funding and more enrolment increases and a tuition freeze, some argued -- and the last speaker on the other side argued -- that quality is deteriorating. Well, look what's happening relative to the rest of Canada. Maclean's magazine is now doing an annual report on education, and they are rating our universities. They have done that for some time, and in the last two years, for the first time, SFU has now been placed number one university in

[ Page 12574 ]

So at the same time that we've been freezing tuition fees and increasing enrolment, we've seen a dramatic increase in the quality of our universities and colleges relative to the rest of Canada. I think that speaks very much to those critics who try to argue that a tuition freeze is not sufficient. We agree, but we think we have made great progress in other areas. We are building an education province in British Columbia. We have increased investment from kindergarten to grade 12. Every year we are reducing class size from grade 1 to grade 3, which is pedagogically the best time to do so. We are making significant investments, but I think we have made the greatest stride so far in the post-secondary system. The tuition fee freeze is the cornerstone of our public policy and speaks to our values of what we expect of our young people and what we as legislators owe our young people.

I think this will be a legacy for future generations. If we continue on this path, there will be nowhere in Canada which will match our opportunities for young people. The key to success in the twenty-first century is clearly knowledge. It is, clearly, giving our young people the tools they need to compete in the modern economy, and those tools can only be gotten by post-secondary education, including trades training, colleges and universities.

So I think this bill is a good symbol of our success. We have made remarkable progress: from the second-highest tuition fees in Canada to the second-lowest tuition fees and from the second-worst participation rate in universities and colleges to the second-best participation rate in universities and colleges. And by the time the next election comes around, we will have a legacy for future generations which I think will pay great dividends for the future of our province.

[1520]

That's what's happening in the rest of the country. We're leaving them behind. That's a commitment that we on this side of the House have, and it is clearly not shared by members on that side of the House. I look forward to that debate whenever the election comes, because I think we are speaking to the values of Canadians and the values of British Columbians, making sure that our young people in this province have a better chance to succeed and have a better chance than their parents did to get a job in the modern economy -- the new economy of the twenty-first century.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak on second reading of Bill 59. I agree with the Premier; I think it is wonderful for us to educate the children of B.C. here. Too bad we couldn't employ them here too, once they got that education. Wouldn't that be a miracle? Let's educate them here and export them somewhere else so that they can actually work for a living, because they aren't going to get a job in this province if they're youth.

We have a college and institute system and university system that is large. We've got 22 institutions, 90 campuses, 1,000 full-time and part-time programs. We've got 80,000 full-time-equivalents in terms of students, and they span all ages. We also have 300 British Columbians who devote a significant part of their free time to sitting on the 22 boards that govern our institutions. These individuals are given the instruction and the opportunity to try and fund our universities in an equitable way and ensure that students receive a good education at those institutions.

At those institutions, which are funded at this point by over a billion dollars, we have different components of how they're funded. About 15 percent of that funding comes from tuition fees that students pay. The cost of the delivery is far in excess of the student tuition fees and must come from the private and public sectors.

In British Columbia right now, we're operating at a frozen tuition fee that is equivalent to the 1995-96 fee structure. This tuition fee is absolutely, completely necessary for students in British Columbia. Quite frankly, this government has put a stranglehold on the jobs that would require them to make their money so that they could go to university and come back in the fall for their semester and actually pay out of their pocket for the money that they would have incurred in a job they might have actually had, if they had the ability to work in a different province.

This province has record high levels of youth unemployment. In British Columbia we no longer allow our students to do what most people have come to recognize as the norm. We do not allow them the opportunity to have large numbers of student-level jobs, where they can go out in the summer and earn the money that would be the prerequisite for them for paying a significant portion of their share for university or college without having to incur huge amounts of debt through student loan.

If you go to the Canada student loan office for students in any city in this province, you will find very few opportunities on the board for them. I consider that an absolute shame and a travesty for those young people who have four months off and are trying to earn the money that they would need to go back to school, so they don't have a huge debt burden at the end of their school career.

[1525]

The Premier mentioned that enrolment had gone up in the universities and institutions. That's true. It did go up, by

[ Page 12575 ]

Let's look at where the costs have gone. The costs for universities have gone up; there's no question about that. With their frozen tuition, there is no additional contribution there, so we will see in the individual institution a difference between the costs of the administration of the institution and what's available from the public sector. The questions that need to be addressed when we look at the tuition freeze and actually look at the innards of what's going on at individual institutions are twofold: the quality of education and the quantity of education.

From my discussions with most of the people who work at institutions that we all hold dear in our own communities, they would far and beyond sacrifice quantity for the quality of instruction that they provide. They will cut the number of courses or the course offerings to any individual course long before they do not pay for equipment for science labs or the more expensive parts of courses in the arts or humanities. There is always the opportunity that courses will be offered less often. As anyone who's tried to go to an institution or college and timetable themselves based on other commitments and other courses, it is not always easy to get all the options you want.

Therefore I will be looking very much through the estimates of Advanced Education to ensure that we are doing something to track how many course offerings are being cut at institutions. How many people are having to take a year longer in instruction in order to get the offerings because they are not coming up as often in the blocks that those students could not have conflicts with? How many times are we finding that students are incurring additional debt because it's taking them longer to graduate -- be it a semester or a year? How we are accounting for that? How are we ensuring that we have some quality assurance within the individual institutions to make sure that it doesn't just look good on paper -- that there's more students going to university and tuition fees are frozen -- but that in fact we are not incurring an additional year of debt for those young people, which is not doing them any favours and is certainly not doing the system any favours.

My concern with decreasing options comes from a woman by the name of Marie Esau, who lives in the riding of Okanagan-Vernon. She writes a letter about her son's personal experience with courses being cut and the impact this has had on the family. And I know that the critic for Advanced Education has a number of these kinds of letters that he can share with the House. Mrs. Esau says the following:

"Regarding the cancellation of the civil engineering technology program, September '99 at Okanagan University College -- Kelowna. Our son applied in September '98. Acceptance in the program was given in November '98, with no mention of the course being cancelled due to lack of students and/or money. Then at the end of April '99" -- last month -- "we hear via the media the program for September '99 has been cancelled due to lack of funding. We are now at May 1, too late to apply elsewhere. Closure for admission to the University of Calgary was May 1. Cariboo College does not offer a civil engineering technology program. What are the students to do who were in the program?

"Our son has two years of mechanical engineering from UVic and had decided on civil engineering technology or civil engineering. For him, working a year is not a viable option, as he had a severe head injury. His opportunities are very limited, and time to arrange with the faculty he has chosen cannot be done at the last minute.

"This cancellation four months prior to the program is penalizing the students. It should have been decided starting in January or February, in order to give the students an opportunity to make other arrangements [at other institutions]. The choice has been removed from their hands. We feel the program should run in September '99 and miss September 2000, thus giving students [like my son] a year to make other arrangements, if they were to enter the program September 2000." With the present government, it is said that there are increases in funding to education.

"What a joke!

"Marie Esau."

[1530]

Accessibility is a very large concern for students. I think there are very few of us who remember, once you get into the university or college process, how much you want to get out so that you can get on with what you consider to be the real world and real life. My concern is that the decreasing cost is in fact causing a decrease in accessibility and a decrease in the ability of young people to finish what they've started.

The Premier mentioned, for example, his pride in providing free adult basic education at the university level. Let's examine that as a paradigm for what I'm concerned about with accessibility. We offer a very good adult basic education program at the Vernon campus of Okanagan University College, and what we have, now that the adult basic education course is free, is two things: we have a longer line of people waiting to get into the course; and we have a lot more frustrated individuals, because now they think they've been offered a choice or a solution, which they are unable to access. It's quite simple mathematics. If you don't open up new seats and you don't increase the funding for the program, and you have the same number of seats, you're not going to have any more people take adult basic education. You've got a number that they can deal with; that is what they're dealing with. The waiting lists are going up, and people are not getting the services. So, quite frankly, if you ask them whether it has made a difference, most people would say that they wish it had.

I'd like to close on two comments that the Premier made. The first was that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act is a symbol of success. Unfortunately, from where I stand in my community, it is instead a symbol of failure -- the failure of our province and our government to provide good-paying jobs for youth so that they can help to get the dollars that they need in order to finish their university or college education or their training programs.

The second was: isn't it wonderful that we are educating more people? Again, if we're educating them here, then let's employ them here. Let's open up the economy so that these

[ Page 12576 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Listening to that doubletalk from the members opposite is remarkably stunning. To sit here in this chamber and reflect back on the history of this legislation and what prompted this government -- and indeed this Premier -- to bring this bill before the chamber. . . . It's amazing the kind of conversion, if I can put it that way, that's going on opposite with members of the Liberal Party, members of the opposition. What kind of hypocrisy are we hearing in this chamber around their views about post-secondary education?

Let's be very clear about what happened that brought this bill to this chamber. During the course of the last election campaign, the Premier of British Columbia made a commitment to British Columbians. He said that we would take steps to increase accessibility to post-secondary education. There was a good reason as to why the Premier took that view. He took that view because he knew that every British Columbian in society -- every parent, every grandparent -- wants their children or their grandchildren to do better in life than they are doing, and that one of the trends we were seeing in every other province in this country -- run, generally, by right-wing, conservative governments, be it in Alberta, which the members opposite like to emulate, or in Ontario, which members opposite like to emulate -- was that accessibility to post-secondary education was being denied in those jurisdictions. The cost of attending post-secondary education -- the tuition fees -- was increasing, and the dream that parents had of their children doing better in life than they are doing was being extinguished by right-wing governments and the kind of trend lines that we're seeing in those provinces like Alberta and Ontario.

[1535]

We took a number of initiatives. We brought forward -- as we are now debating in this legislation today -- a freeze for tuition for the third year in a row. This bill extends the tuition freeze so as to make sure that the cost of post-secondary education for young people who want to go from high schools on to colleges and universities is not increased and that tuition doesn't serve as a barrier. It's shocking to see that in other provinces of this country it now costs between $9,000 and $11,000, for some disciplines, to be able to get proper post-secondary training. Here in British Columbia, you can access university for as little as about $2,500 a year.

So we said we were going to distinguish ourselves in that regard. We said that we were going to distinguish ourselves by increasing the number of spaces that are available, the number of seats that are available for students trying to get into post-secondary education facilities. We said it was unacceptable, and that kind of era -- those days we saw with the previous Social Credit government where students had to line up for days to find out whether they were going to get the class that they wanted -- had to come to an end.

We said that we were not going to mimic other provinces, other right-wing jurisdictions -- be it in Ontario or Alberta -- who were creating the kind of shortfalls in funding to post-secondary facilities that were causing students to line up for classes and be unable to get seats or spaces for the courses that they wanted to take. Again, we said we were going to distinguish ourselves in that regard, and we have.

So the provisions in the budget that's before this House right now. . . . We have created up to 10,000 new spaces, with pride, for young students to get access to the seats they need so that they can get a timely education and get out into the workplace in an expeditious fashion. In addition to that, what we said was that we were going to try to bring down the other barriers to post-secondary education.

In particular, we were going to make it easier for students from working families to get access to post-secondary education. We were going to change the grant and loan system that we have in this province to make it easier for kids from working-class communities like mine in Esquimalt, where participation rates historically have been low, to allow them to get access through a better system of grants and loans. Indeed, we changed the system. We brought forward a new regime of grants and loans. You know what? We now have the second-highest participation rate for post-secondary education in this country. We started from a position where we had the second-lowest. We have the second-highest enrolment levels now in this country, and we started from a position where we had the second-lowest.

[1540]

In other words, the vision that the opposition laid out was a vision which mimicked and mirrored the kind of experience that was happening elsewhere in the country -- in Ontario and Alberta as prime examples, because that's what the members opposite always point to as the kind of vision they have. Indeed, if the voters in this province had elected the members opposite, we would see the kind of policy outcomes in terms of denying accessibility to post-secondary education that we today see in Ontario and Alberta and that are so much fundamentally a part of the election campaign today in Ontario and that so much are a comment on the kind of things that are happening in Alberta.

In fact, I'm struck by this story from the Canadian Press. Parenthetically, let me just quote it: "Calling it a stinging indictment of government spending policies, a leading Alberta industrialist said the Klein government is failing to

[ Page 12577 ]

They're standing up and supporting this bill -- some kind of conversion at the last second. I'll tell you why they're doing it. They're doing it for reasons of pure politics. They're doing it because they know they don't want to be in a position for us to be able to say: "Oh well, look, they don't believe in this." But at the end of the day, nothing fundamentally has changed. Their policies haven't changed; their view of the world hasn't changed. They still stand in this chamber every day, particularly the Finance critic and the Leader of the Opposition, and as a part of their vision of British Columbia, they advocate tax cuts for the rich, for the wealthiest in society.

Well, if you provide those kinds of tax cuts, you've got to make up for it somewhere. I'd argue that part of that makeup would happen out of education budgets. If you do that, people won't be able to live the dream of making sure that their children have access to post-secondary education.

Every day the members opposite tell us that it's wrong for government to have run a deficit. Let's be frank about this. The size of the deficit in this year's budget is equal to the increases in expenditures on health care and education and the small business tax cut. But they want us to eliminate that. And if they want us to eliminate it, then we would have to eliminate the kinds of increases in funding that we provided for post-secondary education. To use the language that they used at the outset. . . . I say that it is somewhat doubletalk -- to put it politely -- for the members opposite to come in here and, on the one hand, say, "Oh yes, we'd like to see more accessibility for post-secondary education; oh yes, we'd like to see more funding for universities; oh yes, we'd like to see more courses, more labs" -- as the speaker before me said -- and out of the other side of their mouth, come in here and say: "Well, you've got to eliminate the deficit."

You can't have it both ways. It is the height of hypocrisy for them to kind of hide behind the skirt of this legislation and to go out there and say, "Oh yes, we voted in favour of the tuition freeze bill; oh yes, we stand with the government on that issue," when deep down inside, ultimately, when you read their policies, they're advocating $3.6 billion in cuts. Some of those cuts would have to come out of education, and that would inevitably drive us to the kind of experience we're seeing in Alberta and Ontario.

It is all about choices. We said, during the course of the budget debate and during the course of the introduction of this bill, that this is all about choices. It's all about the values that you believe in.

[1545]

Now, I find it hypocritical that those members opposite stand up in this chamber at other times and say, "Oh, the debt is too high; we can't have more debt in this province," and criticize this administration for increases in debt and then have the temerity to stand up during the course of this debate, knowing it's all about education, and pretend as if one side of the mouth or one side of the brain is not working. They come in here and stand up and say: "Oh, you know, we need more labs; we need more facilities at universities; we need new buildings" -- as I've just heard the members opposite say.

Well, that's debt, and you can't have it both ways. Either you can make a choice, as we have, to build new buildings, build new labs and provide more spaces to post-secondary facilities in this province. . . . In this community that means the new Young building at Camosun College, it means a new university at Royal Roads. . .

An Hon. Member: Who supported that?

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .and it means new facilities at the University of Victoria.

The member said: "Who supports it?" We on this side support that. That means that the debt goes up. Let's be clear about that. You can't have it both ways and come in here and tell us that you don't want the debt increased, as the members opposite do. . . . You can't have it both ways. It's all about choices. We have made a choice to invest in education and to invest in post-secondary education.

An Hon. Member: Ferries.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member says: "Ferries." Yes, we made a decision to invest in those as well. But members opposite ought not to come to the conclusion that you can mix apples and oranges.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'm quite happy to get into a debate, but I have more respect for the rules of this House than to get into a debate about Skeena and providing employment opportunities.

At the end of the day, what this bill is all about is the kind of vision this government brings to public office. As I said earlier on, we believe not just that students should have an opportunity to get a post-secondary education, not just that every child in life. . . . I want my children and I want all of my constituents' children to do better than their parents have done in life. It goes beyond that.

As a fundamental component of the kind of economic vision that the Right doesn't understand -- that the Right never seems to understand -- we believe that if we invest in education today, if we provide our students with the kind of skills that they need to meet the needs of the economy tomorrow, we're building prosperity for the future, we're laying a foundation in economic terms, and there's a relationship between the kind of investments -- yes, deficit- and debt-driven -- that we make today in education and the kind of payback that comes to society tomorrow. Now, members opposite and those that advocate this kind of right-wing agenda that we see elsewhere in the country have great difficulty in connecting the two and in believing that there is a relationship between the kind of investments we make today in our children and the kind of outcome we'll have in terms of an economy tomorrow.

[ Page 12578 ]

An Hon. Member: What economy?

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, the member is saying: "What economy?" Well, without stretching the bounds of the rules here, we're investing in providing more spaces for students in high-tech, while at the same time we're attracting world-class, high-tech companies here to British Columbia. Look around Victoria: MDA Ltd., IBM, ISM-BC, EDS -- all high-tech companies that have located here because of the kind of work that we've done. Why are they locating here? They're locating here because we have an educational infrastructure that is second to none in Canada -- second to none in Canada. Nowhere else do you have the equivalent of a University of Victoria, a Camosun College and a Royal Roads University -- things that they would criticize, the things that are attracting those industries here.

Look across the water. We're training students in high-tech.

[1550]

Hon. M. Sihota: The members say: "What kind of economy?" Let me tell you. Look at Ballard and the kind of investments we've made in that company and the kind of students that they need to work there, my friend. Take a look at the kind of developments we're seeing now in Vancouver in the high-tech aircraft sector -- be it MDA on the Radarsat stuff in terms of satellites, or Avcorp in terms of the Bombardier contract, which members opposite will criticize us for. They'll always criticize us for making those kinds of investments. Those people need trained workers.

We're expanding our institutions -- be it BCIT, be it UBC, be it Simon Fraser. Yes, hon. members opposite, we're investing in a new institute, Tech U in Surrey, which again members opposite will criticize because somehow ICBC is involved; somehow Bob Williams is involved. You know, they can't get past their political angst about this government and acknowledge just for once that those kinds of investments that we're making for students in British Columbia are going to build a prosperous economy for tomorrow.

The Premier was right: this is a definitional piece in terms of legislation, and yes, it distinguishes us from the members opposite. You would never. . . . Not one member here on this side of the chamber has ever heard a member opposite stand up and make this kind of speech, lay it out in these kinds of terms -- or for that matter, even apologize for the kind of position that they took during the last election campaign and say that they were wrong. In fact, it's been exactly the opposite.

The member for Saanich South, the Minister of Advanced Education, and myself most recently challenged that heckling member for Okanagan East, who is the Advanced Education critic for the party. We actually challenged that gentleman to a public debate at the University of Victoria, and said: "Let's have a debate about these kinds of things in front of the students, in front of the faculty, in front of the staff at our universities." You know what? They chickened out. They did not show up.

In a moment of bravado their member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said: "Oh yes, of course we'll debate the Minister Responsible for the Public Service and the Minister of Advanced Education." But you know what? Then they realized: "Whoops, we don't have a policy." For two years the B.C. Teachers Federation has been asking the Liberal Party for their policy on education, and we haven't seen a policy forthcoming from them yet. No wonder they wanted to avoid a debate. Now we hear: "We'll debate you during an election campaign."

Well, you know, let's put that in some perspective. The time is now. What are you afraid of? I'll tell you what they're afraid of. They're afraid of being shown up for the kind of hypocrites that they are, for the kind of absence of policy that we have opposite and for the fact that they haven't strayed one iota from the position that they took during the election campaign, notwithstanding their tepid support for this bill. The Premier is right in saying that this is landmark legislation. It does distinguish us from the members opposite, and it goes right down to the core kind of values we on this side of the House believe versus the kind of values that members opposite advocate -- the kind of vision we have of a society that builds for tomorrow versus the kind of vision that they have, which builds an Ontario and Alberta here in British Columbia.

I'm very proud of this bill. It goes to one of the reasons why I got involved in public office. I stand up with pride in support of this legislation, and once again I invite members opposite to step outside this chamber and engage in the debate that they've wanted to avoid to date.

J. Dalton: I'm reminded of a recent public event when, as some observer said, he went to a debate and a hockey game broke out. Perhaps the member opposite was inviting some of the same.

[1555]

Access is the key issue here, and the minister who introduced this bill, the Premier and we on this side, as well, have all commented in some way or another about access. It's interesting. When you look at the post-secondary budget overall, there is a couple of things that have been drawn to my attention, and I'm not alone.

For example, it's interesting that the Open Learning Agency budget has actually decreased this year. It's the only post-secondary institution that has actually taken a hit from this government and has suffered a decrease. I wonder, when we're dealing with access, why an important and almost world-famous -- in fact, in a way, Open Learning is world-famous -- institution like that would have to suffer a budget decrease when this government is so proudly trying to tell us that it has increased spaces and is now, of course, addressing the financial concerns of students through a further tuition

[ Page 12579 ]

Another issue dealing with access is course and program choice and offerings. The Premier said that in the old days -- maybe referring back to Social Credit or some other regime; I don't know. . . . The Premier made mention of lineups that he feels have disappeared. Well, that may be true on the part of the physical lineups. I certainly remember my days at Langara when lineups literally stretched out of the building and onto the street. Perhaps the Attorney General can support that, because he was a Langara student at one time, and he may remember those lineups as well. That was, of course, a few years ago.

We still have lineups. They may not be the physical lineups, but the problem that students now face is that program offerings are not the ones that fit their career objectives. Those are still lineups. In fact, they may be more insidious, in a way, because students' expectations are dashed. They're disappointed when they arrive at their post-secondary institution of choice, and they find that course and program offerings are not what they expected. There's no point in having students registering for courses that don't meet their career objectives or that delay their career objectives or steer them in a direction that is really not what they've expected and what they've been gearing up for since high school days. Those are difficulties of access. Those exist today, without question. We have those kinds of access problems at every institution.

As well, we have to consider the impact of the tuition freeze on, of course, college and university budgets as a whole. When this bill was introduced last week, I phoned one of the college presidents, and he made an interesting observation. He said that this bill was both a blessing and not a blessing. What he was referring to on the blessing side -- and as the parent of children who are heading to or who have been in the post-secondary system, I guess that for me, perhaps in a way, it's a blessing -- was the fact that the students would not be facing a tuition increase for the 1999-2000 year. On the not-a-blessing side of the equation, the college president was also referring to the fact that inflationary costs -- things such as hydro and workers compensation and every other aspect that a college or university must pay for. . . . Those items of an inflationary nature are not necessarily reflected in the post-secondary budget for this year.

[1600]

Let's consider, for a moment, student financial aid and, I guess, more significantly, student debt. The Minister of Advanced Education advised us this morning that the average student debt for a student graduating from a post-secondary institution in British Columbia is $15,000. That's the average debt. Has this government considered the impact of that debt load on student life and on post-secondary life and beyond, into their careers? I'm not so sure that the financial package that is available for students is one that is going to properly alleviate that debt load. That's another factor that I think we have to fold into this debate and discussion about the tuition freeze and the other methods of access to post-secondary and, of course, the financing that must go with it.

There's one other point, as well, that I wish to make comment on. Perhaps this is the most telling of all. Recently a public education survey was conducted. This was across British Columbia -- a typical phone survey; about 500 people were surveyed. One of the questions that people who were contacted were asked was about the relationship between the economy and education. There was a very telling result. Eighty-seven percent of the people who responded in this survey said that a strong economy equated to a strong educational system.

Quite frankly, I do not think that this government can get to its feet in any way to fan the economic side of that equation -- in fact, quite the reverse. It's fine for them to bring in Bill 59 and again support a tuition freeze, which we on this side will do as well, but they forget that in the equation of a strong economy supporting strong education, there's something missing. What's missing from that side is the economic aspect of it. We cannot hope, in any way, shape or form, to build a strong K-to-12 or post-secondary system if the economy of this province is allowed to founder as it has done -- and of course, it's only getting worse. I needn't, I'm sure, remind the members opposite of the closure of Gold River and Highland Valley and other impacts on the mining and forest industries.

Those are vital to the strong economy that I made reference to and that 87 percent of responding British Columbians felt was vital to a strong public and particularly a strong post-secondary education system. So I'm hoping the government will take those thoughts in mind as it proceeds through this exercise of dealing with tuition and other issues of post-secondary access and financing.

With those few comments, I will indicate, as some of my colleagues have done, my support for this bill.

[1605]

Now, the problem is that we have allowed that standard to prevail only at that level for too long, and we haven't thought about the next step. The next step has to be more affordable post-secondary education. I think the importance of education beyond grade 12 is readily apparent to everybody. I don't think any of us, if we were sitting down with a young person today, would recommend to them that they could simply finish grade 12 and expect to have a successful working life.

[ Page 12580 ]

Now I want to relate a couple of anecdotes. One is that a couple of months ago I had the privilege of going out to UBC and speaking to the Vancouver Youth Parliament. After I finished speaking there, a young woman came out in the hallway and had a long discussion with me, because she's considering going to law school. She's a very bright young woman -- she has the grades to go to law school -- and she was trying to make a decision. There are a lot of doors that are open to her in terms of institutions that would be more than happy to accept her as a student. This student knows that I went to law school -- not that long ago, in 1992, I graduated from UVic law school. So she was considering the University of Victoria law school; she was also considering the University of Toronto. Both are excellent law schools; both are among the top law schools, if not the top law schools, in Canada.

We spent some time -- probably 20 or 25 minutes -- talking about the relative merits of the University of Victoria law school versus the University of Toronto law school. I was coming at this completely from the perspective of someone who finished law school in 1992, not someone who has to face the reality of getting a post-secondary education today. So when we talked about the relative merits of going to the University of Toronto versus the University of Victoria, I only talked about the relative strengths of each law school in terms of faculty, in terms of course offerings, in terms of the diversity of the student population or the diversity of the faculty.

After a long discussion, she raised something which hadn't entered my mind, because I was speaking to her as a former student about my experience as a student at the University of Victoria. She said: "Yeah, but you know, one of the things I have to consider is that the University of Toronto law school has tuition fees in excess of $10,000 a year." I have to admit that I knew that intellectually. I guess I hadn't quite understood it on the emotional level at which a student might understand it when they're faced with making choices about their future. So we talked about the fact that she's fortunate enough that somehow or other, if she wanted to go there, she might be able to pull the money together through scholarships or what have you. Now, obviously one of the reasons we need a tuition freeze is that most students wouldn't be in that position and wouldn't be able to pull together that kind of money on an annual basis to go to law school.

[1610]

Referring back to my opening remarks, when I talked about the importance of education as a step towards greater equality in our society. . . . Well, clearly, the threat of much higher tuition fees is that we'll see a situation where our universities and colleges could become much more elitist institutions. I think it's fair to say that that is already happening in a jurisdiction where you have to pay $10,000 a year to get into a professional program or a graduate program. I should emphasize that by comparison I believe tuition fees at the University of Victoria law school are about $2,500 a year, so it's far more accessible.

When I went to law school, one of the things I was proud of was that we had students from all across Canada. We had students from all backgrounds. There were students who had left home in their teens and supported themselves. Some of them had worked in the forest industry and never had any formal education until much later in life. There were people that I graduated with who graduated from law school in their fifties. There were aboriginal students who clearly wouldn't have been able to afford $10,000 a year in tuition. So I want to emphasize that, hon. Speaker. These are real considerations when we're looking at this type of public policy. It's about access, but sometimes when we talk about access, we don't talk about everything that that means. When we talk about access, we're really talking about equality; we're really talking about opportunity. That's what's so important about the tuition freeze.

One other brief anecdote. My constituency assistant is a very, very bright young woman who scored very highly on her LSAT in the fall, applied to a number of law schools and recently went out and interviewed for scholarships at Dalhousie University in Halifax. These scholarships are the best scholarships, I understand, available at any law school in Canada. She just found out a few weeks ago that she got the scholarship, and it's a $10,000-per-year scholarship. I said: "That's great. You're going to be able to cover your living expenses. You're not going to have to. . . . You might be able to take summer work at a lower wage rate, if it's something related to the field you want to get into." And then she pointed out to me that the tuition fees for law school at Dalhousie are in excess of $6,000 a year. It's lucky for her that it's a $10,000-a-year scholarship. It's just unfortunate that over 60 percent of that scholarship -- the highest scholarship available to go to a law school in Canada -- is taken up by tuition fees.

I think I've made my point about the importance of access and the importance of equality and opportunity when it comes to post-secondary education and the fact that these are real considerations in the real lives of young people in this country today. But I gather now that the official opposition is going to be supporting this bill, which I find a bit perplexing. We've had a lot of debate in this chamber recently about what Liberal commitments are on almost every other area within government. We've seen the Liberal budget and the fact that they've got a $3.6 billion problem. The reason they have that problem is because they insist on promising everything to everybody.

[ Page 12581 ]

[1615]

There's a simple reason for that, and it's because the government of Alberta has chosen to have the lowest tax environment in the country. At least in Alberta they've made a clear choice, and I think they're aboveboard about that choice. They have no problem with seeing tuition fees increasing at an annual rate, in some cases, of 10 percent. I believe the University of Alberta will have increases of close to 10 percent this year. They don't have a problem with that, because the trade-off is lower taxes.

In this province we've said no. We've said that we can have, overall, the second-lowest level of taxation in terms of all provincial taxes considered, including property taxes, medicare premiums and what have you. We can have the second-lowest, but we can have the second-lowest tuition fees in Canada as well. The problem we have in this province is that we're not having a full debate about real, hard choices. As a government, we're making choices, and we're taking a lot of flak for those choices, and that's fair enough.

But what we need to see more of is an opposition that would clearly outline their choices to see if they're willing to withstand the public scrutiny of their choices. What we have is an opposition that says they'll balance the budget, they'll maintain spending in key areas like health care and education, they'll have the lowest taxes in Canada, and they'll pay down the debt. Now, there's no other province in Canada -- no other government in Canada, even the ones they admire so greatly in Ontario and Alberta -- that makes those kinds of commitments. Today they've just added to that by saying that they want to support the tuition freeze, at least in principle.

Interjections.

G. Bowbrick: I hear misgivings from the other side. I heard the member for West Vancouver-Capilano saying: "It causes lineups" -- and these issues. . . . I have to disagree with the member on that. But the point is that if he has those problems with the tuition fee freeze, the question is: why doesn't that member vote against this bill? It seems a little hypocritical to vote in favour and at the same time say: "But it has all these bad ramifications."

Once again, in the broader context, this is about choices. I'm proud, as a legislator, to make this choice. I wish we'd see an opposition that had a little more courage to state its choices for British Columbians, to put them on the table. They tell us that they won't talk about them until, oh, two weeks into the next election campaign. That says to me that it's an opposition that understands it can't withstand public scrutiny on its promises for the next two years, and it's hoping it can slip things by British Columbians in the final two weeks of an election campaign. That isn't a position that's in the spirit of open and honest debate in this province. I think many British Columbians would wish that they would just come clean and tell us what their real choices would be. We'd all be better for it, and we could have a better debate.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a real pleasure to rise in the chamber today to support the Tuition Fee Freeze Act that we now are debating in second reading here and to speak to some of the underlying reasons why, on this side of the House, we think this is an absolutely critical step towards moving forward with an agenda that puts education first in British Columbia.

[1620]

I want to reflect a little bit on why I feel this is such an important act, particularly for those of us who come from interior regions of the province where, frankly, post-secondary education has not traditionally been part of what was considered the "normal" or "ordinary" progress of people as they went to school and then went into the workforce.

When I moved to Prince George some 25 years ago, the great difficulty that educators in the community were having was persuading young people to complete high school. It was a tough job to persuade them, because frankly, a young man or woman could probably leave school at the age of 15 or 16 with grade 9 or grade 10 and get a pretty well-paid job in one of the primary resource sectors, doing sometimes fairly physical work, and earn more in the first year than the English teacher they left behind in high school.

Well, those jobs, those opportunities, are gone, or at least greatly diminished. Now when I go into high schools in Prince George and ask young people what they see as their future, something like 75 to 85 percent say that they know that college or university is in their future. They know that their route to a successful career and to economic success for them and their family lies with education. That is a hugely different message. On this side of the House, we think that that is exactly the right direction, and we want to support those young people in every way possible. The tuition fee freeze is exactly the sort of initiative that we need.

I want to just put on the record the difference that this government's tuition freeze policy has made over the past four years, because I've heard a lot of very strange figures from the opposition benches. Let's put on the record what the tuition fees are in this province right now, compared to other provinces.

This year in British Columbia, 1998-99, the B.C. average for tuition in colleges and universities blended is $1,970. The

[ Page 12582 ]

Now, I heard a lot from the members opposite, saying: "Well, that's not enough. You've got to keep growing the system. You've got to provide more opportunity." And that, too, is an area that we've devoted a lot of attention to in British Columbia. The facts are clear. Since 1991, enrolment across British Columbia in our colleges, institutions and universities has grown by 10 percent. We've opened new universities, including UNBC in Prince George, and across the north. . . . We're opening another one, Tech B.C., the university in Surrey. We've opened new faculties in colleges and universities, and students are taking advantage of them.

The number of spaces has increased by 16,000 -- a 10 percent increase over the last eight years. In the rest of Canada, there has been a decline of 4.4 percent. We are moving in a different direction than the rest of this country on post-secondary education. And we on this side of the House are proud of that and want to continue to keep those doors to learning open.

[1625]

Yes, it is expensive to get post-secondary education. And we provide better financial assistance than any other province in the country. We have the only bursary program and the only loan remission program that still exists in Canada. Now frankly, as the chair of the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada, that's not something that I'm very proud of as a Canadian. I think all provinces should be looking at grant programs to reduce the cost of post-secondary education. I would love to hear from other provincial Premiers the vision of post-secondary education that I heard in this House today from our Premier -- a vision that increasingly says that we need to have post-secondary education as right for all, not a privilege for an elite few.

A generation ago, two generations ago, a hundred years ago, this country and other western democracies started moving towards free public education. Frankly, it is time for us to now look at how we move towards more accessible, open and less costly post-secondary education. That has to be borne as part of the general support that society gives to its young people, because without that we are going to be disadvantaging them and disadvantaging our province and our country.

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Now, I hear some members opposite that seem to be wanting to curtail this discussion. I don't understand it.

Let me just say a few things in conclusion here, because I think that this is an act that is going to be supported by both sides of the House. I believe that this is the right direction to move to support young people and not-so-young people who need post-secondary education and training. It is clearly an act that distinguishes this province from other provinces in Canada. I wish that that vision of accessible post-secondary education was more widely shared across the country, and I regret that it's not. But for our part, we will be supporting this act and supporting the doors that are opening to learning for students across British Columbia.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would move second reading.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question.

[1630]

[1635]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

The House in Committee of Supply B; P. Calendino in the chair.

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

C. Hansen: I want to ask the minister about a program that's known as vocational rehabilitation services, which I believe falls under the skills development division of the ministry. Specifically, this is pertaining to a constituent. I know that the constituent and her parents are very concerned about this issue and would probably not mind my using their name, but since I don't have their explicit written consent for that, I won't. Besides, I want to talk generally about the policies that this program operates under rather than the specifics of this case, although I think the case is interesting for the problem that it points out.

This particular young lady was born with a learning disability, went through our public education system as a special needs student and graduated and got her Dogwood Certificate from the public school system. She's now seeking to go on to Kwantlen College. She has made application for vocational rehabilitation services through the ministry and, in the process, went through medical assessments. In the discussions with ministry officials, one of the questions that was asked was whether or not she had any outstanding claims against ICBC as a result of a motor vehicle accident that had

[ Page 12583 ]

They acknowledged that there is an outstanding claim, but they were astounded to find out that there is a policy of the ministry to deny her the right to apply under this program because of the fact that there is an outstanding claim. In this letter that was sent to her from the ministry, it actually spells out the policy that exists. It says. . . . Under this VRS policy, one of the circumstances that exists in which one is not eligible includes: ". . .they have made a claim under the Workers Compensation Act, Veterans Rehabilitation Act of Canada, private insurance carriers or any other branch of federal, provincial or municipal governments that, resolved, could include rehabilitation services."

[1640]

Hon. A. Petter: I think it would be helpful, given the individual nature of the concern, if the member were to share it with me; I'd be happy to follow up. In general terms, if the client is an income assistance client who's also seeking services through VRS, then the eligibility that is being referred to may well relate to the income assistance eligibility criteria. If that's not the case and this is a client who's seeking eligibility for service with VRS outside of income assistance, then their eligibility would indeed be determined through the VRS criteria themselves. If that's the situation, I would be very happy to follow up and see why in fact the situation is as the member has described it, and see what we can do to address it. I'm not familiar with the specifics or how this issue would have come into play -- unless it is an income assistance recipient, and then it would be part and parcel of the income assistance criteria.

C. Hansen: My understanding of this particular case is that it's not an income assistance case. In saying that, I don't want to deal with the specifics of this individual case on the floor of the Legislature. My concern is the way this particular policy is applied generally, because certainly it has applications to British Columbians all over the province and in different circumstances. My concern is that there would be such a policy in existence that basically says to applicants that if they have any outstanding claims against a government body, their application cannot be considered. Certainly in this particular case, the constituents saw this as almost a veiled threat which said that unless they were to dispense with their action against ICBC for an unrelated motor vehicle accident, the application couldn't be considered. Certainly I would question whether or not that was the intent of this policy in the first place. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us some assurance or perhaps explain to us why this policy is in existence and how it was intended to be applied to applicants.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess that in response to the member's question I can only hypothesize. I'd have to look at the circumstances. In general terms, I will run a little risk of hypothesis here: the general criteria for eligibility through VRS entails not only the termination of disability and other criteria, but also the criteria that the individual not meet any of the conditions for ineligibility, including having a claim for rehabilitation services with another government agency or private insurance carrier.

In other words, VRS is intended to provide a safety net where people cannot obtain rehabilitation services through either private insurance or some other government agency. So it's for people who cannot get services elsewhere, as many government programs are. There is an expectation that other agencies will provide the service where they're obliged to do so, and VRS will come in where that obligation doesn't exist. If the issue is that ICBC may have had an obligation to provide rehabilitation services, that might help explain why this avenue was being pursued. But again, I'm hypothesizing.

[1645]

In fact if you read it, it says that they are not eligible if they have a claim under the Workers Compensation Act, the Veterans Rehabilitation Act, etc., including ICBC. The way it's worded, it doesn't seem to even give any discretion. If you have an unrelated matter that's before ICBC -- or WCB, for that matter -- the way the policy is worded it doesn't give the ministry officials the authority to proceed with the application in spite of the fact that there is some outstanding, unrelated ICBC matter that is unresolved.

Hon. A. Petter: The problem with shadowboxing around an individual claim is that although the member -- as I appreciate -- is trying to get me to explore the policy. . . . The trouble is that it's hard to know what the policy is that's being applied here -- or misapplied, if the member is correct. I would agree that if in fact the claim is unrelated, then clearly it should not be a condition of receiving service. I'm struggling to find out why it might be related, giving the benefit of the doubt to my ministry and the excellent officials who work in it. I assume they don't make determinations based upon unrelated matters. Hence I indulge in a hypothesis.

If it is not the case that the ICBC claim or workers compensation claim might entail eligibility for rehabilitation services, then I am perplexed as to why eligibility under that claim would be taken into account. If the member provides me with the name of the individual so I can pursue the matter in confidentiality, I'd be more than happy to do so. Then we might find out what principle it is we are debating or, hopefully, not debating.

C. Hansen: I'll turn it back to my colleague from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. . . . Just before I do that I want to thank the minister for agreeing to look at that. I will send him the background on this particular case. But I also hope he'll look at it from the perspective of a broader application of this policy, in addition to looking at the specifics of the case that my constituent is currently facing. I appreciate the minister undertaking that obligation.

[ Page 12584 ]

As I understand it, "Career Strategies for Youth" is a transition program between school and work and/or post-secondary education for young adults who are mentally challenged. The problem appears to be that the program, while it is not disappearing, is changing in its nature. As I understand it, the program will continue to exist, but it will be purely a job-focused program -- focusing completely on job skills and job-shadowing -- and the young adults who are presently in this program are not yet ready for such a program. I don't know if the minister wishes more information. Do you wish to respond at this point?

Hon. A. Petter: I'll respond only to try to elicit additional information. Let me introduce, to my left, Betty Notar, who's the assistant deputy minister in charge of the skills development division of the ministry.

We know of no program of the ministry called "Career Strategies for Youth," so maybe the member could inform me a bit more about the funding for this program. It might be a federally funded program, or it might be a local program that receives provincial funding through some other program initiative that we do fund and is known locally, but not to the ministry, by that name. Unless I can make the linkage back to some provincial funding or some known program of the ministry, it's going to be difficult for me to explain why there has been a change in policy.

[1650]

Anyway, I think that it is an appropriate place to approach this issue. What it really gets down to, I think, is that we are now graduating from the school system in the province the first graduates who have gone completely through the system in integrated programs. I'm speaking of people who have mental challenges. What I'm hearing from the parents is that while there are a variety of programs out there, there are not the transitional programs that many of these young adults require.

I believe that most experts would agree that young adults who have mental challenges perhaps require a little longer time. I'm told that there is as much as a two-year waiting period to get into some of the existing programs. There is a huge waiting list, I gather, for the eight spots that are available at Capilano College. There are some other programs, and I understand that their waiting lists are just as long. So whether or not this program is readily recognized by the ministry, I assure the ministry that it does exist and that it is known to people who work in the ministry. And the problem remains the same.

It is possible that this is a Ministry for Children and Families program that is contracted either from this ministry or through this ministry. It took me a while to track it down.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, again, I think it may be more useful if I can pursue this, if the member will allow me, through some communication. We're trying to figure out where the program might fit. It might well be a program that is funded through arrangement between vocational rehabilitation services, under my ministry, and the federal government, in some of the funding arrangements that we've reached for the federal government that do fund local service delivery for people with disabilities. The level of funding commitment from the province has been maintained for those programs. We have recently reached agreement with the federal government to continue federal participation.

But again, it's difficult to know exactly, when you have a local program of this kind, where it fits and why the change that the member refers to might have taken place. It is also possible that it may sit under another provincial ministry. But rather than try to stab in the dark which of those is the case, I'd be happy to follow up for the member, if she's prepared to communicate the specific concern to me, and to make sure we get an answer back as to why the change has been in place and what can be done if the change in fact is having a detrimental impact.

K. Whittred: I thank the minister, and I will get that information to him.

[1655]

I've had inquiries from constituents who are older than 24 and who are university students who would like to be afforded the same opportunity. I'd written the minister about that. The minister explained the parameters of the program and so on but didn't really answer my constituents' question of why there's an age cutoff for this. Many of these older students -- mature students, as they refer to us in the institutions -- are there because they no longer have jobs, and they're trying to qualify themselves for new careers. They would like to be included in the scope of this program, which, frankly, seems to me to be an excellent program. I wonder if the minister could comment about that on the record.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the program, Youth Community Action. . . . I really appreciate the member's comments. It was a pilot program last year. We've now made it a permanent program. I think it has been an excellent program. Why is it targeted at a certain age category? The answer is that it's part of our Youth Options B.C. package of programs that are designed to deal with a particular problem. That problem is that youth have a particular difficulty in gaining skills in order to enter into the job market.

While youth unemployment is on a downward trend, contrary to what the member may have sometimes been led to believe. . . . The rate for April was 14.4 per cent, I believe, and that's down somewhat from previously. It's nonetheless true that it's still substantially higher than the general rate of unemployment in society. That's because -- I don't think it's any secret -- young people have particular difficulties getting

[ Page 12585 ]

So we have a cluster of programs that are designed to help young people gain some of that experience and some of that skill. Youth Community Action is one of those. It's a great program, because it means that those young people can gain some skills working in the volunteer sector, earn some tuition credits to get the educational training that they need to get into the job market and also build up a résumé doing some very useful things for the community.

I appreciate that whenever you target a program at one group, you can always say: "Yes, yes, but there are others. Gee, why didn't you draw the line here rather than there?" But I think it's well known that youth unemployment is a serious concern. This is one of a number of programs designed to deal with that concern.

It doesn't mean that we are unconcerned about others in society -- far from it. Our elimination of tuition for adult basic education is of huge benefit to older adults who don't have basic high school, for example. We have other programs that have been of tremendous benefit to other workers. But this particular program is part of a strategy to help youth gain experience and contribute to the community and also earn tuition credits.

K. Krueger: Just for clarification, my question wasn't really about why the program exists. I said that it seems like an excellent program to me. But the question was: why would we cut such a program off at age 24, when the mature students in the system are facing the very same problems and constraints with regard to unemployment, and they're in university for the very same reasons, as the minister has just discussed? It seems to be a relatively painless program for government with regard to the cost. It's certainly a way of helping people get into a career that hopefully will enable them to be contributing taxpayers again -- if they haven't been able to be up until now. And the volunteer work done in the community, of course, is of great value to the communities as well.

So again, on behalf of my constituents, students older than 24 are asking if the program might be extended to embrace them, as well -- rather than limiting it to those age 15 to 24. If not, they'd like to know why not. I wonder if we could deal specifically with that -- whether it could be expanded to include them, and if not, why not?

[1700]

K. Krueger: Perhaps we could just get some detail as to what the cost of this program is per participant. When I said that it seemed to me it was a program that wouldn't require a great deal in resources. . . . If the government is devoting some funds to providing tuition direct to universities instead of supporting people who would otherwise be on welfare, it may well be a cost saving. Perhaps that number's available: what the average cost per student who received benefit from the Youth Community Action program was in the last year.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the total cost of the program is $3.4 million. We have set a target of 1,200 students. But we set a target last year of 1,000 and it was exceeded, and I hope the 1,200 can be exceeded again this year. I think the maximum amount that can be earned by way of credit per student is $2,400, so for every student you add to the program -- depending on whether they work the full complement of hours or less -- we'll add $2,400, plus whatever associated administrative costs there are.

K. Krueger: I'll take that back to my constituents. Obviously the minister's well aware of mature students' desire to be included in such a program, and hopefully that'll be a part of the planning processes for future years.

The second area that I wish to canvass briefly with the minister pertains to the office for disability issues. The minister and I had a relatively brief and impromptu conversation about this some time ago. It's an office that I've certainly taken an interest in, and I have constituents who have been helped by these people. I think it's a really commendable operation.

I've had it put to me by disabled people that they don't like to be considered a health issue. Certainly they have had health problems in the past, but they have disabilities which they're certainly well aware of and are working with. In many cases they have accepted that they will be working with these disabilities for the rest of their lifetime. So they don't like the programs to come under the Ministry of Health. They're also not particularly fond of the idea of their programs or this office -- and I'm speaking for disabled people in general that have talked to me -- being designated under the Education ministry. In their minds, what they really have is an employment issue. And if they're going to be assisted by government, they would be best assisted by an arm of government that helps them work with employers to adapt the workplaces to deal with people with disabilities. They're neither lacking in training nor requiring further medical attention. That's why, rather than being in the ambit of the Ministry of Education or Advanced Education or the Ministry of Health, it seems to many of these people that they would be better served and their office would be better placed within the Ministry of Employment or the Ministry of Labour. I'd just like the minister's comments.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, let me first say that I think the office for disability issues is one of the quiet success stories that occur so often in government and don't get a lot of recognition. I appreciate the member's referencing it.

The member is correct. One impression that might have been left by the member's comments. . . . The office does not deliver programs. It is there to provide advice and policy advice to government, based on interaction with the disability community, as to how we can better meet the needs of that

[ Page 12586 ]

[1705]

What's more important is that the goals and objectives of this office be fulfilled. Those goals and objectives are very important in terms of drawing the government's attention to the impact of policy proposals on those who are disabled and getting government to reconsider some of those proposals. Indeed I mentioned, I think, at the outset of my estimates some of the things that the office has underway to do exactly that. The office has my full support in pursuing those items -- as I'm sure it would from another minister and another ministry.

K. Krueger: For the record, nobody was complaining to me. These were general convictions on the part of people who don't want to be so much involved in programs as able to lead fulfilling and productive lives. People are very much appreciative of the efforts of government. People feel as though the focus of government and of everyone concerned might well be more on placement and assisting them with getting on with their lives if they were in one of the ministries that is directly doing those things, such as Employment or Labour.

In any event, I think the member for Peace River South has some questions, and I'll yield the floor to him.

J. Weisgerber: I was hoping to raise with the minister at this opportunity the issue of dormitories at Northern Lights College. As the minister knows, I met with him a few weeks ago to discuss an ongoing attempt by Northern Lights College to replace the existing dormitories. These are World War II barracks filled to capacity and filled, in large measure, by students from across Canada. Many of them come to Dawson Creek for the aircraft maintenance program, which is very well regarded and is now starting to attract international students to the program.

The buildings have been condemned because of wiring. The college has a plan to replace the dormitories and expand the capacity of the dormitories on a self-financing basis. There will be some costs at the front end, which the college is quite prepared to finance out of its existing current budgets. As the minister is aware, there have been ongoing difficulties at Treasury Board in getting approval for the project. So perhaps we could start with the minister giving me an update on the status of the project at Treasury Board.

Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the member drawing this issue to my attention again. I thought we had a very useful meeting about it. I came away from that meeting even more convinced than I was going into it that this is a situation that does need to be addressed immediately -- that there does need to be a replacement facility. I won't go into the tortuous detail of accounting practices and the like that have made it difficult to proceed. I'll simply say to the member that I have been pursuing this matter both directly and through senior officials. I am pursuing it actively, and I am hopeful to have a positive resolution within the next short while. I'll certainly keep him apprised of that. I don't have the answer right now, but I think the answer is at hand.

[1710]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me just say there are many reasons why people do not sleep at night because of accountants, but this will not be one of them.

J. Weisbeck: I just have a couple of questions here that I want to ask on the bonding issue, before we get into the training accord. This relates to a gentleman here who has a private photography school. He has been bonded with Canadian Northern Shield, but they're now finding that because of the losses they've had, they will not be renewing his bond. So what he's saying is: he has a legitimate business; he's starting his accreditation process in August; what happens if he doesn't get his bond?

I understand, as well, that the tuition assurance fund is in process. We had some mention of it yesterday, although we didn't name it. So there's obviously going to be a lag time here. Here's a gentleman who can't get bonding; we're talking about this fund coming into place. How is all this timing going to work out to maintain this gentleman's business? I'm sure he's not alone.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I understand the system as it works now, bonding is one possibility. If the person that the member is referring to cannot come up with a bond, there are alternative forms of security that can be put up, including posting an amount that is equivalent to a proportion of the unexpended tuition that's collected -- that's how I refer to it, anyway. There's a technical term for it, but I'll never remember it.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Unearned revenue -- there we go.

The member is quite correct, and we talked about this earlier. There is a proposal that we are actively considering and working on with the commission and with the

[ Page 12587 ]

J. Weisbeck: I notice in some of the documentation that they talk about this assurance fund coming forward in this session. Can you give me some sort of a time line for when this is going to occur?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, that is a question as to future policy, and I think I'll just leave it that we are actively working on this. I would like to be able to produce a satisfactory resolution as soon as possible, but I don't think I should say more than that.

R. Thorpe: I just have a few questions on the training accord. The first question I have is that the private post-secondary training industry in this province has proven that they have a highly successful record in providing training that gets people back to work. Now, the "On-Track Private Training Outcomes Survey," partially funded by the government, verifies this without question. Why, then, does there appear to be a strategy on the part of this government to strangle private schools and programs that actually get people back to work?

[1715]

We have public institutions out there. Their facilities are paid for. Where they can provide an equivalent or better level of training at the same or lower cost, we would be doing a disservice to the public to deny them an opportunity to compete to provide those services. Through the accord, we now have in place an implementation process. Private sector trainers are involved by way of reference group, as are not-for-profit trainers, to ensure that there is a level playing field. Where training can be more effectively or more economically delivered by public institutions -- by colleges and the like -- they have an opportunity to compete.

R. Thorpe: The minister has stated the term "level playing field." Perhaps the minister could tell us, then, what this training accord is, how the field was unlevel and how this accord, in his view, now levels the playing field.

Hon. A. Petter: There were a number of training opportunities in which colleges, for example, were excluded from the competition. They were not able to come forward and make proposals, because of the specific terms of the proposal. There are a number of training opportunities in which there are decisions made by ministries to deliver training opportunities, which are targeted at private sector as opposed to public sector institutions. There are situations where the time lines and the whole method of competition were ones in which the ability of colleges and institutes to compete was really not taken into account.

In effect, they were excluded if they were not explicitly excluded, so there was a feeling amongst the college sector, both the administration and the faculty, that there was an opportunity being missed here by government, by taxpayers and by communities. We agreed, through the college training accord, to give consideration to the opportunity that exists. Now, when a training opportunity comes along, we give first consideration to whether or not it is an opportunity that colleges might compete for along with others. If it is, then they're given that opportunity to compete.

R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned earlier the concern that his government has for the cost and benefit to British Columbians. What weight does the cost aspect of awarding a contract have?

Hon. A. Petter: It would vary from program to program, but I'm told that with respect to this ministry's programs, it's about 20 percent.

R. Thorpe: What the government would lead us to believe is that there's a perception out there that's not true that government institutions have a first right of refusal. I would ask the minister to comment on that and then also to comment, if he would, on first opportunity and first consideration. How do all those mesh up with the fact that the government institutions do not have a first right of refusal?

[1720]

R. Thorpe: Can the minister please give an answer to those that are in the private training industry who feel that they are receiving the short end of the stick? What assurances do they have that this is a fair, aboveboard and open tendering process?

Hon. A. Petter: I have met on a number of occasions with representatives of both private trainers and not-for-profit trainers and not only given them the assurance they will not be excluded but in fact provided a mechanism for them to be included. They are directly included in advisory committees to the deputy minister, who is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the principles of the accord are carried forward and has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that that is done in a way that does not exclude but, rather,

[ Page 12588 ]

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise what the flow of information is and the timeliness of the flow of information from the implementation committee to the advisory committee?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the advisory committees are briefed as to the agenda prior to the meeting. They're briefed subsequent to the meeting as to the outcome of the discussions. They have been afforded an opportunity, should they wish to avail themselves of it, to make representations directly to the implementation steering committee.

R. Thorpe: So is the minister clearly saying that there are no delays in communication, that it's done on a very timely basis from the implementation committee to the advisory committee and that information is not withheld because perhaps one member of the implementation committee has not signed off on any of the discussions?

Hon. A. Petter: No, everything is done on an extremely timely basis. The only thing that I can even think of that the member might be referring to is that, obviously, records of decision are not communicated until they are ratified, because they are not decisions until they are ratified. There's been very timely communication, and we are committed to continuing in that practice.

R. Thorpe: What amounts of money from the ministry are flowing to the commission to help in its administration and operation in the fiscal year 1999-2000?

Hon. A. Petter: Which commission?

R. Thorpe: PPSEC.

Hon. A. Petter: It's funded through cost recovery from the commission through to its own members. It's not provided with funding by government.

[1725]

Hon. A. Petter: The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission did, I think, receive some direct funding last year -- about $100,000. It is receiving none in this year's budget, and it has no government funding provided to it that in any way is associated with the training accord. Indeed, it has no government funding provided to it at all.

J. Weisbeck: I just want to pursue the whole accreditation of private post-secondary schools. First of all, I'd like to have an update -- you know, the number of schools that now are currently under accreditation. I guess it's my understanding that by August 2000, private post-secondary schools have to be accredited, so I'd like to know where we're at, at this point in time. How many to go? How many have we done? Are we going to make it?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that about 60 institutions have received accreditation to date. There are about 200 additional that are in the queue for accreditation, if I can put it that way. It really is up to the institutions as to whether or not they can fulfil the criteria, but certainly the capacity is there to have them do so by August 2000, should they be able to go through the various steps that are required of them.

J. Weisbeck: What's the average length of time to go through the accreditation process? And secondly, what is the cost?

Hon. A. Petter: In terms of time, it's somewhere between a year and 18 months, depending on the size and complexity of the institution. The cost, again, depending on the size of the institution, could range from $3,000 to $6,000 for a large institution.

J. Weisbeck: If I get these numbers correctly, it would be almost impossible for all of the private post-secondary institutions to be accredited by the date. It would be almost logistically impossible to have everybody accredited in the time it takes -- no? You're saying not?

Hon. A. Petter: No, it's not impossible, because the 200 I referred to are in the queue. That is, they are in process. They are somewhere along the way in that one-year-to-18-month process, and it's our expectation that they will be able to complete accreditation by August 2000, provided they continue to work through the various steps in a timely way.

J. Weisbeck: I received a letter from one of the institutions, and I thought I should just read some of the comments she has made on accreditation.

"We must be in compliance with all registration requirements -- surety bond, etc., which is audited in detail for compliance -- and complete an extensive, exhaustive and expensive self-study process, culminating in a team of 'experts' conducting an on-site audit of your report. Much of this process is modelled after the public post-secondary institution accreditation process, and we are not public institutions. While accreditation is deemed 'voluntary,' it is hardly such for the larger of the schools. It is mandatory for survival. We are concerned that accreditation is designed to put us on a level playing field with the public schools. We, however, cannot compete on the same field with a subsidized industry.

"The design of this accreditation process assumes that 'experts' will come from public post-secondary institutions and ensure that private post-secondary education is 'excellent' according to their parameters. The problem is that we are trainers, not educators. It is proving evident that all levels of the accreditation, and assessment of any kind, are stacked with personnel from the public institutions. I do not believe that they are the best auditors for this job. In addition, there is a distinct conflict of interest when one reads the training accord where this sector is fighting to take business away from the private post-secondary schools. These people, however, are hired and directed by the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which is appointed by the Minister of Education. The team leader position is routinely filled by someone with substantial public background, and we have little to say in his/her selection."

I wonder if you could comment on that, please. They are obviously feeling that they are not getting a fair shake.

[1730]

[ Page 12589 ]

J. Weisbeck: I guess I can appreciate that these people feel as though they're out of the loop. It's no different than what's happening with the accord. They were never consulted with on the accord.

Hon. A. Petter: It's a very different process from the accord, which came out of arrangements between a particular set of interests -- the college sector. This was a process that fully engaged the private sector trainers and was supported, as I say, by the Career Colleges Association and is administered by an agency whose representatives are reflective of the industry. I can understand how some of the private sector trainers. . . . In fact, I apologize to them for not having engaged them more at an earlier stage in discussions on the accord, although I think we've more than made up for that in including them in the implementation process on the accord. But in this case -- and no doubt it's because my predecessor was the person in charge and was more careful than I, or maybe more experienced in these matters -- this was a matter that was carefully brought forward in full consultation with and involvement of those who wish to be involved and who are represented not only by the representatives on the commission but by the representatives in the various private sector agencies that represent these institutions.

J. Weisbeck: The other concern they had was: why is the refund policy different in private post-secondary in comparison with colleges? For example, if a student drops out of classes at OUC, after two weeks he loses his deposit, has no refund. Whereas in the private post-secondary, it's obviously much different. There's a longer time when they have to return those fees.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that colleges set their own refund policy through their boards, institution by institution. In the case of private institutions, those policies are set through the commission and apply uniformly, therefore, to all the institutions that are registered through the commission.

J. Weisbeck: I had some concerns raised by an optician. My understanding is that there are not that many optician training colleges around the province, and they appear to be centred on the coast. So this is having a huge impact on some of the rural areas. They're having difficulty attracting opticians to their area. I understand that Douglas College is one of the facilities that is training opticians. The few that are trained at Douglas College are pretty much hired in the lower mainland, so it's leaving a huge void out in the rural areas. I wonder if you could just confirm that there is only one optician college, Douglas College.

[1735]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

J. Weisbeck: I guess that here again we're talking about this opportunity, and I'm wondering whether there has been some thought given to allowing some other institution to carry on with that training. It appears to me, too, that this act came into place where they demanded that opticians have this particular amount of training, and at the same time, they didn't have the facilities in place for the training aspect of it. So these businesses are obviously in a bit of a bind in that they can't. . . . In some cases, they've had to shut down some of their businesses because they haven't been able to supply them with opticians. Has there been some thought of expanding this program?

Hon. A. Petter: This harks back to our earlier discussion. Government does not. . . . I as minister certainly don't want to prescribe for institutions each and every program they should be offering. I think there's an interplay between the direction that government can give and the needs that are established out there in the market, as it were, that the colleges can then respond to. So if there is a demonstrated need out there for more training for opticians, one would expect that some college would pick up on that. Certainly if the member has some indication that there is such a need, I'd be happy to receive it and pass it on through the colleges association. But as I said earlier, one of the great strengths of our system is that we have a broad array of colleges. They're quite entrepreneurial, as the member knows. They offer everything from tourism programs to high-tech programs, and they're always looking at ways of trying to enhance the programs that they have and to draw more students to those programs so they can get additional FTEs and funding from us. If there's some failure in the system to respond in this particular case and there's some reason why the system isn't working, I'd be happy to follow up on it. But absent that, I would hope that the system would respond where needs are demonstrated.

J. Weisbeck: Well, as I said, obviously without having the necessary backups in place, we've created a lot of hardship in the business and in communities in the rural areas, which haven't been able to supply opticians.

She has also suggested a number of options. One of them is some sort of interim training, where a licensed optician could oversee another individual. Has there been any thought given to how we could bridge this gap between the time when we don't have a training facility and the fact that there's a need out there?

Hon. A. Petter: Given the fact that I and officials have not been aware that this has been an overarching need. . . . I do recollect some conversation I had with an optician some years

[ Page 12590 ]

J. Weisbeck: I'm going to get back to my student questions again to complete this day. It's getting close to the end of the day. This question is from Herman Cheung from the University of Victoria. He says:

"I am a political science student at the University of Victoria. I'm also the vice-president, finance, of the political science students association. According to the government, there will be more money going into advanced education this year. I assume that an increase in funding would mean more classes for students. However, starting this September, the political science department will eliminate its public administration program. This means that there will no longer be any undergraduate classes in the public administration field at UVic. In fact, the political science department has been facing serious cutbacks over the past several years. I understand that Minister Petter is also an alumnus of the UVic political science department, and I'm sure he knows how popular the public administration program has been at UVic in years past. My question to the minister is: where did all the increased funding go, and how come the political science department didn't see a dime of these increases in funding?"

[1740]

The answer is that these internal funding allocations decisions are made by the administration of the institutions, based upon the policies set by the governing bodies -- the board of governors and the senate. I would encourage this student to seize the democratic opportunities that are available to him to run for one of those offices or to lobby those who sit in one of those offices and make these concerns known and drive the decisions internally. We have increased the funding, but where the dollars go is a matter to be decided by those governing bodies and by the administration, based on the policies set by those bodies.

J. Weisbeck: Dave Beaton, also from the University of Victoria asks:

"According to the information that I received from FRBC and the people administering the forest worker transition program, all funds paid to participants -- income support, tuition, books -- were non-taxable. Their letter indicates Revenue Canada has deemed these funds taxable. As there was no tax deducted at the source, I may be on the hook for a sizeable tax bill. I received $12, 800 in 1998, plus approximately $4,400 for tuition and books. As I've paid no tax on the $17,200 that would add $2,924 to my bill. If my tax rate climbs over the base rate, the bill will only get bigger.

"My question to the minister would be: if this is the case, then why did the Minister of Advanced Education or FRBC fail to protect the interests of British Columbians from encroachment by the federal Revenue department despite assurances that this funding was non-taxable? As the letter indicates, the amounts paid by FWTP to me were forwarded to Revenue Canada. Therefore why has a Crown ministry seen fit to make the Revenue department's job easier? If the B.C. government insists that this is a non-taxable program, then why not let the federal agency do its own sleuthing?"

Hon. A. Petter: I think the short answer is that the policies of Revenue Canada are the policies of Revenue Canada, and those are administered through tax collection agreements with respect to both federal and provincial tax collection. It is the obligation of all citizens and ministers and institutions to cooperate with the federal government. You don't know how it pains me to say that, in light of recent events, but even the federal government deserves our cooperation. Even Revenue Canada merits our cooperation. I understand the student's frustration with the federal government and with Revenue Canada, but I'm afraid that's part of the price of being Canadian.

J. Weisbeck: Roy Bornmann from the University of British Columbia says: "We live in a day and age of new technology and new science and medicine. We are expected to maintain our reputation and be at the top in the global market of education. How is our provincial government ensuring that our students are provided with the necessary skills and equipment to become viable competitors in the global market?"

Roy also asks: "How does the provincial government plan on maintaining the current tuition freeze, with the increase in the inflation rate of approximately 0.5 percent to 1 percent, leaving nearly a 7.5 percent operating budget decrease since the tuition freeze was first implemented?" Sorry -- that was two questions.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as to the first part of the question, I mean, I just don't want to repeat the speech I've given at the outset and also the context of the tuition freeze legislation. But I would draw the member's and the student's attention to that and would be happy to provide all sorts of other material that indicates how B.C. is in fact leading the way in terms of education funding and policy.

In respect of the latter, we have also discussed it. But -- absent the two-year period where we were trying to hold funding at a constant level while the federal government was clawing back over $100 million of funding to the province -- we have increased funding. In fact, we've increased it every year, even in the face of that. This year we've added $1.5 million specifically to counteract the cost of living in the face of a tuition freeze.

[1745]

J. Weisbeck: Jon Duncan from the University of Victoria says:

"University students throughout the province face different costs of education. In some areas of the province, particularly in smaller cities, they have access to cheap housing, lower tuition costs, lower transportation costs, etc. In Victoria and Vancouver, however, university students face exorbitant housing costs and other living expenses, not to mention their tuition bills and tuition fees. Unfortunately, these differences are not reflected in the maximum allowable limits for B.C. student loans. The result is that students on campuses in cities other than Vancouver and Victoria receive greater benefit from the government student finance program. This seems unfair."

[ Page 12591 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that in fact the allowable living costs are based on Vancouver living costs, for the whole province. So I think the answer is that we assume the highest living costs, and everyone benefits from that.

It's funny, you know. I go to rural communities, and students tell me that the student financial assistance packages don't reflect their needs, in the sense that they may require a car in order to get to college or university, whereas a student in the lower mainland or greater Victoria can use the bus. There's a huge cost associated with a car. Is that taken into account? Or conversely, is the fact that the car they own is a valuable asset taken into account in precluding financial assistance? So you can run these arguments both ways.

But let me just tangentially make another point that I think is important to members of this House on both sides. That is, the point that the member is making, through the student, I think, doesn't have a tremendous amount of merit here in B.C., because we do pitch it at the highest level, and there are differentials. But the reality is. . . . And we have fairly common fee structures amongst colleges.

But there was a very interesting study released by the Canadian Federation of Students just a few weeks ago that showed in fact that the federal government's disposition of student loan funding and credits under the income tax system hugely benefits provinces with high tuition fees, because in fact those provinces tend to attract the greater amount of benefit through the various forms of assistance and credits that are provided. So we have an ironic situation in this country, in which a federal government that has cut back support for post-secondary education ends up -- inadvertently, I hope; but if not by design, then by default -- creating incentives for and rewarding those provinces that increase tuitions and make access less affordable by then providing more credit dollars and support through the various support agencies to those provinces.

I'll give the member a really extreme example of this that has been really bugging me. We're working on it, and I'm hoping, through discussions I've had with my federal counterpart, to resolve it. When we removed tuition for adult basic education in this province, the federal government was just in the process of moving towards a policy under Employment Insurance of providing Employment Insurance funding directly to trainees, as opposed to institutions, for training. The policy they were operating under at that time was that they would only fund employment insurance recipients to the tuition cost of programs. This meant that in B.C., we would get zero from the federal government to give employment insurance recipients adult basic education, whereas a province like Ontario, where they charge a substantial amount for adult basic education, would gain a substantial amount for employment insurance recipients.

That is outrageous. It is simply unacceptable that the federal government would in fact be designing policies that punish provinces that provide lower tuition. On that particular issue, we are making some headway, and I hope that if we can make headway on that issue, we can make headway on the larger issue. Because if B.C. got its fair share of student financial assistance and other federal support through credits and the like for education, we would be in an even stronger position to provide services to students than we are today.

With that point, are we in a position. . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: One more question?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Okay, we'll do one more.

[1750]

"Universities are currently faced with a situation in which people completing their education in Canada -- potential professors -- are leaving the province to teach at other institutions in Canada and the United States for higher wages and better job security. It would seem that the combined effects of the government's refusal to increase funding, as well as the tuition freeze, have forced B.C.'s post-secondary institutions to offer less pay for new teaching employees. My question is this: what is our provincial government doing to ensure that B.C.'s reputation and standards are maintained within our post-secondary institutions?"

I don't think we should compete for human resources on the basis of one criterion alone. I think it's important that we ensure that we have the resources to provide the kind of health care and education system that ensures that people who do choose to live here get a high quality of life and that we compete in the full range. There are trade-offs to be made, but I think we're doing a pretty good job. I think that the studies that have recently been done and some of the reports support that. I just reference a recent report out of the United States that references Simon Fraser University as one of the leading research institutions in North America. So I think we're doing pretty well.

I hope that the member is hearing from students who have views other than the ones that he read, because it's not a very typical cross-section of students whose views are represented in those questions. Maybe he's just not bothering me with the questions from the students who are saying: "Minister, why are you doing such a great job?" "Minister, why is the government supporting students uniquely in the country?" "Minister, could you please give us the answer as to why B.C. alone is putting in more money?" and "Could you tell us why the Liberal Party is not supporting you more aggressively in keeping tuition rates down?"

No doubt he has a raft of questions like that that he isn't sharing with us, and I forgive him for that. I would hate to think that the questions that he's been reading are the only views that he's hearing from students. They're important

[ Page 12592 ]

With that, hon. Chair, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)

B. McKinnon: I just have a few questions that a constituent of mine has sent and wishes to have asked. The first question is: does the current. . . ? The current government is spending. . . . I don't know the sum total of what you're spending on your anti-violence advertising campaign, but the question is: does the current government feel that this expenditure adequately replaces the training dollars needed to train front-line workers to provide better services for women and children who have survived the horror of domestic violence? What they really want to know is: do you feel that the money you're spending is better spent on advertising rather than on protecting the women themselves?

Hon. S. Hammell: We spend money on both.

B. McKinnon: I understand that you do that, but her actual question is: do you not feel that it would be better spent on the women themselves rather than on advertising?

Hon. S. Hammell: For clarification, are you talking about the "Live Violence Free" campaign?

[1450]

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm really pleased with the question, because it does allow some clarification. The "Live Violence Free" campaign is a prevention program, and its target is to change attitudes and behaviours and the way we think about violence. The training dollars are program dollars that provide training for people who are dealing with the aftermath of violence. I have a mandate and a responsibility to both. The "Live Violence Free" campaign is a very interesting one. I'm not sure; maybe she hasn't heard about it or maybe not the details -- fair enough.

What we have is a free contribution from the B.C. Association of Broadcasters of between $3 million and $5 million a year for a ten-year program. So if we were not to support the "Live Violence Free" program in any way at all, we would forfeit on behalf of the women and, actually, of the communities all through B.C. a ten-year program of between $30 million and $50 million to do a major educational preventive program. Now, you weigh all the time how much money you spend here and how much money you spend there, but I have a mandate to do prevention as well as intervention and dealing with people in the aftermath. I actually believe that in many ways, we don't do enough prevention. It's harder to show results, because the cause never happens. I think we have to put some money into prevention.

What I'm delighted with is that the men and the women around the broadcasting tables throughout this province are willing to put their spare time or their free time into violence against women and violence issues in the rest of the community also: violence against youth, violence against seniors, dealing with the issues of race, dealing with the issues of homophobia. They're committed to this, and certainly I'm going to step up to the plate with them. Their commitment, in many ways, is much bigger in actual dollar value than we are giving here.

B. McKinnon: Her second question to you is: the current government continually tells us how valuable our children are to the future of British Columbia, yet money that was available to train counsellors for children who witness abuse has ended. Why is that?

Hon. S. Hammell: That's a very good question, and I thank you for asking it. The whole Children Who Witness Abuse program has moved to Children and Families, so it's not in my ministry.

B. McKinnon: I just took the questions. I haven't really even had an opportunity to read them.

The government does nothing to protect teenage girls from becoming involved in inappropriate relationships with men at increasingly early ages and, in many cases, subject to abuse in many forms: mental, physical, sexual and emotional. No services are being funded to help them end their patterns of abuse. Why are there no transition houses and follow-up programs for young teenage women who have experienced domestic violence?

Hon. S. Hammell: All the transition houses, second-stage houses and safe homes are available to women of all

[ Page 12593 ]

We do have some specialized transition housing. One is for women who are suffering from mental illness, and one for those who are dealing with addictions. But we have not targeted a house only to a particular age group. To my knowledge, we have never been asked to do that. I think it would also be fraught with difficulties, because you couldn't have them scattered throughout the province and duplicate the services that are out there. A discussion around how to make sure that the current houses are inclusive of that particular group, if it's needed, would probably be best.

[1455]

Hon. S. Hammell: We do have sexual assault services that go on after a person has been in a transition house because of sexual assault. That may fill part of the target that she's looking at. There is counselling available through your medical program. So there are ways of moving in to get help.

I also want to mention that we are partnering with the Canadian Federation of Students around date rape, and our particular piece of that is the date rape drug, Rohypnol. What we're going to do is to work with them on prevention, in terms of alerting young women and men that this drug is very dangerous, and they'll start to feel more drugged than usual. If you've had a beer or something like that, you need to be alert to the symptoms that are happening to you. Our partnership is with the Canadian Federation of Students, and we're actually quite excited about that.

We also do some partnering work with communities around young people and date relationships and all that kind of work through the schools and through prevention. So we're there, but perhaps not exactly how it was described.

B. McKinnon: Now, this is an interesting question for the minister. Why are there so few facilities that address the issues of domestic violence in a holistic manner? I'm not sure exactly what she's asking here; I'm not sure that you can answer.

Hon. S. Hammell: Well, I actually think that a lot of the transition houses probably try to do that, because family is involved, counselling is involved, and. . . . I don't know. I know that, in particular, in the first nations community, it's very important that the family be involved in any kind of renewal. Like you, I'm not sure what the question means, so maybe we'll just leave it at that.

B. McKinnon: The next question is: when will the government understand the needs of the people it says it represents? When will the government back up its sentiments with dollars that will actively allow the philosophy of advertising campaigns to be addressed and actually work toward creating a predominantly non-violent society?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me just say to you that we hope that the "Live Violence Free" campaign fulfils that mandate.

B. McKinnon: The shortage of officers creates a serious lack of safety, as officers must determine which crisis to attend -- often placing the domestic violence call behind others. It is not the fault of the policing communities. There is not enough money to provide adequate policing to the growing population in Surrey. When does this become a priority for Women's Equality? When will Women's Equality lobby for more policing dollars so that the manpower exists to create confidence and a sense of safety for women who report violence?

[1500]

The Attorney General, on behalf of us in the cabinet, has requested the federal government to up the funding for the RCMP in British Columbia. Surrey just received a $700,000 advance from the federal government in terms of helping with their shortfall. However, you make a good point. It certainly would not be difficult to add my voice to the concern that the staffing component of the RCMP be filled, regardless of the community.

B. McKinnon: I know you dealt with part of this question this morning, but for her I will ask. . . . She's asking about the $60,000 divided amongst six transition homes in the province. Her question about the $60,000 is: who determines which of these houses is in need, and could the advertising dollars not be better spent providing services to women in need? I think she's concerned about how the six transition houses got some money, whereas others didn't. How did you figure their need was more important than, say, other transition homes?

Hon. S. Hammell: Again, the difficulty in the question is the division between prevention and intervention. I was going to tell you when you asked that last question -- $31.4 million within my ministry is designated towards intervention, which is training and more money to transition housing. We spend less than $300,000 on prevention, which is the advertising or the support of the "Live Violence Free" campaign. If someone wants you to just eliminate any kind of responsibility at all for prevention, you wipe out a very small bit of money, and you wipe out the possibility of tremendous impact with this partnership over time.

Coming back to the six transition houses, they were chosen because they had the highest level of occupancy over the longest period of time.

B. McKinnon: My final question to the minister, on her behalf. The issues surrounding women in the sex trade must be addressed. It is fine to say that they should be off the streets, but where will they go? Most of the women on the streets have been there since they were 12 or 13 and do not have the educational background or work experience to obtain even a minimum-wage job. Where are the dollars to make sure that these women have at least a chance to compete in the job market? Where are the counselling dollars to help them regain their sense of self-worth and reintegrate into society with dignity? The recovery dollars to deal with the addictions they have acquired from life on the streets. . . . It is a women's issue, not simply a legal issue.

[ Page 12594 ]

The Bridge Housing Society is currently developing accessible housing projects in the downtown east side. That project -- it's through B.C. Housing -- will house the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. It will have 12 emergency beds for women, as well as either 47 or 35 -- I can't remember whether it's 47 plus 12 or 47 minus 12 -- single-occupancy apartments or rooms. Those are all targeted to the women of the downtown east side.

We do fund the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre, and that centre serves an incredible number of women during the day. It does a lunch program, and there's counselling and that kind of work out of the downtown east side. It specializes in victim assistance programs; it has a specialized victim assistance program. Approximately one-half of its clients are women involved in prostitution. The centre also offers STV counselling -- Stopping the Violence counselling -- and an HIV outreach worker. That's funded by the Vancouver-Richmond health board. It has an advocacy worker funded by the Law Foundation and a mental health worker, and all of these come and work out of the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. That women's centre will move into the Bridge Housing project once that project is complete.

[1505]

I also want to mention one in Victoria that I think is actually really interesting. There's an association called PEERS in Victoria, and we contributed $12,000 in 1999 to the development phase. That is a project to provide education and training to former sex trade workers by involving them in an economically sustainable hospitality-and-tourism venture. So this is trying to go beyond just counselling and providing support by actually moving former sex trade workers into training and education so that they can move on to another type of occupation.

It was really interesting. When we held our awards. . . . You may not have been here. Through a symposium, it was suggested that we have an awards program that singles out and celebrates those people who have made a significant contribution around the prevention of violence. PEERS won an award, and the women who came talked about how the most significant thing you can do to move some of these people off the streets is even. . . . The first thing they recognize, when you're doing a project like PEERS, is that somebody actually cares and is prepared to spend the time and the energy to try to move them into a better life. It was actually a very moving part of that ceremony.

You're correct, and the question is well put. We have to be involved not only in recognizing that there is a problem and giving support but in moving people beyond that into training and education and getting them grounded -- off the streets.

B. McKinnon: I'd just like to thank the minister for her answers. I will see that she gets a copy of them.

L. Stephens: I want to continue on, since we're talking a little bit about the downtown east side. I talked a little bit earlier about the policy reports on social development, that the city of Vancouver did. They talk about the housing plan and so on for the downtown east side that the minister was just referring to -- that in fact the province is trying to provide some social housing for the downtown east side. I think that is to be acknowledged and commended. It's a huge issue for the downtown east side residents, and everything that can be done should be done to make sure that people who choose to live there do so in the same kind of living conditions that the rest of us enjoy.

The other issue down there, of course, is services to women, and the minister mentioned the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre. Could the minister talk about that centre and what assistance she's able to give them? They are in the process of trying to relocate, so I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about. . . . Is her ministry able to help, and in what way?

[1510]

L. Stephens: I know that Downtown Eastside has asked the ministry for assistance. I'm simply asking whether or not the ministry is prepared to assist them in whatever way they may find appropriate. What I'm asking you is: is that being considered? Is the ministry considering assisting the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre in some way, shape or form, whatever that may be? If it's yes, then I'd like the minister to explain what form that assistance may take. If no, then I'd like to know why the ministry is not considering assisting in some way this particular group of people, who are struggling against some very, very difficult odds.

Hon. S. Hammell: We have provided half a million dollars in capital funding for the project and $50,000 in annual operating funding for support staff, once the facility opens its doors.

L. Stephens: We'll be watching with great interest to see how they raise some private funding to assist and hoping that the centre does in fact become a reality.

The downtown east side has been in the news a lot this last while, particularly in relation to the 21 women that have been missing down there. I've heard the Attorney General put forward some proposals as to what he could do. Aside from the cell phone issue that we were discussing earlier this morning, is there any other initiative that the Ministry of Women's Equality is considering either to advance some kind of a task

[ Page 12595 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: I now call them 911 phones. Just to be absolutely clear, they only dial 911, which I know you know. But I'm trying to take suggestions wisely when they're given.

We have written to the mayor and the police board regarding supporting the notion of the reward -- which, it's my understanding, has been approved, although there's probably some tinkering with the wording. I have mentioned this to the Attorney General, and we have discussed the possibility of a task force. But I will continue to work with him and the MLA for the area, Minister Kwan, on further initiatives.

One of the things that we are doing. . . . I want to go back to it, because it is a major little project. Although some of the things aren't perhaps as sensational as 911 phones, there are other things that are going on. Breaking the Silence is a two-phase project, involving a huge number of women from the downtown east side in terms of being more aware about their safety -- how to work together to develop safety programs with each other and just to be, in general, more conscious. . . . So it's an educational preventive program. But we're down in the downtown east side, and we recognize, like you've mentioned, that it is an area that needs much attention; the people need much caring for.

[1515]

Hon. S. Hammell: We are on the ADMs' committee on prostitution, so we know part of the process that has been going on and the decisions made around this issue. Central to that committee and to the value that all of us share, I'm sure, is the whole reiteration of the fact that buying sex from children is a criminal offence and is child abuse.

From that flows a whole bunch of activities. You may have noticed that just recently the federal government has made it easier for the police and the court system to deal with pimps and johns, and I think that is where the emphasis has to be. We have to work with communities to prevent the recruitment and exploitation of children.

That has to be done on a provincial basis, although there's a series of problems in the downtown east side. I listened just recently to a report on young women being recruited from Delta, and I know that there has been some of that done in Surrey. So we have to support families in the school system as they try to combat that. Again, that's interprovincial; it's not coming out of my ministry, but it's an interministry. . . . Again, we sit on that committee, raising these issues and working with other ministries.

We must also help the residents in the neighbourhoods that are damaged by the activities that flow from some of the street activities. I know that, in particular, in my community. . . . I live in the Cedar Hills residence that is dealing with the issue of prostitution having moved from one area further down into the community. We have young kids who are going out to play, and there are condoms and needles and all that other stuff that is the sort of the aftermath of some of this.

We are on that committee. We are working with the other ministries and supporting them as they move through some of their initiatives -- as they do for ours.

L. Stephens: The secure care proposal and the report that the Ministry for Children and Families initiated. . . . I believe the community consultations were completed at the end of April. Has the minister had an opportunity to look through that particular report and perhaps discuss it at this table -- this group -- and make recommendations that she believes would be appropriate for the young women that are found on the street?

[1520]

L. Stephens: That would be very helpful. Perhaps the minister could just outline briefly what that might consist of.

Hon. S. Hammell: To be honest, I can't remember the details. That's why I've offered to get it to you.

L. Stephens: This particular report is an extremely important one. Again, I'll commend the Minister for Children and Families for putting it forward and for making a study like this happen. I hope that it's followed through and that there are some actions that flow from that.

Has the Ministry of Women's Equality provided any kind of statistics or proposals that may in fact help the Ministry for Children and Families make some specific policy changes or legislative changes of any kind?

Hon. S. Hammell: We always take a gendered approach to policy issues. We are at the table and providing information and feedback, as we can. If you're asking if we have done a particular study to inform their decision, other than providing what we do as a matter of course, we haven't done anything specific. But the information that we have and that we operate on is made available to them through the interministry committees.

L. Stephens: In the policy and planning part of the ministry, the ministry does some research on a number of issues that come forward. I'm assuming that this was one of them. So what I'm asking the minister is: has the ministry, through their policy and planning group, done research them-

[ Page 12596 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: We work with the interministerial ADMs' committee on the research that they decide to do to support the studies that are going on, so that we don't go off sideways and do some special. . . . The projects and the support are identified at that level.

L. Stephens: A question about the violence-against-women-prevention partnership council -- could the minister comment on this particular council and what is happening and what their mandate is?

[1525]

The concept is that you bring people who are out in the community doing their work and who have an interest in prevention of violence to a table, where they identify what they can do. They go away, work on it, and come back a year later and comment on what they've done and how they're moving the issue into the mainstream in their communities. The first year of it was just incredibly successful, because obviously a number of things came up that would never have come up without that kind of leadership from the community in terms of prevention.

There are other activities. One group that I want to get involved in the council, in the prevention table, is religious communities, because I do think that they have an impact on families and on relationships. Another group that I want to get to that table is the medical community, because they interface with the whole issue of violence.

So really it's a community table that has made some commitment to doing their bit for the prevention of violence against women. It may be something small; it may be something big. Whatever they do is then shared and described.

L. Stephens: The words "council" and "symposium" -- if it had said "symposium," I would have known exactly what it was; with "council," I was envisioning another body that had been set up.

Some of the initiatives that the ministry partners with the Attorney General I want to talk a little bit about, while we're still on this violence subject. That is -- and we've just touched on that -- the youth prostitution unit and whether or not the ministry has any involvement in that at all.

Hon. S. Hammell: This again goes back to the discussion we had just a little while ago on youth and prostitution. We are on the ADMs' committee on prostitution -- that working group. Through that group the plan is developed, and we have input, as we do with other interministry committees.

One of the most recent initiatives was the release of a straightforward resource package called "Being Aware, Taking Care." It was developed with the help of young people from the street who shared their experience and insight, in order to help other young people who may be at risk from sexual exploitation. That material, which we mentioned earlier, will also help parents, teachers and police and anyone else who wants to reach out to help young people who are at risk. I mentioned Delta and Surrey. The provincial prostitution unit works out as a result of that interministry group.

L. Stephens: A lot of parents that come to speak to us about this particular issue are upset about the Criminal Code -- section 212(4), I believe it is -- and parents' inability to rescue their children or to provide any kind of service for their children if they're around the age of 14 -- that age of consent. Has the minister been advocating for raising the level of consent?

[1530]

L. Stephens: Can the minister tell the committee how successful she has been?

Hon. S. Hammell: I cannot announce success. The age is still 14. But we've advocated it go up to 16.

L. Stephens: I'm sure the minister knows that this is a huge issue for parents. It's one that is growing; it is one that is gaining more momentum as we speak. I think part of that is because of the nightly news and the people who are now coming forward to talk about their experiences and what has happened to them.

I just can't impress upon the minister enough that I would like to hear, from her ministry, more of an advocacy role in this regard. I would like to see the Ministry of Women's Equality out there talking about these issues and being as public as possible in trying to move forward some of these particular initiatives that will deal with this particular issue -- and that includes at the federal, provincial and territorial table. I was going to do a section on that, but perhaps right now I will simply ask: is this one of the issues that is being discussed at that federal, territorial and provincial table?

Hon. S. Hammell: It has been, but what I will do is make the commitment to raise it again.

L. Stephens: I would encourage the minister to do that, to press the federal government as hard as possible on this. It's an issue that involves all of the other provinces as well, not just British Columbia. I think there needs to be a much stronger push with the minister responsible for the status of women and also the Minister of Justice, who I am sure would be rather sympathetic.

As the minister pointed out, there have been changes to the Criminal Code that somewhat help, on the one end, as far

[ Page 12597 ]

I'm sure the minister is also aware that there are other provinces that have legislation that empowers the police to remove children from the street and to enter buildings where they believe children are being held for the purposes of prostitution. Perhaps I'll ask the minister for her comment on whether or not she believes that that kind of legislation would be appropriate for British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hammell: What I'll do is look into it.

L. Stephens: I'm surprised that the minister hasn't already done so. This is something that has been top-of-mind for a very long time. There is an organization in Alberta that has been quite successful in looking after children who have been on the streets. So I'm quite disappointed that the minister hasn't looked into this issue sooner. Perhaps there are other initiatives around this particular problem that the minister would like to comment on and that she may in fact be doing.

Hon. S. Hammell: The project that we talked about is the secure care project, and that is the one that we have been focused on in terms of young people at this point in time. Regardless of that, the comment that I picked up on was being able to enter a premises if there's suspicion that some child is being held. That sounds to me like, if the police suspect that people have been kidnapped and are being held against their will, they would have that right; but maybe they need some additional authority. So what I will do is talk to the Attorney General. I have not talked to him about specifically having people go into places to rescue children who are perhaps being held. We have focused largely on the secure care piece.

[1535]

So there has to be some way that parents are able to make sure that their children are. . . . Parents are just tearing their hair out, and they're saying: "Why do I have to stand by and watch? This child is 13 or 14 years old. Why am I powerless? Why can't someone go and get this child? Why can't I go and get my child? Why can't the police go and get my child?" They know where the children are, yet they're still powerless to go and get them. So part of the whole initiative around secure care is that you have to find and be able to apprehend the children, and then you can talk about what program of care you can provide for them.

It's all one big package. It all goes hand in hand, and you can't have one without the other. Although I think that perhaps there are people who would like to separate the two, an awful lot of the population of British Columbia is saying that it's not good enough to simply say to the kids: "Here it is. If you want it, come and get it.' " Anybody who has teenagers, or a lot of people who have teenagers, knows absolutely that that simply is not an option for a lot of the kids. They won't take it.

That's the issue, and that's the question: whether or not you understand what the issue is -- keeping children safe -- or whether you're looking at if a 14-year-old is able to make choices for themselves, even if their lives may be in danger. Those are the two questions, and that's what's before your government. What I'd like to know is a little bit more than what the minister has been saying: number one, do you understand what the issue is, and are you trying to resolve it?

Hon. S. Hammell: You have discussed and talked about the report of the secure care working group and safe care for high-risk children and youth. We have mentioned that, and we have talked about it. The report recommends development of a safe-care option to allow for the removal of children and youth from situations of extreme danger to a designated facility for up to 72 hours while an assessment and plan of care are completed. This would require some changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Children's Commission Act to provide statutory authority for safe care. So I'll say again that this is the area we are focused on to deal with the issues that you're bringing forward.

L. Stephens: The minister is reluctant to make any statements as to whether or not we will see anything forthcoming in that regard. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: So is the minister saying that we will be seeing something come forward in that regard?

Hon. S. Hammell: This document is the responsibility of the Minister for Children and Families, and those kinds of questions would be best directed to her, because it's her primary responsibility.

L. Stephens: It is the Children and Families minister's primary responsibility, but I'm asking the Minister of Women's Equality -- who is responsible for women's issues and female-gender issues -- whether or not she will be acting on this particular initiative.

[1540]

L. Stephens: The minister doesn't recall what the feedback is. I'd like this on the record, minister. You've offered to give it to me at some point in time. Perhaps one of the members of the staff would be prepared to get a brief outline of what that feedback has been, and the minister could read it into the record in half an hour, an hour or something like that. It would be very much appreciated.

The other issue with the Attorney General is the sexual assault policy. There's a new sexual assault policy I'm hearing about. Would the minister like to comment on that?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is not public yet. I will say on the record that my understanding is that it will be public within a month.

[ Page 12598 ]

One quick question, and this is about the halfway houses. I know the minister is familiar with New Westminster's Columbia Place, which is just going to be opening its second floor to provide more beds for women coming out of penal institutions. It's a federal program. They provide this service largely on their own. Is the Minister of Women's Equality looking at anything like this? Are they looking at providing halfway houses for women? There are a lot of halfway houses for men. This is the only one west of Winnipeg for women. Is the minister looking at that issue at all?

Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is no, because it's a federal responsibility. What I could do -- and maybe it is worth it, and I will think about it -- is lobby again the minister responsible for the status of omen, the Hon. Hedy Fry, to focus in on this issue.

L. Stephens: That would be something that perhaps could be raised at the federal-provincial table.

The Violence Against Women in Relationships policy underwent review last year, with a number of gaps being identified. Has the ministry done any further work on that? And is the minister happy with the changes that were brought about by the Attorney General?

[1545]

L. Stephens: I would suppose that those training issues deal with the police forces and whether or not. . . . I'll ask the question of whether or not it includes the judiciary.

Hon. S. Hammell: My understanding is that the judiciary is an interesting group to work with.

Let me tell you what we are involved in doing. The training, funded by the victim services division of the AG ministry, includes enhanced investigative interview skills for police and Crown counsels in cases of violence against women in relationships and sexual assault, criminal harassment interdisciplinary training for police, Crown counsel, Corrections staff and victim services providers; and training in the dynamics of violence, power and control and the needs of victims for dispatch, communications and first-line response operators.

And as a result of the Josiah Wood report, a comprehensive coordinated training plan for responding to violence against women in relationships is being developed for the RCMP and the municipal police. We sit on that committee to establish and develop that training program for this initiative. The committee is chaired by the RCMP and also includes membership from the AG ministry's victim services division, municipal police and the Justice Institute. During the next few months, the training plan and curriculum will be developed for approval for funding sources.

L. Stephens: Have the difficulties that were identified in the Josiah Wood report been dealt with throughout the province? Have those spots around the province that were identified as needing some remedial training been. . . ? Has a plan been put in place to make sure that the kinds of safeguards that were identified in the report are in fact being adhered to?

Hon. S. Hammell: That is the plan, and it is in process.

L. Stephens: Is it the Attorney General ministry that's going to be monitoring the process and whether or not in fact those directives are being carried out?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: During her opening remarks, the minister talked about an RCMP committee on wife assault and the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. Is this the committee that she's speaking of now?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.

L. Stephens: My colleague the member for Okanagan-Vernon has some questions that she would like to ask at this time.

[1550]

"What we are learning around the world is that if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish."

One of the things in my community that is a huge, festering sore for the women of the Okanagan-Vernon constituency is the circumstance of legal aid. It doesn't go away; it doesn't get better. It is something on which I have almost-daily letters or phone calls about to the MLA office, with respect to the paucity of legal aid. I know the minister will say that government funds 95 percent of legal aid in British Columbia, up from 83 percent ten years ago. But I also know that the funding structure has changed a lot, and we're comparing apples to oranges, so I hope she won't start with that particular statistic.

[ Page 12599 ]

What we had then was the then Minister of Finance, now the Premier, introducing what was at the time a very controversial 7 percent tax on lawyers. This levy was supposed to be passed on to the consumer of legal services and to subsidize legal aid for the poor, for the disenfranchised, the mentally ill, battered women, and perhaps people who are injured or disabled -- WCB. Any of these kinds of areas could benefit. But most definitely, because women are often the poorest in our society and the ones who live in poverty the most often -- they and their children -- legal aid becomes a women's issue.

So what we had was a legal aid tax that many members of the government stood up and touted as absolutely necessary in order to fund legal aid. Now, in 1999, we have this tax not only funding all of the legal aid but turning a profit for government as well. You know, from my point of view, legal aid is not a profit venture. Moneys from legal aid that are generated through the lawyers tax should not be going to general revenue in any way, shape or form. If we, in fact, have consumers paying this 7 percent legal tax, or lawyers tax, the disbursements of that should be going where they are to be earmarked -- that is, to serve access to justice for the people who require legal aid in this province. As the minister knows, those being largely women, this is very much the purview of her ministry.

If we have the lawyers tax -- and we have funds for that service, government funds from the federal government that the provincial government gets. . . . Again, the minister will say: "Well, you know, the federal government isn't providing contributions to civil legal aid service anymore -- since 1995-96." That's true. They've changed the name to the Canada health and social transfer. So technically, I suppose, that is correct. But, really, the money's still coming; it's just not called the same thing.

Now, we have at the community level legal aid dollars that are not being used totally for legal aid services. In the Vernon legal aid office, a directive was issued in February 1999 to inform the Vernon consumers that the following core services would not be available: general information on rights and obligations upon separation; information and assistance in making applications to vary maintenance; information and assistance in making application to vary custody access; information and assistance on how to enforce access orders; assistance with responses to family maintenance enforcement programs; information on property division, divorces and adoptions.

[1555]

When those people came here, they were turned away. They were not heard, and they were not welcomed. They were, in fact, met by someone who works for the minister and not the Premier. I'm not even sure they worked for the minister; it could have been someone from the Premier's Office, but several rungs down. In that situation, there was a very high level of frustration by the women of the province for what the Women's Equality ministry was doing to assure women that basic rights to legal aid would be maintained and that the ministry was in fact their advocate on this issue.

What I'd like to ask the minister for is a response to some of this information -- so we can start from there -- and to perhaps follow up for me. . . . Since that journey for justice came to the Legislature, what improvements, if any, have been made to ensure the basic right to justice and, thereby, the maintenance of democracy in the lives of women.

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to inquire of the member whether she raised these issues during the Attorney General's estimates that have just been dealt with in the House.

A. Sanders: Some of the issues with respect to legal aid were raised by the critic for the Attorney General. They go, as we all recognize, across both ministries. As the minister knows, I have written to her on, I think, several occasions, as well as to the Attorney General, to try and have these two ministries work together to develop some logical and helpful solutions to the problem. So yes, they have been to a certain extent. What I am asking at this point are those questions that were not clearly answered.

Hon. S. Hammell: I just think that it's always wise to first deal with and get clarification from the minister who is responsible for the budget item within their budget, because they are in fact the spokesperson for the government on the issue. So I would hope. . . . Maybe I will take a look at the transcript of those questions to ensure that the canvassing has been done to also inform the member.

I think it is important to remember that this government provides the highest per-capita funding for legal aid in the country. If you're suggesting that we raise it higher, maybe. . . . You know, that's a budget item. Those kinds of issues get discussed during budget time. We have a budget for legal aid of about $24 per capita, and that's about double the national average. That is part of the context in which we discuss this, though I do think that all of us are concerned that women and other vulnerable individuals are impacted by the way that the Legal Services Society has decided to manage its budget. The Legal Services Society is an independent body and makes its own decisions regarding allocation of funding. I must say that some of the concerns the member has raised become issues that I hear also.

One of the things that government has done is that it now has 26 family support clerks to work out of the family justice centres. They have established legal aid clients as their priority. Maybe we could have 28 or 30, but we have 26. The feedback that I get from people who use those services is very, very positive.

[1600]

[ Page 12600 ]

I know that the Attorney General and I had a long discussion around the child support guidelines that came from the federal government with the intention that once you have a set of guidelines, you have less need for some of the more lengthy legal arguments that take you into the courts.

The other area that we have put money into and do extremely well in on behalf of women and their children is the family maintenance area. I think that our maintenance program is exemplary, and it has continued to draw more and more money from those people who have a responsibility to their children. Having to be up to date with your maintenance before you get your driver's licence issued or renewed helps that.

Again, as we go through some of this, there have been. . . . We have established a parenting-after-separation seminar program, at no cost to parents, in 50 communities throughout B.C. The program gives parents information on the experience of their children with separation and divorce and information about alternatives to litigation which are available to parents. Legal aid is not the only alternative. There are other possibilities and ways that people who are in conflict around separation and divorce can access the system. I appreciate the fact that this is an issue that you have taken on personally and have written to me on. So I respect you and thank you for the questions.

A. Sanders: I think it's important to just respond to one point that the minister made. She said that we have the highest per-capita funding for legal aid, and I have to say: surely we should. We're charging $81 million, through the lawyers tax, something no other province has, to those people who procure legal services. So for gosh sakes, we should be providing that to legal aid.

My concern is that we're siphoning money off that and putting it into general revenue -- that it's being used as a cash-developing mechanism. Not all the money's going to legal aid. If we're going to collect it from people in this province as a lawyers tax -- another tax this government has brought in that is generating a significant amount of money -- then let's use it for what it was put in for. Let's not fool each other. It's been brought in. People are paying for it; they're paying out of their pocket. It's a tax. Use it for what it was brought in for. Don't confuse it with statistics and smoke-and-mirrors. Just use it for what it's supposed to be there for.

What I'd like to do, hon. Chair, is offer to the minister some points that I think might be helpful in her deliberations with the Attorney General over this issue, which is, to me, absolutely vital to the health and well-being of women and probably the central heart of the Ministry of Women's Equality, along with the protection, health care and economic issues.

If I had four solutions to this, what I consider to be a particular crisis -- at least, it sure looks like a crisis in my community -- I would suggest that any or all of the following be brought forward by the minister. The first I've already reiterated, and that is that the lawyers tax be used for legal aid, to fund legal aid, and not for anything else -- not be taken by any other ministry to top up their coffers, but to be used for the purpose that we have asked British Columbians to contribute to their lawyers that 7 percent tax on services.

[1605]

The third is that the province lobby the federal government to remove GST from legal aid services. This action alone would save millions of dollars that could go directly into client services. I think that this is one straightforward thing. If we're looking for solutions and trying to be helpful in this chamber, that would be something that could be suggested.

The fourth is that I would really like to see the province basically stop charging itself PST on lawyer disbursement fees. If we look at a petition for divorce of around $218 or a notice of motion at about $32 -- at least in my riding -- or a notice of trial of $200, about 30 percent of the legal aid funds that are available goes directly to lawyer disbursement fees. If we did not have PST on these fees, there could be a very significant saving of up to 30 percent by that action alone. If we look at other areas where government does not charge itself tax on the purchases and expense accounts that it has for its members, then surely we could start looking at ways to save money within the budget that's available.

Having looked at this long and hard, those are the four things that I think the minister could certainly advocate for on behalf of women in my community.

Hon. S. Hammell: Member, I will ensure that the Attorney General. . . I will sit down with him with a transcript of your issues.

L. Stephens: Just a comment on the legal aid issue. The fact is that the portion that the province puts in is nil. The province puts no money into legal aid. The money comes from the legal fees of the doctors, and it comes from the federal government -- to the tune of about $25 million from the feds. The total funding for legal aid in 1997-98 was around $82 million. The lawyers tax for that same period was about $82 million as well. So the fact is that the province does not put money into legal aid funding. If you look at the kind of two-tiered system that's developed in the justice system from that simple fact. . . . It's really quite shocking when you look at the fact that single mothers and women are severely disadvantaged when it comes to the legal system.

I'd like the minister to take this up with the Attorney General. I have raised these issues in his estimates over the years. It doesn't seem to have done any good. This is still continuing. So I'd like the minister to look at the stories of women who are not being funded. I can make this available to her, if she so wishes. These are excerpts from "The Legal Aid Stories," fall of 1998, which were collected by the Coalition for Access to Justice for presentation to the Premier of British Columbia, the Hon. Glen Clark. I think that perhaps the minister may have it somewhere in her ministry, but they do outline the problems that women, children and men are facing, in accessing justice services in this province and the fact that they've been turned down, for all of the reasons that my colleague has mentioned. Some of these stories are particularly heartrending. What it does is bring back into focus the fact that what we have in this province is two-tiered access to justice. That's not acceptable.

I'd like the minister to take this issue up with her colleague and look at whether or not the ministry or the government as a whole are going to be funding legal aid, because at the moment, they do not.

[ Page 12601 ]

Before we do that, what I'd like to do is ask the minister if she is aware that in the province of British Columbia, if you are a woman who has moved from another province in the country and applies for a B.C. driver's licence, you must submit your birth certificate. Even if you have a valid driver's licence from another province, you are still required to provide that birth certificate. If you are a man, you are not.

[1610]

What I should signal to you is that this issue has been brought to my attention. The response that I have received from ICBC has to do with all the issues around fraud. At the ministers' level, we are continuing to have discussions around that issue. My assistant who was dealing with it with me is away on sick leave right now. That's how immediate it was that we were dealing with this issue.

L. Stephens: I don't know whether this is an example of the motor vehicle branch or ICBC running amok. There are valid instances of fraud, I would think; but again, whether or not this is an appropriate way to deal with that issue is another question.

I do want to highlight that for the minister -- that in fact a woman who has a driver's licence that's valid from another province and that's in her name is still being required to provide a birth certificate. I'd like the minister to follow up on that, and I will be keeping in touch to see how that particular issue is moving along and whether or not it can be resolved.

My colleague from Okanagan West would like to comment on a number of issues that she's concerned about.

S. Hawkins: I have some questions for the minister with respect to the White Paper on gaming. When I look at the White Paper, there is not much in there on the social implications of gaming. We know that gambling addiction is a problem. We know that it affects women and it affects children and it affects families. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what input her ministry had with respect to submissions to the Rhodes commission that looked at gaming.

[1615]

S. Hawkins: I thought I heard the minister say they did two things, and I just heard one -- that they worked with the secretariat to invite submissions. I think there was a second.

Hon. S. Hammell: Sorry. The second is that it's one thing to ask them to do that, but then we are working with them to ensure that those voices are heard as this process unfolds.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me what kinds of groups she's working with to make sure that they get their submissions in?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have a large group of organizations that we send our material to: women's centres, transition houses, the multitude of contacts that we have. We tried to make sure that that base was as wide as possible so that anyone who had an interest or wanted to give feedback was invited and (a) they knew it was happening and (b) they were jogged, in terms of: "This is happening, and if you want to provide input, here's how to do it."

S. Hawkins: The government is now developing a gaming policy with all the submissions that it got. I'm wondering where the Women's Equality ministry comes in as the lens that filters this information and this policy and makes sure that what the government is planning to implement is looking after the interests of the women and children and families that it does affect. Can the minister tell me what role the ministry has with respect to the government developing their gaming policy?

Hon. S. Hammell: We have a gender lens, which means that before anything goes through a final decision, the lens is placed upon it. The ministry is working with the gaming branch to ensure that it goes through the gender lens before it goes to any final decision.

S. Hawkins: What criteria make up this gender lens, then? What criteria would the ministry be applying to this gender lens that the policy will be going through?

Hon. S. Hammell: "Gender Lens" is actually produced. . . . What I will do is give you a copy. But it deals with, you know, specific impacts: does this impact more on women? What is the representation? It is a document that is public, and I'd be quite happy to give it to you.

S. Hawkins: Thank you. I'd appreciate a copy, and I'm sure the critic for Women's Equality would appreciate a copy as well.

In the White Paper, specifically on page 174 where it talks about social implications for gaming, there are recommendations. There's a recommendation that an expenditure of approximately $2 million in the next fiscal year be set aside for problem gambling programs. Can the minister tell me if her ministry had input into this amount and if they're comfortable with this amount being designated for problem gambling?

Hon. S. Hammell: The input we have had is. . . . Well, the document is not final, but we have said that the amount should meet the need.

[ Page 12602 ]

[1620]

S. Hawkins: I might be mistaken, but I believe that $2 million is what is budgeted in the Children and Families budget for that program in this fiscal year. So is the minister saying that that's not a final number and that it could up or it could go down? Is that what she's saying?

Hon. S. Hammell: I want you to be clear about what I'm saying. I said that we thought that the amount should meet the need. The amount should be what is needed to deal with the problem. I don't know what that amount is.

S. Hawkins: Okay, I know what the minister is saying. She is saying that the amount should meet the need. What I asked before is: how do you determine the need, who's going to determine the need, and is her ministry going to be involved in determining that need?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we will be involved.

S. Hawkins: Is there a process that is in place right now, or are you still developing it and deciding how you're going to determine what the need is?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm just trying to make sure that I don't get in front of the horse. This is a draft paper, and there is not a final decision yet. Cabinet makes that before you detail much further than the draft paper.

S. Hawkins: There are a lot more questions than answers. I guess there is very little here telling us about what is going on with addictive-gambling behaviour. There is $2 million set aside in the Children and Families budget, and certainly that is what's recommended in the White Paper. What I'm hearing the minister saying is that that's not a final figure and that the need has yet to be determined. What I'm asking is: can she tell us how the government, then, is going to determine that need? It will impact on women and children and families in the province. I understand cabinet is going to come up with the final figure, but is her ministry involved at all in determining what the need is? And if they are, what kind of criteria are they using to determine the need, or how are they going to determine the need? I understand that what the minister is telling me is that the need hasn't been determined yet. That figure could possibly go up or down. But is a process in place right now to help determine the need? And if it is, what kinds of questions are you asking, and how are you determining what that need is?

Hon. S. Hammell: This has to do with process. You have to put some money in the budget to reflect what you might do in terms of an area. This has been. . . . You would logically put in what has been recommended; but this has not been accepted, so this figure could change. I am not at liberty to say one way or the other whether it's going up or going down or being eliminated, or another couple of things are being added to it. It's in a process.

[1625]

Hon. S. Hammell: What I'll just do is some reading in terms of making sure that my information is quite correct. The adult addiction services program in the Ministry for Children and Families is coming up, so you can deal with it more specifically -- right? The adult addiction services program within the Ministry for Children and Families has received an annual $2 million budget funding from gaming revenues for its problem-gambling program -- which you have indicated -- which helps a 24-hour, toll-free gambling helpline for immediate personal help, information brochures and posters, and specialized counsellors. An evaluation of the program is expected this spring, and data on the help line will help inform future. . . . You analyze, and you look at the information received, and then you make recommendations on whether the amount of money is meeting the need. We have been very clear that we believe that the need should be met by the gambling revenues.

S. Hawkins: I must really be having trouble grasping, or the minister's having trouble getting, what I'm trying to ask. I still don't think my question is answered, but I don't know if the minister is able to answer it. Is the ministry involved in any way, then, in helping to determine what the need is?

Hon. S. Hammell: They will be working with the Children and Families ministry on an evaluation of the program.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me what kinds of questions the Women's Equality ministry will be asking Children and Families as far as evaluation of the program and determining the need?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't have those questions with me.

S. Hawkins: But there is a process, and criteria, in place that the minister will be using to determine the need, in conjunction with the Ministry for Children and Families. Is that correct?

[ Page 12603 ]

S. Hawkins: If there is. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: Yeah, the critic has actually shared "Gender Lens" with me. If there is another process and criteria that are going to help determine the need, will the minister commit to sharing them with the critic and myself?

[1630]

S. Hawkins: Thank you.

I just have another process question as well.

The Chair: The division bells have rung, and we will recess until after the division.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:39 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

L. Stephens: My colleague has a few more questions to finish on the casino issue.

S. Hawkins: Just a couple more process questions. Can the minister tell me if her ministry has any role in reviewing new casino applicants?

Hon. S. Hammell: No.

L. Stephens: Does her ministry have any intention of getting involved in the process?

[1640]

S. Hawkins: I understand that there were some applicants that had connections to Internet porn and strip bars, and they were able to get through the government screening process. I wonder if the minister has any comments about that.

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't know of any that got through the screening process.

S. Hawkins: There were, and I'm wondering if the minister is concerned about that and if her ministry would take any steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again.

Hon. S. Hammell: My understanding was the process was not complete and no application had been granted.

S. Hawkins: So does that mean that the minister -- her ministry -- is concerned about cases like that and that they will get involved in the process?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't think it's only this ministry that would be concerned if a screen did not catch that by the time an application was complete. I would think that everyone would be concerned about that.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me what steps she thinks would be appropriate to make sure that applicants like that don't get through the screen?

Hon. S. Hammell: There has been no application that has got through the screen, and so I assume, having had no one get through the screen, that the screen is catching. . . .

S. Hawkins: Should there be steps in place to make sure applicants like that don't get through the screen? What steps would the minister put forward to make sure those kinds of applicants don't get through a screen?

Hon. S. Hammell: My understanding is that those steps are in place, because there has been no application get through the screen.

S. Hawkins: There were conditional applications, approvals in principle, that got through. So there were some that got through the initial screen. I'm just wondering if the minister thinks that the screen is appropriate, because there were some that got through the conditional whatever until it became public. If the minister is concerned, what steps does she think are appropriate to put into place to make sure that they are caught at the earliest moment possible?

Hon. S. Hammell: I understand process well enough to know that, like many things, there's quite a number of steps along the way before an idea becomes reality. Along that way, there are a whole number of screens, one of them being a police investigation, one being . . . . There's a whole number of things that go on before you go from someone actually putting in an application to having that application approved. I mean, I have been involved to some extent at the municipal council level. You can put in an application, have first reading and, two years later, you can go through the process that works out all the wrinkles and deals with all the issues around the process before you can actually get a piece of paper that says yes, I can go and build something or do something.

What you have is a process. What you're hearing me say is that I have confidence that the process will root out those things that not only this ministry deems as undesirable -- as in the example you gave. . . . The example you gave is a legitimate one that I think the community in general, not only this ministry, reacts against.

S. Hawkins: So I'm hearing that the minister is comfortable with the process that's in place, and she is confident that it will catch anybody that's involved with Internet porn, strip bars and the like.

Does the ministry have anyone on staff that monitors or reviews gambling-related matters?

[1645]

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me, then, what kinds of projects related to gambling the ministry is currently involved in?

Hon. S. Hammell: Our involvement is with the Gaming Commission and the drawing-in of women's voices in making sure that the community has input into the policy.

[ Page 12604 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: I think we dealt with that when we talked about the adult addiction services program within the Ministry for Children and Families. I was just speaking with the minister when we went into the House, and she'll be glad to give you any further information that you need around this issue. Again, she's the lead minister on it. We are there as participants supporting the work of the ministry.

S. Hawkins: Just so I understand, the Ministry of Women's Equality is not monitoring or does not have any gambling reviews in place right now or is not working on anything like that. They are working with other ministries, and they're working with the gaming minister and Children and Families. But right now within the ministry, there are no projects related to gambling addiction or gaming; it's just something that the minister is keeping her eyes on and working on in committees. Or can the minister tell me how she's working with the other ministries on this issue of gaming?

Hon. S. Hammell: What you have to do is understand the role, first, of the ministry. We have -- we talked about it earlier this morning -- $34-point-some-odd million of the approximately $38 million within the ministry dedicated to issues around violence. The other part of the ministry plays a central role: that we work with other ministries, especially on those issues that may have impact from a gender perspective. We use the tools that we've developed over time to inform the decision of the ministry as well as the decision of cabinet around issues.

In terms of the gambling issue, what we did was make sure that the voices of the women in the communities at the grass roots were part of the decision-making process in terms of the White Paper -- that they were informed of the process and that they were able to participate if they chose to. Then, as an addendum to that, there is a program around difficulties with addictions that is gathering data, and we will sit with the ministry, using the gender analysis again, to determine (a) if there is a particular impact on women and (b) whether we believe the resources are enough to meet the need. Then there's a decision, which is a corporate decision made by the Minister for Children and Families, recommending issues to cabinet and Treasury Board. In the end, a decision is made. We are involved in the process and have ensured that the voices of other women are involved in the process also.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me if she is the one, personally, who sits down with the other ministries? Or is there staff in the ministry that do that, and who are the staff?

Hon. S. Hammell: I don't do line work of ministry staff, and that would be line work of ministry staff. The process, when you get the information, is assigned to an individual. When that happens, we'll let you know.

[1650]

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm concerned with Internet gambling from the perspective of the concern around gambling in general. But am I involved in gambling and the Internet? No. Our ministry is not monitoring or dealing with any issues around Internet gambling.

S. Hawkins: If the minister can just summarize for me -- just so I have a summary of exactly what her ministry's doing -- what steps she is taking as a minister, or what steps the ministry is taking, to ensure that B.C. women are protected from the social problems associated with gambling addiction. She mentioned a few. If she could just summarize that for me and then commit to sending us further information. . . . She tells me that there is an evaluation coming up that they're going to be involved in with Children and Families. We would like to have the results of that. If she would commit to sending the critic and myself a copy, that would be great.

But are there any specific steps that the ministry is taking on its own to protect women from the social problems associated with gambling addiction? If the minister would just summarize that for me, that will be the end of my questions.

Hon. S. Hammell: One of the main responsibilities of the ministry is to ensure that women's voices are at the table. One of the things that we did was ensure that our stakeholders were aware of the White Paper. So we did not speak directly on behalf of them, but we asked them to speak directly to the paper. We worked with the secretariat and with the ministry, ensuring that those voices were invited to participate in the process. And we are working with the Ministry for Children and Families around the evaluation process around the need that is in the community. What I will do is commit to you that I will get you that information as it becomes available.

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for that commitment and, we will follow up on that.

I would like to proceed through the estimates today. We still have a number of items to discuss. We want to do some health issues; we want to do a few economic issues. I also want to talk about the gender lens and the minister's involvement with the federal, provincial and territorial initiatives and also the advice to the ministries in other areas of government where this impacts on women. We have a fair bit to go, so maybe we can move things along as quickly as possible.

I want to turn to health at the moment. What I think I'll do is. . . . I know the ministry is not responsible for line items -- or certainly for a lot of health care issues. What I'm primarily going to talk about is the gender lens and how the ministry gives advice to other ministries, in their review and analysis of their existing and proposed government policies and legislation, and how it affects women. Part of that area, then, is regionalization and women's health services and women and mental health.

The first thing I want to talk about is rural health -- which is what we discussed last year during the estimates -- and the fact that a lot of women are not able to access health care in the rural areas. Since the last estimates and this year's estimates, that continues to be a problem for a lot of women, particularly in the north area. So I wonder if the minister could talk about what she has been doing to advocate to the Ministry of Health on behalf of women in rural British Columbia who are finding it very, very difficult to access obstetric

[ Page 12605 ]

[1655]

We can go into the explanations that the Minister of Health will give you at another time. But what we do on the ministry's advisory council on health. . . . An example of what we work with, a recent council project, is the report "Moving Towards Change." That's strengthening the response of British Columbia's health care system to violence against women. If you remember, I alluded to that slightly in the remarks around the prevention table -- the symposium that we got mixed up with the council. There is a role for emergency departments -- or rooms, places -- to be one of the front-line people to identify when these issues are there and to be there to support women trying to deal with them, as well as medical practitioners. I've talked about trying to get them involved.

We're also dealing with issues with the health bureau such as menopause and. . . .

L. Stephens: I probably wasn't making myself clear. What I really want to talk about -- and I know what the minister's role is vis-à-vis health care. . . . In the minister's opening statements she talked about body image and developing public education around some of these health care initiatives. Body image was one, and the other one was reproductive rights. So I don't want to talk about those.

I understand what you've been doing in reproductive rights. I understand the issue of body image and young women and anorexia and bulimia and all of those kinds of things, and an educational program, which I suspect is going to be posters, brochures, pamphlets and communications in the schools. I understand all that, and I know that's been happening.

What I want to talk about, which is more important, is. . . . I'd like to ask the minister to look at the gender lens again and what the gender lens is designed to do, which is to look at policies and practices and legislation of government as they impact on women. That's what I want to talk about, and I will be talking with the Minister of Health when her estimates comes up on some of these issues.

I would like the Minister of Women's Equality to look at these areas and just simply tell me that in fact she's aware of these problems within the health care system as they impact on women, that these issues are being looked at and that she is in fact communicating with her counterpart, the Minister of Health, to address some of these problems. What I want to do is just highlight these problem areas for the Minister of Women's Equality. I would like her to comment on whether or not she has been made aware of them and whether she has been doing anything about them as far as advocating to her counterpart -- in this instance, the Minister of Health.

The question was around rural health care. We talked about it last year. I'm sure the minister is aware that a lot of services are difficult for women, and if we look at women's health. . . . In the report of the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health, one of the areas that's identified is the regionalization of women's health. This particular segment is on some of those services that impact on women. Could the minister just comment on whether or not she's aware of this and what her ministry has been doing to help alleviate some of these problems?

[1700]

The report that you just referred to is. . . . We had staff help create it, so we're aware of those issues, and we were participant in the reporting of the report. Also, just being specific on the issue that you raised around remote and rural areas -- in particular, remote -- I had the absolute good fortune to travel from Whitehorse through to Dease Lake and into that very far northern part of our community. The challenges there around health care for the community as a whole -- never mind women -- became very evident. You have an interface between reservations, where you have federal responsibilities, versus communities which are provincial, and the whole conflict of funding and the issues of distance and isolation that we can't even begin to contemplate down here.

So yes, I am aware of many of the issues up in the north and, in particular, in remote areas. I spent time with people in the medical field discussing them specifically and the issues that are particular to women. One of the issues that is obviously big up there -- and it is a health issue in its broadest sense -- is physical and sexual abuse. Some of the instances of that are just horrific. So, you know, let's go. We can engage in some of this. But what I am reluctant to do is just become a repeat of the Minister of Health. I'll try to contain my remarks to things that are specific to women.

L. Stephens: The role of the Ministry of Women's Equality is to make a difference in women's lives. Health care is a big part of women's lives. Yes, the Ministry of Women's Equality is not directly responsible for these programs. What I would like the minister to do is just simply. . . .

Let's put it this way: what I will do is highlight some of the areas that I think the minister has to talk to the Minister of Health about -- and advocate on behalf of women; that's what I'm asking the minister to do. I'm asking her to advocate on behalf of women specifically, because the Minister of

[ Page 12606 ]

Health care -- access to rural services -- is one of them. I was in Mission a couple of weeks ago. They're losing obstetrical services from their hospital. They've lost their anaesthesiologist, and they're in the process of losing their ob-gyn doctor. I'm hearing that this is happening all around the province with a lot of these smaller hospitals. They are losing services, and it's usually women's services that they are losing very rapidly. They're always obstetrics-gynecology services that are being lost.

I'm hearing from doctors around the province that they are very reluctant to practise obstetrics and gynecology in the local hospital, because they don't have access to anaesthesiologists as a rule. If anything should go wrong, they're not comfortable with the kind of and the level of technology that's available at the hospitals, and they're not comfortable with the level of expertise that is there. So women are losing access to natal care in these rural hospitals. That I will highlight for the minister.

[1705]

The other area is women-centred mental health. We've got a new mental health plan. Whether in fact the services for women are going to be there. . . . Again, that is a community health initiative. The kinds of programs and policies that women need in the communities aren't there either. That's another issue that I'd like the minister to speak with the Minister of Health about.

FAS and FAE -- that is a huge issue. It's completely and absolutely preventable. We've talked about that one over the years, every year. Yet nothing is happening, and nothing is coming forward on that. We can put a whole bunch of resources into that one, at the end -- which is what we're doing -- and it's good money after bad, really. We have to make sure that we try and get to the women that are pregnant to make sure that they understand the dangers of fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effect.

The other health issue is aboriginal health care and the Aboriginal Health Council that delivers aboriginal health care. Again, just to highlight this for the minister. . . . I know she's absolutely aware of it too, and that is the downtown east side and urban aboriginal women. A lot of what we talked about during the Nisga'a debate around aboriginal women is the fact that what happens there when they separate is they lose the family home. There's not enough housing on the reserve; they have to leave the reserve. They usually end up in an urban centre without their families, without any support systems in place, living in poverty and the rest. . . . We all know what happens. So those are issues that the minister has to be aware of as well.

The median wait for women requiring urgent breast surgery is six weeks. Six weeks for breast surgery -- that's not really acceptable. There's a four-week wait just to see a surgeon and then a two-week wait for the actual biopsy. That one, I think, the Minister of Health has been working on and has shortened the time somewhat from the time the biopsy's taken until the time that there is a result. But those are areas that I would encourage the minister to keep her eye on and make sure that, in the health care field, women are being well served.

In the Fraser Valley, we are having particular difficulty around the shortage of hospital beds, as a number of other communities are as well. I'll take that up with the Minister of Health directly.

The new reproductive technologies about which the federal government has brought forward. . . . I will move to the federal-provincial-territorial tables that the minister is involved in. If the minister is not talking about the new reproductive technologies that the federal government has been discussing for a number of years now, I would like to know why not. If she is, I would like to know the status of those talks.

[1710]

The new reproductive technologies. . . . What we do in the federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting, of course, is identify issues that we can work together on as a unit of 11 with quite diverse political persuasions. Health is an area that we're moving to in the next couple of years. I will put this on as an issue to be considered, to work on as an across-the-board. . . . With some of the issues, if it's clear that from a political perspective, divergent views would prevent a consensus being built, they're often just put aside. So we will put this one on to discuss and see if we can move forward on it.

L. Stephens: I think there would probably be unanimity on this particular subject, because it has to do with cloning and the use of fetal material and all of that kind of thing. So I think that's an issue that all the provinces are going to be very, very concerned about. Certainly the women's community is going to be concerned about it as well. If the minister would talk with the Minister of Health and perhaps find out if she has been more deeply involved in it. . . . I would be interested to know whether or not the Minister of Women's Equality is going to be able to bring that forward or if that's something that will be on the agenda.

I do want to talk about those kinds of issues on the federal-provincial table. . . . One of them is the social union framework agreement. I wonder if the minister is discussing the social union framework agreement at that table.

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we have had discussions at that table on the social contract. As a consequence of that, the framework was put through a gender analysis.

[ Page 12607 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: The framework has incorporated a gender perspective.

L. Stephens: I'm sure it has; I would suspect that it should. I would also suspect that that would be by rote, that it would just happen without having to look at. . . . The minister says no, that wouldn't necessarily happen; it has to be specifically addressed. Is that what the minister is saying?

[1715]

L. Stephens: The national children's agenda -- is the Ministry of Women's Equality involved in that discussion at the federal-provincial table?

Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, we have been involved. In particular, we presented the chapter -- coming out of Beijing -- on actions for the girl child.

L. Stephens: The Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access -- I know that the minister has been looking at that particular one, and we know that the federal government is wanting to put it off for another three years. Would the minister respond to that -- how she feels about that particular issue and whether or not she's prepared to try and move it forward at the federal-provincial table?

Hon. S. Hammell: What we have done is support a measured approach. We have to balance the interests of all those people who are involved in custody. We had some of the staff attend some of the meetings that were here in B.C., and I've talked to Minister Fry on the issue a number of times. I think that the process the Justice minister has become engaged in is one that we need to watch very carefully.

L. Stephens: Are there any major reviews of policy or programs or legislation that the ministry is undergoing this year? Some time ago there was an Employment Standards Act review done in 1992. Are there any major policy or legislative reviews that are being undertaken that the ministry is involved in this year?

Hon. S. Hammell: The deputy minister sits on the deputy ministers' committee on legislation. So we're involved in reviewing legislation prior to it going forward. In essence, we look at all the policy that is going forward to the Legislature.

L. Stephens: I understand that. I was asking if there was a major review of any legislation that is currently in place and that impacts on women in a negative way, and whether or not the ministry was looking at going over that particular legislation with a view to asking for some amendments.

Hon. S. Hammell: At this point, I'm just going to answer no.

L. Stephens: There is one piece of legislation that I've asked the minister to look at before, and that's B.C. Benefits. The Minister of Human Resources is here right now, so that might be something that she would like to consider.

The minister knows that B.C. Benefits does in fact penalize women. We've talked about this before. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on how B.C. Benefits is in fact not benefiting women.

[1720]

L. Stephens: I think that when the government announced B.C. Benefits, people were under the impression that women and families were going to be getting an increase in what they were receiving. That's simply not the case. That $103 was removed from the families that were on welfare. Then they got it back through the national child benefit. That is exactly what happened. A lot of people thought that people were getting more money and were being helped. That is not the case. So I'd like the minister to comment on whether or not that's her understanding.

Hon. S. Hammell: What I'm very clear about is that a great number of women are in the context of the working poor; 60 percent of those who make $10 an hour and under are women. B.C. Benefits targets those people by giving them the money. They have a dental program, they have an optical program, and their medical expenses are partly paid for.

What has happened is that it makes it better to go to work than it is to stay on social assistance. Sometimes B.C. Benefits is described as social assistance, when it's a much broader program than that. It's much more far-reaching and has in fact impacted those people and those women who are of the working poor. To a great extent, they have benefited from the program. But I would encourage you, especially when you get into some of the finer details, to bring those questions to the Minister of Human Resources. Her knowledge is just superb in this area, and she will do a better job of explaining than I will.

L. Stephens: I will do that, and I am sure that we will find that that may in fact be debatable. It may be debatable as to whether or not the minister. . . . I can simply say that all of us have been inundated in our offices by advocates in the social welfare system that say exactly the opposite. As a matter of fact, the advocate industry has become an industry, and these particular individuals are out there trying to redress some of these misconceptions that are floating around -- that in fact this government is looking after children and families that are on social assistance or are the working poor.

[ Page 12608 ]

[1725]

We now have the Broadbent report, which we're very pleased with. The federal laws for determining charitable status are outdated and very inflexible, and they just don't reflect the changing role of government and increasingly diverse populations, new economics and all kinds of. . . . They're just plain outdated. So the recommendations from the Broadbent report will broaden. . . . Do you have. . . ?

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Okay, what I will do is commit to get you that report -- and it was done on behalf of the federal government -- so that you'll have a sense of where this issue could go. I think we probably share the same perspective to a large extent. I'll get you that.

L. Stephens: Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate that.

My colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head has some economic questions.

I. Chong: Following on the heels of the critic for Women's Equality, where we touched on federal issues and taxation issues, I'd like to just ask the minister. . . . In the business plan, or the plan for the ministry for '98-99, there are a number of areas under the research and systemic advocacy section that the plan is trying to address. One in particular is, I guess, the third bullet in this area. It says: "Undertake proactive measures to influence Canada Pension Plan track II negotiations and proposed senior's benefit to reflect women's needs." I'm wondering if the minister can give us a brief update on what proactive measures have been undertaken or whether this is still in a developmental stage and how far along we are. This is the 1998-99 plan, so I would expect that we've concluded something, or there is resolution on some aspects of this.

Hon. S. Hammell: First off, I'm really pleased that you raised this issue, because I think that if we're talking about economic security, this is a very important area. Just as an aside -- and it is an aside -- we also published "Money Smarts for Young Women." You've probably seen it. The point of that is to make sure that you have some kind of security when you're older. We have taken a very strong interest in this area, because if you think about it and say to yourself, "If I could move one mountain, which one would have an impact on a significant number of women. . . ?" The pension issue is one.

[1730]

We also, with Saskatchewan, did a gender analysis of the pension review process. I can share that with you also, if you're interested in that in particular. It was a research project on the gender implications of the pension system. I think this is a very important issue. Anything we can do to try to move the issue from a woman's perspective is important. We're also involved as they move through track 2. I think the fact that they could not get unanimity -- a unanimous agreement on the changes that were proposed -- had a lot to do with the fact that many of them were shelved.

We also sponsored, with SPARC, a public forum on preserving public pensions. That was attended by Monica Townsend, who is a renowned expert in this area. We've also supported a research project on survivor benefits and the differential impact. It is an important area, and we are, in partnership with the Ministry of Finance as well as with the province of Saskatchewan, quite active in terms of that issue.

I. Chong: As the minister probably is aware, I have quite a bit of understanding of how the Canada Pension Plan works and have actually, in my past life, had to help fill out applications for people to ensure that survivor benefits are passed on. But what I was looking for specifically are those proactive measures. What I heard from the minister was that the proactive measures were specifically dealing with the survivor benefit inequity, essentially by continuing talks. But I was wondering whether there were any other specific proactive measures and if she could actually name some that we can then refer to next year. If that was all there is, that's fine; a simple yes or no would be helpful.

Hon. S. Hammell: As you well know, this is a very complicated area. There are a lot of players involved and a lot of big structures and big money and a lot of people with a lot of interests at the table. So the task of the federal government and the provincial ministers who were responsible for the changes. . . . What we did was we worked very closely with our Ministry of Finance as they've moved through these processes.

[1735]

[ Page 12609 ]

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that it doesn't move easily; certainly federal-provincial taxation issues never do. Perhaps if the minister is able to provide us with the results of the gender analysis -- what she has available to date -- that would be most helpful for us to evaluate.

The other issue in your research and systemic advocacy section of the business plan makes reference to the minister undertaking or assisting with research on the gender wage gap. As the minister is probably aware from last year's questions that I had, I did bring up the issue of the gender wage gap. I know it's been mentioned earlier as well. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise of any progress -- or any new and revised statistics, I suppose, which show more progress in narrowing that wage gap -- or whether the ministry is looking at anything in particular that would assist with the gender wage gap in terms of research, which is what this particular bullet indicates.

Hon. S. Hammell: The wage gap is what you're referring to -- right? I just want to put it in context. The first time a snapshot was taken of the differentiation between women and men was 1968. At that time the wage gap -- the difference between men and women -- was 42 cents. Between last year and this year, I think, in B.C. we've gone up a penny. What we do is try to understand what is influencing that gap, and then what we try to do is put some kind of emphasis on the issues around that. For example, within the public service, due to equity programs, the gap is 11 cents. So there is a significant difference when you look at where there has been wage equity bargained into the system.

I should just mention, because it gives me such delight to do this, that the worst wage gap in the country is in Alberta. Over two-thirds of their women work for under $10 an hour. What our intention is -- and it goes back to some of the earlier discussions that we had around the whole issue of the social services workers and their bargaining right now. . . . We are very conscious of the fact that there is a significant wage gap between men and women, and part of our role is to push on the places that we think will make a difference on that issue.

[1740]

I want to move on very quickly to another section, here in the research and systemic advocacy section again. It's the first bullet, which says: "Analyze, influence and provide advice on key government initiatives which have an impact on women -- e.g., legislation and regulations, capital plans and projects, job strategies, industrial training and apprenticeship, immigrant women labour market strategy." This is a large area, and I know we can't possibly cover it all in about five or ten minutes. Certainly I would be willing to receive information from this minister if she has more on that. Specific to that area, what I think is important to obtain perhaps -- if the minister is able to provide it to us -- are targeted initiatives for jobs for women, which would identify what this ministry is looking at.

Last year, for example, there was mention of the jobs and timber accord, which I don't feel there has been a lot of success in. Yet the jobs and timber accord referenced that there would be jobs for women. There was also talk of the BCIT apprenticeship programs. There was also talk of highway construction. Some of those are perhaps no longer as prevalent now as they were a year or so ago. In particular, where are we moving towards? Were they one-off projects that lasted only a year? What does this ministry plan in targeted initiatives for this year and for future years?

Also, what I would like to have the minister provide -- again, I'm prepared to receive it by way of a letter -- is: what opportunities do women have on government-supported projects in particular? Again, those are targeted initiatives, and by that, we would have to take a look at what government-supported projects are going to be undertaken this year, next year and so forth -- specifically, in the capital plans and projects.

So if there is a concerted effort to move in this area -- and the ministry has certainly placed a priority on those and has had interministerial discussions, whether it's with Employment and Investment, Labour or Advanced Education, wherever those interministerial discussions are taking place. . . . If the Ministry of Women's Equality has identified some of those objectives and targets, that would be useful to have so that next year -- and I'll give her that warning -- we can measure those outcomes and see if we've in fact moved ahead. As I said, I know there isn't time to elaborate on that in great detail. Suffice it to say, I would appreciate a written response to that.

I also want to ask the minister about audits -- and this one I would particularly like an answer to. Last year $15,000 was reserved for audits. Can the minister advise if were there any audits of any of the programs that were delivered or supported by the ministry last year, what the results of those audits were, how much of the $15,000 was spent and whether there was underspending of those dollars?

[1745]

I would like. . . . I know that you may have a few more questions. The night is getting late, and I do need to read into the record. . . . You asked me to do that, so I would like to do that now -- with your permission. Okay. You asked that we show where we provided input on behalf of the Ministry of

[ Page 12610 ]

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Hammell: . . .identify the fact that I have it and table it with you?

L. Stephens: Perhaps if it isn't too long, the minister could just highlight a few. . . . It is fairly lengthy. I will take the Chair's direction.

The Chair: You can't table a document here, so you may. . . .

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me read it.

"The Ministry of Women's Equality recommends:

"(1) The proposed high-risk youth strategy be developed through strong interministry collaboration;

"(2) The strategy respect the secure care working group's central recommendation, contained within the report's executive summary, that the ministry develop a safe-care option only within the context of an effective continuum of services for high-risk children and youth;

"(3) The connection between high-risk activities -- including exploitation through prostitution -- and early childhood trauma -- particularly child sexual abuse -- be strongly recognized in the development of a comprehensive high-risk-youth strategy and violence against women be recognized as an additional key factor to be addressed in a high-risk-youth strategy;

"(4) A gender-inclusive analysis of the proposed comprehensive high-risk-youth strategy be undertaken by the Ministry for Children and Families in consultation with the Ministry of Women's Equality to identify gender impacts of the strategy and its implementation;

"(5) Supportive and voluntary -- including early intervention -- services be the priority for development and expansion of services for high-risk children, youth and their families;

"(6) The assessment of the need for new or transitional resource for a continuum of services for high-risk children and youth -- report recommendation 3 -- include a review of the existing level of resource for child sexual abuse counselling and treatment services -- for child and adult survivors and non-offending family members -- including services through the sexual abuse intervention program;

"(7) The mandate of the existing ADMs' committee on prostitution be refocused to also address issues for high-risk youth, and the working group on prostitution be maintained in order to retain an interministry focus on a full range of issues related to prostitution, including violence against prostitutes and community impacts."

[1750]

L. Stephens: That concludes the questions that I and my colleagues have for the Ministry of Women's Equality. I would like to thank the minister and her staff for being so very helpful today.

Vote 45 approved.

Hon. S. Hammell: I move that we rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:51 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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