[ Page 4565 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 4565

Ms. Edwards

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. G. Hanson

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

On vote 56: minister's office, $236,125.

MS. EDWARDS: I wanted to ask the Provincial Secretary some questions about the lotteries money, based on the much-repeated and correct observation that lottery moneys are, according to the Lottery Act, to be paid out for cultural or recreational purposes, or for preserving the cultural heritage of the province, or for — and this is an amendment — any other purpose the minister considers to be in the public interest. I put that on the record before I begin, because it colours most of my questions.

We'll begin with the Expo money. The Provincial Secretary has said that all of the Expo debt is now paid. As I read his press release, he suggests that he has paid out $176 million. It was $172 million in the unaudited statements, but I believe it is $176 million, and he repeated that yesterday as the figure of what was paid out. In his press release there is a statement that the remaining Expo deficit, which stood at $60.2 million, has been paid out as an accrued liability in the Lottery Fund, which ultimately means an expenditure of $236 million. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could clarify why that amount was spent even though we were assured very firmly that the amount that was to be spent on Expo was to be from Lotto 6-49. I understand that in '86-87, 56.5 percent of the total lottery revenue came from 6-49. That would have meant that it should have had $162 million available for paying off the Expo debt. If the minister paid out $236 million, he obviously got the money from some other part of the Expo fund. I wonder if he would explain to me how he managed to pay out that much more over the revenue that came from Lotto 6-49.

He may be waiting for his deputy in order to give me an answer on that. If that's the case, I could go on. We'll leave that for a minute so I can get the answer on that before I proceed on the Expo funds.

[10:15]

I am curious, Mr. Minister, because in reviewing what you said yesterday in answer to my colleague from Rossland-Trail, you pointed out that a large amount of money came out of lottery grants and went to health research. I'm sure everyone recognizes that health research is something that we want done, and we will strongly support the expenditure of public money on health research. However, for one thing, it's interesting that the minister suggests and prides himself on the fact that a lot of this money has been administered by nonprofit societies. That's interesting, and it indicates that it's probably in the range of the government's ideological belief of not having the government control things, but something else. Again, I would like to know if the Provincial Secretary is moving more and more to funding health research out of the money that was originally designed for culture, recreation and preserving the cultural heritage of the province. Probably most of us would say it is in the public interest to have health research done. Many of the people who agree with that might wonder why the money for health research is coming out of lottery funds, which are, as my colleague pointed out, a voluntary type of taxation from communities and expected to go back into communities.

Is this becoming greater? Does the minister expect to use more and more lottery funds for the kind of research that probably should be funded through the Health ministry, or is this how this government is going to carry out health research?

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to make some remarks with respect to this minister's estimates, particularly with respect to the service of the Queen's Printer. While I don't intend to get into any big discussion about whether or not I agree with the privatization of the services of the Queen's Printer — and there may even be legitimate reasons for keeping them in the government service; no problem with that — what I would like to comment on is the remarks from the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). He made some rather incredible statements, from my point of view, indicting union members in the private sector, which I thought was quite remarkable, especially since that party on the opposition side of the House at least pays lip-service to the fact that they like small business. If you read his remarks it couldn't be possible, for he says that no one could possibly be as efficient as the Queen's Printer, which is B.C. government employees.

I dispute that. I don't think the fact that you're in the public or private sector gives you exclusivity on efficiency. That remark is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of members of the private sector unions who every day produce good work for their employers and indeed for the government, since the government buys many of their services. I doubt that they are more efficient, Mr. Chairman.

The member for Burnaby North tends to jump to conclusions so frequently. He said yesterday he drove by the Queen's Printer and saw the flags coming down and presumed automatically that the Queen's Printer service had gone private. It didn't occur to him to phone the minister responsible for the Queen's Printer, or indeed the Queen's Printer, to ask why the flags came down, which would have been simple. He would have found out that they came down because it was winter. It didn't occur to him; he just presumed that the curtain had come down on the Queen's Printer — a completely unrealistic conclusion and so frequently from that member for Burnaby North.

Then he talked about the beautiful $700,000 profit that the Queen's Printer has made, which is also ridiculous. It didn't make any money; it cost the taxpayers $18 million. That is another ridiculous conclusion from that member, which can be disputed so simply — and has been by the minister. I would really like to send that member's speech to every businessman in Burnaby; I should do it.

He talks a bit about the private sector, which suggests to me his completely anti-business bias. This particular member seems to think that if you are not in the BCGEU, you are

[ Page 4566 ]

not efficient or fair or reasonable or responsible. I use some of his own material to support that argument. Indeed, he says: "I think we should all be proud of that service" — meaning the Queen's Printer. "In fact, this side of the House should probably be urging you to go on with the folly of privatization of that service, because the opportunities of a less secure system may help the opposition to get the information on the budget and the bills ahead of time." What an incredible thing to say about the people who work in British Columbia. That's an absolutely astonishing remark. He is suggesting that a union man working in a union shop will slide that information out the back door somehow. From my point of view, I suspect that the people who have a chance to see the printing of the bills are not the presidents and the managers of those little printing companies. It's the men working on the machines and setting up the type. So I would think that he would be getting himself in a lot of hot water with the private sector unions in his riding — let alone mine.

Then he said the private sector can't possibly produce the material as fast. On what does he base that conclusion? It's absolutely nothing. He said the private sector will not be as efficient. I happen to come from a company that was unionized — it was my own — and there certainly was no doubt about the efficiency of that union, or any other union that I met in the private sector. Indeed, it is the private sector unions like the Construction and General Labourers' Union and others who have taken union pension funds and invested them in construction projects and created jobs for union men and women in the province. I haven't noticed that happening from the leadership of the BCGEU, although it would be useful for union pension funds to be used in that way. You will have noticed recently in the newspaper that it has been reported to have been done. The suggestion that there would be a lack of security in the information because of the fact that it was printed in the private sector is unrealistic and an unfair indictment of those people who work in British Columbia in private sector unions.

He talks about the quality of the product and suggests again that the private sector can't produce the quality. I disagree. When he talks about efficiency, security and confidentiality, I have no quarrel with that given by the Queen's Printer service, but I would very much doubt that the private sector would give you less. One of the more interesting comments you made — and here's a man who belongs to a party that says it believes in small business — was about a private sector printer having two jobs: one for a big timber company and the other for the government. He said that when the private sector job is on the printing press and the government comes in and asks for a job, the printer would say: "If I take this plate off it will interrupt the service to that customer. I'll do it for you and risk my reputation with that other company, but I'll only do it if you pay through the nose." I can't believe anybody would think that way, let alone say it. He's assuming that people in business lack credibility, integrity and all those things he says the people at the Queen's Printer have. I dispute that, I argue against that and I stand against that. I suspect that that member will have to eat those words, because in Burnaby there are a lot of people who work and live in the union and are proud to — and so they should be.

MR. MOWAT: He's been a teacher too long.

MR. R. FRASER: Maybe he has. Maybe he's better off in here than in the classroom doing a lot of damage with that kind of thought.

It's something that should be exposed, because in fact he pointed out as part of the great efficiency of the Queen's Printer that indeed the service of the Queen's Printer had been contracted out by about two-thirds. He was bragging about the efficiency of an in-house service and then qualifying it by suggesting that part of the reason for the efficiency was that it's contracted out. The whole thing is a conflict of logic, if there is such a thing, and I hope he understands that. I think there is a conflict; in fact, there is such a thing.

That member should think more carefully about his remarks, and if he wants to defend the fact that the government should print its own bills, legislation and all that kind of thing, fine and dandy. I don't dispute the man wanting to take that position; indeed, I might want to do that myself. But to do it by suggesting that the rest of the members of the British Columbia public cannot work as efficiently and with the same kind of confidentiality and integrity is wrong. He should apologize to the members of the trade union movement in British Columbia for that remark, and I now ask him to do so.

Now I'll move to part of the minister's responsibility, Bill 28. I happen to have supported that bill. The minister has done the public a great favour by saying to those of us who want to vote, and do, that when you go to the poll on election day, you'll just be voting. We want you to vote, and it will be easy to get there because it won't be clogged up with people trying to register at the last possible minute. There's every reason to believe that that was a good move, and we'll soon know.

I won't get into the lottery grant business, another subject, but I did want to review that first point about the private versus public sector, because I have great faith in the private sector of this province and the members of the unions in the private sector who can do and already do a very good job for this government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the two members who spoke previously for their questions and their statements.

Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby North questioned the qualifications of one of our employees, Mr. Vem Burkhardt, who is the director of the Queen's Printer at the present time, and suggested that he was a privateer. I suggested that the hon. member define what he meant by privateer — that he was a pirate or something of this nature.

I've asked the staff to look at Mr. Burkhardt's curriculum vitae and come back to me and to tell me what he has done. Today I'd like to read into the record some information relative to this very outstanding individual.

It's unfortunate, I believe, that aspersions were cast on a member of the public service who is unable to defend himself here in this House. I think that that is despicable.

I wish to advise, for the record, that Mr. Burkhardt is a career public servant of long standing in the province of British Columbia. He has a master of arts degree and has taken a large number of management training courses. He had experience working in the private sector before joining the public service in 1975, when he was hired by the previous administration. From 1975 to 1980, Mr. Burkhardt was the director of employment programs in the Ministry of Labour, with responsibility for a budget of about $30 million. From 1980 to 1987, he was the director of resource analysis in the Ministry of the Attorney-General. In that position, he was responsible for all aspects of management, including budget,

[ Page 4567 ]

staffing, facility management, and research and development of computer systems. During this time, he was seconded for one year to the Treasury Board staff as a senior adviser and manager from 1982 to 1983. Last fall Mr. Burkhardt was seconded to the government restructuring privatization working group to look after the privatization of several projects, including sale of the government publications which I spoke about yesterday, sale of the stationery and office supplies to government and our highways contracts area in greater Vancouver.

I'd like to point out here and now that Mr. Burkhardt had nothing whatsoever to do with any study that was carried out relative to the possible privatization of the Queen's Printer itself. Any aspersion to that effect is completely erroneous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who hired him?

HON. MR. VEITCH: He was hired by the NDP in 1975. Mr. Burkhardt is respected as a manager in the public service. For example, he is on the faculty of the office of the comptroller-general's course on financial management and control which is offered to line managers. I wish also to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the members here that what we need at the Queen's Printer is a strong, experienced manager in charge. It's not essential that the director be an esteemed printer. We have many esteemed printers working there. What we need is an esteemed good manager. Mr. Burkhardt fills that qualification. We have the required printing expertise on hand under the leadership of Mr. Bob Beazley, who is a manager of printing. It's unfortunate that this line of questioning was raised by the hon. member.

Staying in that same vein and dealing with what the hon. first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) had to say just a few moments ago, unlike the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones), who said yesterday that the Queen's Printer doesn't cost the public a cent, it cost the public $18 million last year. One of the strengths of the Queen's Printer — and one of the reasons that the former director was able to get the thing in such good shape — is that he set out on a very strong, aggressive program to privatize. In fact, before he left he had privatized 65 percent of the Queen's Printer. So to suggest that private sector people can't do printing is pure poppycock.

The hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) asked a couple of questions about the Lottery Act. I believe the question she was posing relative to paying off the Expo debt was how we accomplished that with the funding that was available to us during the year. Expo payments, excluding the accrued contribution to Expo, were $171,151,000. If we add in the accrual, which was an accrued expense, that's an additional $60,187,000. We had total revenues of $160,712,000, total expenditures of $289,522,000, leaving a deficit balance in the lottery budget at the end of the year of $45,049,000. So we actually started the 1987-88 year with a deficit of $45,049,000. We've picked that up of course, during the year, and that's all looked after. It looks like the closing balance in that fund at the end of 1987-88 will be $30,191,000, but you see, we started the year with a deficit.

I think perhaps those are the numbers you were looking for. Rather than pay the interest on the Expo debt and accumulate it — accrue it, if you will — it was the government's decision to accelerate the payments and get it out of the way a year or so sooner. That's what we have in fact done, so there is no debt of any kind owing by the province with respect to Expo. I think it can be counted as a proud achievement to have paid that off.

[10:30]

The hon. member asked whether we're moving in the direction of using lottery moneys for health care research and the like. The B.C. Health Care Research Foundation is chaired, as I say, by the Minister of Health, and I am the vice chairman of that organization. Last year we added another $500,000 to that fund to take it up from $3.5 million to $4 million. In addition, we gave them $500,000 for equipment on a one-time basis.

I think that this is a very worthwhile use of lottery funds — to use money for health care research. I would be concerned if we were using lottery money to fund the ongoing hospital or medical costs, because that's one of the problems with the Irish Sweepstakes. A lot of people don't realize that the Irish Sweepstakes actually went out of business. It got so bad that there was very little money ever getting into the Irish hospitals from the Irish Sweepstakes.

Where you can use lottery money to help health research have a new breakthrough or find a new way of dealing with all sorts of these terrible diseases, AIDS or cancer or whatever there might be out there, I think it's a very worthwhile use of lottery funds. Mind you, if the hon. member wants to ask what else we're doing in health care research in this province, then she would have to talk to the Minister of Health, because I can tell you we're doing an awful lot of things. This is simply the lottery contribution. I think it's a very worthwhile use of lottery money.

MS. EDWARDS: I think the figures that I put forward were fairly correct. When the government and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) and this Provincial Secretary say that no money is owed in this province, I find it outrageous. There is a whole lot of money owing to the communities of this province for cultural, recreational and heritage projects.

The whole history of it shows that the previous Socred government and this one began in 1985, at the time that they changed the criteria for using lottery grants from using it for purposes consistent with the lottery foundation act to purposes the minister considers to be in the public interest.... We have come to pay out, as we were warned by the former critic of your government, the former member for Okanagan North.... He said the government will use this money and they will go beyond what they say they're going to use to pay off Expo, this huge project which benefited the lower mainland and had a few mild waves out in the rest of the province. In fact, the minister responsible for the Expo legislation at the time said there would be no diversion of funds from other lotteries. Now we hear, even if we take it at its most benign, that the minister has agreed to pay out $176 million when the 6-49 funds were only $162 million, which would say that there is a difference of $14 million that must have come from somewhere else than the 6-49 lottery. In fact, the payment for Expo, although it was budgeted at $250 million, according to Public Accounts is now $333.6 million.

Finally, you say that we have paid it off. We still have a debt. The money is coming out of funds that were not designated to go for Expo. I don't think the minister has any excuse for not providing an explanation and for not putting forward that kind of money for the projects that originally were meant to have lottery funding.

The whole business of the lottery funds paying off the Expo deficit before the time.... Then the minister has

[ Page 4568 ]

decided that he will start playing with another project that is not necessarily in the interests of communities. Thirteen million dollars of Expo funding out of '86-87 went toward a fund that hadn't even been created. Those somehow or other were decided to be surplus Expo funds — surplus lottery funds. I'm having a terrible time, Mr. Minister, because in my mind Expo and lottery have become quite closely connected.

In the estimates this year, the minister proposes to put $79 million into a fund that, it has been admitted, can be used as a political slush fund. The amount is there. The minister has said, and I believe this is the current line from the government, that these are going to be surplus lottery funds. I would like the minister to explain what he believes surplus lottery funds are.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I understand the socialist philosophy. Somebody told me something about a candle:

My candle bums at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But, ah, my foes, and oh, my friends —
It gives a lovely light.

What this hon. member wants us to do.... You can dress them up and send them out, but you can never take away their socialism. It's spend every cotton-picking thing in sight no matter what happens. Don't put anything away for a rainy day. Don't ever have a dime left. If it's around, spend it.

I wish they'd make up their mind about Expo. I remember a few years ago when the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver. He sent a letter over to Europe saying: "We don't want Expo." Then I saw him on television a few weeks ago claiming all responsibility for it and saying it was his idea. My gosh, he even said the bail-out we did up in Whistler was a great idea.

This member here is implying that Expo wasn't any good. I'll tell you, Expo 86 was the talk of people around the world. It's the best world's fair to date, including Expo 88 in Australia. I think the people of British Columbia can be justly proud that that debt was paid off. If you do a little more research, hon. member, you'll find that in fact it was paid off exclusively and entirely from Lotto 6-49 funds. There's no question about it.

What she has to realize is that in order to accelerate the payments, in order not to pay interest on it, we took a deficit in the fund of $45,049,000. That was picked up again from Lotto 6-49 funds in the '87-88 fiscal year. It was paid off exclusively out of Lotto 6-49 funds. That's what we said we were going to do and that's what we dammed well did.

In the '88-89 budget that we're debating right now, the money we've transferred over to those items which are now administered by the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture — for cultural purposes and things of that nature — is 28 percent higher than it was in '86-87.

1 want to tell you, hon. member, we are handling and shepherding the lotto funds in a very responsible manner indeed. But we're not going to spend every cent we have. It's not the way this government thinks. I can tell you something else. In a few years we won't have any deficit to worry about in the current accounts of this province, and that will be because of good management and because we don't think like the socialists. The lottery funds are being well handled.

If you say we are guilty of putting lottery money into health care research, you're darned right. I'll accept that guilt. I think it's a very worthwhile use of funds. When you put $1 million into Shaughnessy Hospital to help people — maybe help them so they won't have to be in a wheelchair, maybe to help spinal cord research — that is a doggone worthwhile use of lottery funds. I hope we've got more money to put into those kinds of projects, I can tell you that right now.

We had money left in the fund last year. We don't, of course, accept every request for money that comes in. They're all vetted by a very able group of people in the lotteries branch.

MR. BLENCOE: Under your direction?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes. All the people that work in the Provincial Secretary are under direction. They're not misdirected like they are on your side, hon. member, I'll tell you that right now.

They are well vetted, and most — not all, but most — of the applications are in fact processed and proceed. Some of them are very wild requests, and we obviously don't honour those.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. S.D. SMITH: In the gallery this morning are two people from Burnaby, Carol Jones and Laurie Scott. Laurie Scott, particularly, is a long-time friend of mine. We were neighbours together in the great city of Kamloops since about two or three days after each of us was born — and I won't tell you how long ago that was. Would the House please make them welcome.

[10:45]

MS. EDWARDS: I guess the Provincial Secretary believes that surplus lottery funds, or whatever.... "We don't spend, because we are not socialists." Is that what it is? I'm not sure what that definition is yet, because you did not answer the question.

However, I will proceed with another one and hope that in the following answers you will be able to find some consistent idea of what you believe funds surplus to the Lottery Fund are. It is not clear; it is not defined. There is a considerable degree of question about what should be spent in the way that it was intended and laid out in the Lottery Act as it began.

As I understand it, Mr. Secretary, you said very clearly yesterday that we have had exponential growth in lotteries. When I look at the figures before me, I see that this year you are predicting — and you said that yesterday too — that the Lottery Fund will receive about $159 million. Last year the prediction was $171.5 million, and the year before that it was $175 million. I'm not sure how you define that as exponential growth. I have this curious situation that I need an explanation for.

You still have not told us how you have taken $162 million, which is the approximate amount that came out of the Lotto 6-49 fund and how you managed to make that, somewhat like the loaves and the fishes, into something

[ Page 4569 ]

more. Your answer, of course, has avoided the whole question by simply mushing the whole 6-49 lottery funds into the rest of it, which makes it very clear that the great promise that nothing would come away from those funds that were promised for cultural, recreational and heritage projects, except what was in the 6-49 lottery . . We deserve an answer from the minister. Maybe I'll sit down and see if you've got an answer to that yet.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out to the hon. member, we closed our 1986-1987 fiscal year with a closing balance deficit of $45,049,000 — a deficit which was carried over and made up out of Lotto 6-49 funds in the 1987-1988 fiscal year. None of the other funds from other lotteries were used to pay off Expo 86, only Lotto 6-49 funds. That's all. The fact that it wasn't in the current year that we paid it off doesn't matter. It was carried forward as a deficit made up during the year out of the Lotto 6-49 funds. It was December of last year that we paid it off, so we accrued a deficit in that account, but made it up in the following year out of the Lotto 6-49 funds. We could have continued on and paid interest on it and paid it off over a couple of more years out of Lotto 6-49, but this current government decided to accelerate it and get the debt out of the way. It's gone; there is no debt. Expo is absolutely and completely paid off. The province is debt free.

It's not like Expo 67 in Montreal, where the debt went on for years after. This government said it was going to pay off the debt; it even cleared it up a year or so sooner, so it's gone. I don't know how you can criticize that, really. It's good fiscal management.

There was another question. When we went into last year, we estimated that we would take in $179 million. The revised estimate is $166 million, so we didn't meet our expectations as far as revenue is concerned. Revenue in lotteries appears to be levelling off. We have had exponential growth. It's been growing year after year, but this year it is levelling off. Maybe we'll do a little better than that; hopefully we will. We're going to try and beat that goal. We're trying to be as conservative and realistic as we can.

I don't know if I have answered your question or not. If you understand that we in fact did only use Lotto 6-49 funds to pay off Expo 86, that's all there is. We didn't attach any of the other lotto funds from the Provincial or Breakopens, or whatever that might be.

MS. EDWARDS: Well, Mr. Minister, I don't have any fancy degrees in accounting as you do, I believe, but as I understand it, the $45 million deficit was not strictly 6-49. That aside, no matter whether it is or not, I'm just suggesting that that doesn't answer the question vis-à-vis 6-49. But besides that, you go ahead and say: "We paid it all off and now we don't have any debt, because we don't want to pay interest anymore." That's very nice, Mr. Minister, but who paid it off? Lotto 6-49 didn't pay it off, and you've made it very clear that there has not been enough in 6-49 to pay it off. You're putting it through the fund, as I understand it, and the money is there. It's not all from 6-49 - is that correct? We've paid it off and 6-49 will ultimately pay it, because it's an accrued liability. Am I correct in that? If I'm not correct, then what I see is different. As I see it, it's an accrued liability within the fund, and it's to come from the income from 6-49. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I pointed out to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, we paid it off through experiencing a deficit of $45 million in the fund for that year. That was made up out of, if you will, future — at that time — Lotto 6-49 proceeds. If you want to split hairs on it and say that in that year it wasn't Lotto 6-49; if you take a buck over here and say: "Well, that's a Lotto 6-49 buck but this one isn't...." We say that we used the proceeds from Lotto 6-49 from the following year to reclaim that $45 million. Okay? So there you are; there's your answer.

MS. EDWARDS: What that says, Mr. Provincial Secretary is that obviously you're not paying interest, then, within the fund. You've said that: "Isn't that good business?"

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: You have said that you paid it off early and you don't have it; okay. The point is that the whole fund is less well off, because this money has gone out and there is now no interest charge against this particular debt. So the other money in the fund that is supposed to be used for community, cultural, recreational and heritage projects is now The people who are interested in that are not getting that kind of support. I put that to you, Mr. Minister, and I know we could argue forever, because you're going to suggest that it's good business somehow or other to have that kind of thing disappear.

I would like to go back to something you said yesterday: that there is a limit of $40,000 on the community grants. You say, "No. there isn't a $40,000 limit, " and I know you've said to me: "There are a few that get past it." However, I might put it to you, Mr. Minister, that if you look at it in terms of the idea that we're keeping a limit on the amount we give out because, as you say, we want to ensure that as many groups as possible throughout the province receive benefits from lotteries.... Might I suggest, Mr. Minister, that even $40 million to communities out of $159 million is a minimal amount. Might I point out that it's only half of what is going into the BS fund. That amount. which has to come over the section that says projects that "the minister considers to be in the public interest...." The minister considers it to be in the public interest to put these volunteer taxation moneys into the so-called budget stabilization fund — the BS fund — and only half as much into community projects for the functions named in the Lottery Act, and then says that the funds — the $80 million, not the $45 million — are surplus to half the amount that goes to the communities.

Mr. Minister, I don't think that's appropriate, and I think that under these terms you'd have a pretty fancy time trying to figure out what surplus lottery funds are. I would also like to ask the minister if he would clarify for me whether or not the fund is still being used for out-of-province travel grants.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll answer the last question first. As a rule we don't fund any travel that is not within the province; we fund only in-province travel. I believe we have, though, agreed to payment for a New Westminster band going to Expo '88. I think there's one from Delta and one or two others that we've agreed to on a special-case basis. That's the beauty of lottery, that you can be a bit flexible in that area. The hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) made a very good case for some help with the New Westminster and district concert band. We agreed to fund that. The fact that my son played in that band many years ago has nothing whatsoever to do with it. As a rule the answer is no,

[ Page 4570 ]

but the lottery fund is flexible enough that from time to time we will, for special cases, pay some money for out-of-province travel.

The hon. member talked about $40 million being a minimal amount of money. It doesn't seem very minimal to me. It seems like a heck of a lot of money. May I repeat that the current budget for culture which we're discussing and debating right now — the money that's being transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture — is 28 percent higher than in 1986-87. That's a tremendous increase. When we finished the year, we had $13 million left in the fund. We did not rob the fund to do other things. We granted every request for funding which we considered it appropriate to grant, and we still had $13 million left. The member is quite correct that that money, by legislation in this House, will be transferred to the budget stabilization fund of the province — a rainy day fund, if you will.

I think those are the answers to your questions.

[11:00]

MS. EDWARDS: Out-of-province travel is of considerable concern in my riding and in other ridings, particularly for ours, I would suggest, sitting right next to the Alberta border, and whose basic cultural communication goes eastwest. In fact, a senior high school band from Elkford is going to Calgary next week to participate in national band competitions. It seems to me that those are the kinds of things that should be allowed out-of-province travel. That's one area where I would hope we'd no longer stick the money into the BS fund when in fact we could be giving it to these young people. They would be much happier with that kind of a decision, rather than having the election fund for the governing party being put away out of those funds.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that this is an area where there should be some other consideration. There are many of these kinds of trips for young people and other cultural groups where the edges of the province don't mean very much in terms of the activity that's going on. And it's not just youth; it's every age. I think probably that's an area where, if there is so much surplus, there's an opportunity for good funding.

I want to question you about a statement that you made twice: that is, that the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture is getting 28 percent more this year than last year. In my estimates investigations, what I understand from the ministry is that they got approximately $23 million last year for the grants that they administer. Your budget tells me that you're getting $22 million this year, and I don't understand that as a 28 percent increase. I would like some clarification.

I also want to probe what the minister said, because if what he says is so, it is a grain of hopeful information in all of this malt — wheat, barley, oats, whatever. You said you ensured that all the applications that fit had a response before you got to what you called the surplus money. If that's a definition of surplus, it is more satisfactory than the one we had before. However, if you have any kind of so-called surplus amount after having gone through your procedures and having not given travel grants and having tried to keep other grants down to $40,000 a year.... In my short experience here I've already been to visit you a couple of times on grants that are very worthy, and to suggest that those....

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: Okay, there may be special cases. I understand that the minister is going to have an opportunity to recognize special cases, but to suggest that $13 million is surplus to the cultural and recreational needs of this province is crazy. To suggest that $79 million is going to be surplus next year, when in fact we aren't even going to have the amount of revenue from the fund, is even more ridiculous. I will be interested in the minister's answer to my question.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What I said was that the money that we are budgeting this year for transfer to Tourism, Recreation and Culture is 28 percent higher than it was in '86-87. If I didn't say that, that's what I meant to say. That's two years ago. There was a special events fund last year of about $3 million. Some of that is down this year. We've levelled it off, and we've levelled it off for a very simple reason: we think that our lottery revenues are levelling off. We've reduced that about a million and a half dollars. The fact still remains that the '88-89 budget we're talking about right now is 28 percent higher than '86-87, two short years ago. The fact that you have to make some adjustments some years.... That will always happen. We work on anticipated revenue from the sales of tickets, and we anticipate that they are levelling off a bit.

You make a pretty valid point, really, about some young people, especially in your area, who may need to travel to Alberta. We'd certainly be willing to look at those cases from time to time. I don't suggest that we'll honour them all, but we'll certainly have a look at them. Your submissions are not taken lightly when you come to me and speak on behalf of a constituent group. That's what an MLA's job is all about, isn't it? It's not taken lightly at all; it's given considerable weight.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm going to end what I had to say. I feel very strongly that the minister is misdirecting the funds by putting them into a budget stabilization fund. I deal almost daily with small community groups throughout the province — and not just in my own riding, because I happen to be the Tourism, Recreation and Culture critic. I hear from groups right across the province, and I go out trying to contact them, and the story that I hear over and over again is that there is no employment program and not enough granting money for the projects that are the base of community activity and community bonding.

It's the recreational, cultural and heritage projects, the ones that have the volunteer work in them, that mean so much to a community. The more we put into the kind of help we have available.... And the minister has very clearly shown that that help is there. Talk about burning candles at both ends and spending the money before we've got it is totally off base, because the money is in this fund. If the minister, the government, chooses not to put it out into those projects, then it is short-changing the people in the communities. If that's the case, Mr. Minister, I want to put it to you as forcefully as I can, because this is basic community development work that needs to be done. To divert money instead to a budget stabilization fund which may well be used for election purposes, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has said, is unforgivable.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We are putting money into worthy community funds. Within my ministry, $44.5 million has been budgeted for community capital projects. That's an

[ Page 4571 ]

awful lot of money. Grants to community capital projects, travel assistance and other community-based programs — within these programs we are working with a wide range of volunteer groups, and I'm continually impressed with the strength of the volunteer sector in this province. People are getting out and doing things for themselves and coming and asking for a little help through lotteries. I'm very pleased that we can help them.

There are over 700 individual projects in progress, people who are getting out there and helping themselves, who are volunteering just for the pure reason of volunteering and who believe that they are doing a good job on behalf of their respective communities — and I believe they are too. There are over 700 individual projects across the province being funded by lotteries: seniors' drop-in centres, volunteer fire halls, theatre renovations, recreational facilities, special vans for handicapped and the elderly, and a whole host of other activities and projects being funded from lottery. I'm proud of the way that we're using those funds, and I'm also proud of the volunteers in the community who are helping themselves. We can give them that little bit of extra help they need to take them over the edge to do things for their community. Volunteerism is alive and well in British Columbia, and I'm proud that the lotteries branch can help them as well.

MS. EDWARDS: I have one more question, Mr. Minister. Is the $79 million the firm figure, or the other one that's given out to the communities? If there's going to be a cushion, which is it that's going to give?

HON. MR. VEITCH: These are estimates. The Lottery Fund may not bring in quite as much as we think, and it may bring in a little more than we think. In the lottery budget we have never been as fixed and as firm as in some other areas. Mind you, I'm a great advocate of budgeting and sticking as closely as you can to the prescribed budget that has been agreed upon. We might do better in lottery sales than what I think. I hope we do. We might not do quite as well, and that will change the numbers slightly. But the budget is the budget, and we intend to stick to it as closely as we can.

MS. A. HAGEN: The wrap-up the minister gave before as answer to that last question made it sound as if he thought he'd heard the last word on lotteries, but I want to tell him he hasn't.

I'm sure anyone reading the Hansard of this debate will be dazzled by the figures we are dealing with. In my reduction to the simplest, I want to ask a few more questions around the last two or three years of lottery funding and then do the job that needs to be done today, which is to talk about what the minister is planning to do with the administration of lottery funds in this budget year.

The Public Accounts of the province of '86-87 state that at March 31, 1987, contributions to Expo Corporation from the Lottery Fund totalled $333,600,000. Is that the total amount that has gone to Expo over a period of two to three years? The minister is nodding his head, so that's the timespan in which those dollars were earned by the lottery foundation — and I'm not going to get into the question of what pot they came from. That amount of $330.6 million went to Expo. If we look at that and look at the amounts that have been coming in from the Lottery Fund, that means that virtually all lottery funds over a couple of years have in fact been diverted to Expo. The minister is saying that approximately $170 million to $175 million have been coming in. So Expo has taken a huge slice out of those lottery funds. That's history. I'm not stating that in an editorial sense; I'm stating it as an historical fact.

In his discussions with my colleague for Kootenay the minister noted that one of the payments to that Expo total of $330 million left the fund in a $45 million deficit position at the end of the '87 fiscal year. I think that's correct.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The year '86-87.

MS. A. HAGEN: So as of March '87 there was a $45 million deficit. Right?

He also provided us with some information that said to me that at the end of the '87-88 fiscal year — a year that we don't have Public Accounts for — the Lottery Fund had an approximate $30 million surplus.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It was an estimated....

MS. A. HAGEN: Okay. I recognize you're not dealing with audited figures, Mr. Minister. You are estimating that at the end of this fiscal year the Lottery Fund will have a surplus of $30 million. I would presume that since the $45 million deficit from the previous year had to be paid off, plus the income over expenses of $30 million, that you had $75 million in earnings, if you like, in that year that was not expended, because you're dealing with wiping out a deficit and looking at having some surplus.

So we're starting out this year with a nice little surplus that suggests that now that we're not dealing with Expo debt, the Lottery Fund has some money. It not only has the $159 million you're estimating as income for this year but it has some surplus from the previous fiscal year. And we're looking at about $45 million of those dollars going to community grants this year. We've got $159 million coming in; we've got a surplus from the previous fiscal year, whatever that might happen to be — say it's $30 million. That's $190 million, and $45 million of that is going to community grants. I know that there are other projects such as what goes to the Tourism ministry, to health research and to the Knowledge Network. I know that there are other amounts, too, that need to come into that.

The point I want to make — and that I think our community groups will be very aware of — is that over the last number of years, while this government has been using lottery funds for Expo expenses, they have had their share of grants limited. At this time it seems to me that given that those funds — as the previous speaker from our side of the House noted — are intended for community endeavours, it should be the intent of this minister to significantly increase the grants that are going to community groups this year. It should be the intent of this minister to alter the guideline that the lottery grants have been working under for the past year at least — maybe longer than that — which says that although groups may apply for up to a third of the capital cost of a project that might be funded, in fact there's a ceiling on the amount of money that this minister is prepared to grant to groups. That ceiling, I note the minister indicated yesterday, is in the area of $40,000; I've been told by his lottery grants people that it's in the area of $50,000.

But what we're looking at, in fact, is that many community groups, which the minister lauds, Mr. Chairman, as we

[ Page 4572 ]

all do, for the initiative that they take to develop projects that are of use and benefit to their communities.... The dollars available to those groups are limited not to a third....

HON. MR. VEITCH: This is an enlightening speech.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let light prevail. Let the minister, in fact, be struck with lightning and alter the kind of management of the Lottery Fund that he has been working under for the last few years.

Mr. Minister, at this point you have funds available that should be going to community groups. They have made a sacrifice to a project that some would consider they were happy to sacrifice to and some would not: the Expo project. I don't want to have that debate again, but they have made a sacrifice so that Expo and its debt could be accommodated. At this stage they deserve a break and additional dollars. They deserve to have the guideline of a third of their capital projects raised to a much higher level than the ceiling of $50,000 you are suggesting.

Let me put it in concrete terms. I am working with a group in my own community that performs service to the seniors' community — which is 20 percent of my community — and that needs to expand its facility in order to deliver its mandate. I would note, Mr. Minister, that that mandate is very closely allied with the health mandate, because it is to promote health. Much of the work that group plans to do with its expanded facilities — facilities, in fact, in a centre that was the very first seniors' centre in the country that came under programs that were funded by municipalities in their ongoing operating grants.... That centre needs to have something much closer to a third of that capital cost. It's not a huge grant, but it's significantly more than $50,000. The ceiling that the Lottery Fund puts on those grants at this time is undermining the rapidity with which that group can get on with that project and serve the people in that community.

Mr. Minister, I can come to you - and I know you have an open-door policy - and advocate for that group. But I want to put this in a context that's much broader than each of us speaking to you for some exemptions from unrealistic levels. Certainly we all talk to you about grants that our communities are proposing. We recognize that that's a useful exchange, and it's important for you to have our perspective on that. But 1 want to talk about this from a much more comprehensive perspective, because most of us don't want this fund to be one where advocacy is the only means by which people can achieve their aspirations. We want the fund to have realistic guidelines that everyone understands and that you will in fact instruct the lottery foundation to follow, and that will be consistent with achieving those goals for community groups that you have so eloquently spoken of in the last moment or so.

I don't think that limiting community grants to a level very little above what they have been for the last couple of years — especially when those dollars are available, and there isn't a huge megaproject tapping those dollars, as it did for the last two or three years — I don't think you have an excuse in the world for not restoring the guideline of one third of capital grants to community groups, so that they can genuinely get on with those projects.

To raise two-thirds of a capital project from a community is a huge endeavour. I look at the seniors committee in my community that is planning this project and has done feasibility studies and tapped the energy of other groups and created a very good functional process for the expansion of that facility. I don't think that group should be told: "Yes, up to one-third of the cost of that is available. But because it would be unfair for us to mislead you, we want you to know that the ceiling is $50,000." In this particular case, that works out to be about a third of the third which that particular group might need.

When I traveled in the interior, I looked at grants that have gone to seniors complexes and activity centres where the funding was at the level that I am urging you to restore. Those centres perform an incredibly valuable service to the broader agenda of this government and community service, and the lottery funds of this province coming out of those communities should be used in the way in which people who buy lottery funds anticipate and expect they will. I am asking you, Mr. Minister, to give us some assurance that you will look at the expanded dollars you have available to you and to use them according to guidelines that are still official, but not in practice.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We estimated that in the 1987-88 fiscal year, we would have a closing balance of $30 million. In fact, if the hon. member will go back a bit and note that our sales of lottery tickets — or our profits — were not as great as what we had anticipated that year, in fact, it looks like we would have maybe a little more than this. But the estimates now are that about $13 million would have been left in that fund, which was removed by statute. The fund started at zero again, you see. The $13 million was removed by statute...

MS. A. HAGEN: To the BS fund.

HON. MR. VEITCH: ...to the budget stabilization fund, yes.

Going back, Expo 86 was paid for via dedicated funds. The fund that was dedicated for that was the proceeds from Lotto 6-49; that's what was used. Never mind the problem in one year where we accelerated payments and experienced a deficit in our closing balance; that doesn't matter. It was picked up in the following year from the dedicated funds, so we didn't use any other funds for that.

Remember that prior to Lotto 6-49, the community groups didn't have anything available to them like they have now. In two short years, we have increased the amount of money available to community groups by 28 percent. That's a lot of money, hon. member. Advocacy does help. In my opinion, one has to try to put some limit — or flexible ceiling, if you will — so that we can get as much money out through this vast province to as many community groups as we possibly can. Rather than giving 40 groups $1 million dollars each, I would rather give hundreds and thousands of groups some money and spread the money around the province.

I've had member after member come to me and tell me they appreciate the smaller grants just as much or even more than they do the larger grants to a community where you may give them $400,000 or $500,000 on occasion. I get letters. Very seldom do I get a letter from the municipality of New Westminster or Burnaby or Vancouver thanking the administration of the Lottery Fund for doing something for them. They send a letter, and they talk about it in council. They get their grant. The project is built, and that's the end of it. Perhaps that's the way it should be.

I get what I call kitchen table letters. Generally, it's a page torn out of a kids' scribbler. They aren't always written

[ Page 4573 ]

nicely, and they are sometimes grammatically incorrect, but they're always written with sincerity and are always welcome. I get letters that say: "My daughter went on a band trip from wherever to wherever, and I want to thank you very much for allowing $220 towards the cost of that trip." The more of those people we can help, the more we can spread these funds throughout the community, the better job we'll be doing. That's where it's appreciated; that's where it's getting down to helping the real, wonderful people out there.

As I said yesterday, we sit around this chamber here and make all sorts of what we consider to be wonderful speeches and many times we are just ventilating back and forth between ourselves. But you know, the action is not here; the action is out there. It's where the little girl goes from Cranbrook down to New Westminster on a band trip. It's where somebody goes from someplace to somewhere else, and when you can help them out with $400,000 or $600,000 or maybe $150, those are really appreciated. I'd like to do as much of that we possibly can.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

You mentioned that you felt we should be looking after more and more people; that we should be expanding the limits. I'm not saying that no grants will exceed $40,000 or $50,000. There will be some that will. I would rather keep that on there and keep the expectation level at that amount so that we can help more and more diverse groups of people throughout the province, rather than raising the expectation level to a much higher amount, having to hire more staff in the lotteries branch to process these things and to go through them, knowing that we're not going to be able to afford to help them anyway because we wouldn't have the money. Somehow or other, I would rather err on the side of caution than do it the other way around.

I am always willing to sit down and talk about special needs and special occasions for special projects, and I am not saying that in no case.... There was a breakwater project on last year — I think it was Saanich and the Islands.

[11:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Sidney.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Sidney. They needed a million dollars to co-share with the federal government. We did that. We got a million from the feds and a million out of the lottery. I think it's a worthwhile use of lottery funds. We levered it to $2 million. Those are the kinds of things that we certainly will entertain from time to time.

MS. A. HAGEN: The thrust of my remarks has nothing to do with small amounts of funds going to groups. The thrust of my remarks is that this government dedicated $330 million to Expo — dealing with the financial affairs of Expo. I'm suggesting that this minister should undertake to dedicate more than $45 million to community groups. Then he would not have the problem of rising expectations; he would indeed have the funds to meet those expectations. It appears that the lottery branch is well administered, and the staff that would be necessary would be because there were additional funds to administer.

That's my challenge to this minister: in the same way that a megaproject receives dedicated funds, that community groups all across the province receive dedicated funds in larger and fairer measure than they are accorded at this time; and that the minister be prepared to live up to — and acknowledge in this House that he is prepared to live up to — the guideline that up to one-third of capital projects will be addressed. That can't be lived up to if there is a ceiling of $50,000. As I look at the material that the minister tabled in the House at the eleventh hour a day or so ago, there are very few grants of any kind that exceed that magic figure. Interestingly, a few of them suggest that the amounts are quite considerably larger. For example, for a community hall being constructed in Salmon Arm — $200,000, a final payment. So we know that in addition to that amount of money there were one or two other payments, perhaps in similar amounts. I don't know what they might have been without doing the research into previous grants.

So the minister is prepared to use that discretion. I think the minister should be prepared to be seen to be fair by the people of the province; to be seen, in fact, to have a guideline that people can rely on, one that relates to the volume of those capital projects and enables those community groups to do the things that he obviously believes they can and should do. None of that will affect the other grant aspects of the lottery fund if the minister is prepared to put more money into that. I think that's where those dollars should go, not into a budget stabilization fund. There will be $79 million, we think, in the budget stabilization fund at the end of the year. That's the one concrete amount that will be there. Plus the $13 million that's the surplus from the previous year, plus the interest that that is earning.

I'm suggesting to the minister that those dollars should be used, at least in part, to increase the amount available for community grants and to address the reasonable budgets, the reasonable aspirations and the tremendous amount of energy and hard work that those groups put into planning and developing those projects. If the minister doesn't think he will be thanked for that, he's got something else coming.

Those groups know that those funds come with the minister's blessing and he can, I'm sure, expect accolades galore from many groups if he would only be enlightened, struck with lightning, and improve both the administration of and funding of this very important resource for community groups. I doubt if they have never been bribed before, but they do acknowledge and welcome the initiatives of government.

MR. MOWAT: Tell us about the Commonwealth Games.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to deal with the Commonwealth Games this morning.

I've enjoyed the discussion on the lottery grants and the application of those dollars, and I want this morning to ask the minister a few questions about an institution in my community that I believe deserves better attention by this government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Better attention by the members.

MR. BLENCOE: It's getting lots of attention from us, but it's getting no attention by the government members. Yesterday I heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) talk about the funds he had acquired for his community, and I want to ask the minister some questions about St. Ann's Academy.

I'm sure the minister is aware of this fine historical institution just down the street, a key part of the legislative

[ Page 4574 ]

precinct, a historical treasure house, as it's been called by historians and people who have researched this fine institution — 100 years of educational background by the Sisters of St. Ann; a national historic site in this country; a very important building in the history of this great community in this province. Yet the province is refusing to put one penny into its renovation, and thus it is being privatized and sold off for — I think — questionable use to a private developer to turn it into basically a tourist institution, which is not in keeping with the history of that fine historical site.

The minister may not be aware of the importance of that building to this community, and I want to ask him whether the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Hon. B.R. Smith) has ever asked the Provincial Secretary for allocation of lottery funds to renovate that building, whether he has ever had any discussions with the member from Oak Bay for dollars for that fine institution. That is my first question.

HON. MR. VEITCH: First of all, I am very aware of St. Ann's Academy. I used to go over there and plead for money when I worked in post-secondary education; I used to spend a lot of time in that rickety old elevator. It's a heritage building, all right; there's no question about that. There's a lot of heritage. I used to say other things about it when I used to try to get some funding out of there.

It's owned by the Provincial Capital Commission. As such, I believe it would fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). So I can't comment on it very much beyond that.

I can tell you, though, that the hon. Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay (Hon. B.R. Smith), is a very great advocate not only for Oak Bay but for this whole Vancouver Island region. He is continually advocating for this region. He's continually advocating for things that are happening right in Victoria, where they already have two members representing them. He does a splendid job.

We do look after people in Victoria. Look at the money we're spending on this convention centre in Victoria; look at the money we're spending on the McPherson theatre. We spend a tremendous amount of money in this area from lottery funds. I haven't had any request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or, indeed, from the minister responsible for heritage to give extra money for St. Ann's. They may, if they're financing that, have to do those allocations within their own budgeting process. I haven't had any requests that I am aware of at the present time, at any rate. There may be something in the mail that I haven't seen yet.

MR. BLENCOE: I gather from that answer that the member for Oak Bay has never had discussions with you about this incredible historical site, asking for dollars to renovate that facility.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You said, Mr. Minister, that the member for Oak Bay has never spoken up on behalf of St. Ann's. I'd like to ask the minister if the two members from Saanich have ever asked this government or this minister for lottery funds to renovate this historical site.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I might very well ask if the first or second member for Victoria has ever asked for any money. I can tell you without equivocation or any mental reservation of any kind, the answer to that is no. You haven't asked me for any money for the St. Ann's Academy? No.

If you want to find out whether the Attorney-General or the Minister of Finance or the second member for Saanich and the Islands have asked me any questions, ask them if they've asked me any questions. This is not show and tell. But I can tell you, because the two members are present here in the House today, that neither the first nor the second member for Victoria has asked me for any money for St. Ann's Academy. The fault, dear brothers, lies not with the stars but with yourselves, that you're underlings. If you don't ask, if you don't advocate, you don't get anything. Maybe you had better start being part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, one is very reluctant to rise to any bait that might be distributed by this member for Victoria, who is intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, as Disraeli said of Gladstone.

MR. BLENCOE: More name-calling.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I know, I know. It's somewhat amusing to hear comments about St. Ann's Academy from someone who, I suppose, wants the exclusive ownership of concern about that institution.

Since I've been a member, I have been interested in that academy in many ways. I endeavoured and was successful in securing a resting home for the Conservatory of Music. The former member from Saanich, Mr. Hugh Curtis, had a very strong resolve and dream to protect that institution, which I shared with him.

I know that institution because for a period of time in the seventies I did a number of criminal cases in there while the courthouse was being redone. We had all our criminal cases there for about four years. So I know those rooms. I was in them with juries for many days and evenings.

That institution and its facade, and the general character of the grounds, are well worthy of preservation. I can assure you that the members for Saanich and I are very interested in that piece of property and know it, and you have no monopoly, hon. member, on archaeological interests, preservation, or interest in history in this community. I don't denigrate either your or the first member for Victoria's interest in this. I think it's good that you are interested. I know the first member has a long history of commitment to preserving these kinds of institutions. But to go around in this chamber and try and parade that you have exclusive care about the history of your city is pompous beyond belief; it really is.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad the Attorney-General finally got into this debate. I've been wondering when he was going to break the silence on his position on St. Ann's. He has clearly articulated today that he's not prepared to speak up for St. Ann's or to ask the Provincial Secretary or any other minister to consider provincial funds for St. Ann's — this national site, this great educational institution in our community, heritage personified. What this government and this Attorney-General and all the Social Credit members are prepared to do is allow it to go to the private sector for some tourist attraction that is totally outside the history and not in keeping with the great traditions of that site.

I ask the minister again: if there was a request by the Provincial Capital Commission for funds for renovating St. Ann's, would the minister consider that application?

[ Page 4575 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I hate to wax poetic, but if ifs and ands were pots and pans, the whole world would be tinkers. I haven't had any requests from either the first member (Mr. G. Hanson) or the second member for Victoria for any funding for St. Ann's Academy. If there was a request, I would consider that request, but I would have to consider it after discussions with either the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who's in charge of the Provincial Capital Commission, or my hon. colleague the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid). If such a request came forward.... I consider all requests. I don't know of one in the offing; you may.

I might tell you, though, that somebody advocated for a convention centre here in Victoria, and the amount of money that we're spending towards that is $7,275,000. I don't think Victoria has been a Social Credit riding for a number of years — and if you have anything to say about it, hon. members, maybe it won't be for a little longer time. I don't know. Maybe not.

[11:45]

We have tremendous respect for the Capital Commission for the capital area of British Columbia. We spend a lot of money from lotteries in this particular area right here. I have no requests from anyone to this point in time that I am aware of for funding for St. Ann's Academy. If and when such a request comes in, I will have to consider it after discussions with my two colleagues who have responsibility in that area.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me put it on the record that I met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs some time ago to request that the government, or the minister responsible, put forward application or try to get this government to allocate some dollars for the public renovation of that historic site. It would appear that the minister has not done that, and my only recourse is to bring this issue up in the Legislature where I can. We in Victoria and this community feel strongly about what this government is allowing to happen to St. Ann's.

They allowed it to fall apart, and now they're going to sell it off to the private sector — to a developer who has lobbied this government for over a year. This community has had no say at all in the future of that site, and we have to — where we can— speak up for that national historic site. It's quite obvious that the member from Oak Bay and the members for Saanich have not participated and have not been prepared to stand up for this site in this community.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order. It's one thing to have this member casting disparaging remarks towards members not in the chamber at this time. It's another thing to have him offend the rules of relevancy. He is discussing the estimates of some other member of the executive council, not this particular member. I would ask you to have him observe the rules of relevancy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank-you, Mr. Minister. If the member would take his seat for a moment.... Certainly the Chair finds no objection with the member's questioning insofar as it relates to grants out of the lottery fund. Although the Chair must note that in the last moment or two, the discussion has gotten away from that somewhat. However, if the member would like to proceed, bearing in mind that we are discussing the estimates of the Provincial Secretary....

MR. BLENCOE: I thank you for your words, and I will indeed try to keep within the bounds. I think this Legislature has to understand that this community is extremely frustrated by the government's lack of action on St. Ann's and the process we've gone through for that national historic site of immense proportions in the legislative precinct in terms of historical significance. We are very frustrated, Mr. Chairman, with this government's refusal to see fit — whether it be lottery funds or wherever else — to get some dollars for this site so we don't have to privatize it totally and so that we could retain this marvellous site in the public sector.

I've got to ask the minister a question. He referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs a few minutes ago. Could I ask the minister officially: has the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is in charge of the Provincial Capital Commission, requested funds from the lottery grants for St. Ann's? Has there been a request or discussion between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member wants to find out what the Minister of Municipal Affairs — or indeed any other member — asks me about as Provincial Secretary, he'd better ask those other members, because I'm not going to tell him. If you ask me a question, that question stays between you and me. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the House Leader asks me a question, that question is between the two of us. You'd better ask those hon. ministers or hon. members who they've asked about what. I know you're trying to make some political points here, but may I respectfully submit that they are rather cheap political points, and I'm not going to aid and abet you in that process.

MR. G. HANSON: The Provincial Secretary has provoked me into getting into this debate.

The Attorney-General talked about utilizing that facility for court cases and so on, which is true. For a number of years I worked in that building with the Archaeological Sites Advisory Board; the heritage resources of this province were coordinated out of St. Ann's Academy. It was badly in need of repair then, and it's in worse shape now. But it is a historic site of national as well as local stature, and it's worthy of designation, in the sense that it's worthy of having general revenue funds put forward to refurbish it. And my colleague the second member for Victoria has asked on numerous occasions for an open, consultative process. The Provincial Capital Commission would hold its meetings in public and discuss, in a public way, what the future options could be for that site to maximize it for the benefit of all British Columbians, certainly for the citizens of greater Victoria.

So for him to go on a sort of backhanded attack that we haven't asked for lottery grants to preserve that.... For a start, that should be preserved out of general revenue. It should receive that kind of priority. I wouldn't turn down lottery funds if they were asked for, but I haven't asked for lottery funds for open heart operations and I haven't asked for lottery funds for AZT either. This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman. That minister has a responsibility to preserve and protect the heritage resources of the province of British Columbia. If he wants to attack the opposition because they haven't argued that the one-armed bandits have to pay for it, that's not our fault; that's your fault.

If you want to do your job properly, you go to Treasury Board and you sharpen up your elbows and you get the necessary funds to refurbish that and you tell the Capital Commission to hold open public hearings and submit proposals for artistic or cultural or other civic functions that

[ Page 4576 ]

could take place there, while at the same time retaining the church facility on the back, and various other attributes that are there on the grounds and so on. To throw it over on us, you have the power of the purse. We have the power to discuss with you as we're doing now, but you have the authority to sign the orders-in-council and to sign the funds necessary. If you want to include in miscellaneous statutes an appropriation to the refurbishing of St. Ann's Academy, it'll get support from this side of the House. We can name a figure now, if it's appropriate. Let's say $2 million to start. If you're willing to deal with that, we'll gladly support that in this House.

To put it on our side is a bogus approach to this debate. The debate is simply that we have a resource there that all members of this House should take some pride in because of its age and because of its function as a category. If we had a heritage advisory board that we used to have in this province that was abolished, with people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry to interrupt you hon. member, but I do think we've fallen far outside the purview of the Provincial Secretary in our discussions of St. Ann's Academy. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the things the member is talking about fall under the responsibilities of another ministry. If the member would like to continue to speak with respect to the relationship between the lottery grant and St. Ann's, that's fine and dandy, but otherwise, I would just ask the member if he could be more relevant in this discussion.

MR. G. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your guidance there because the initial intention of lottery grants was that they be for recreational and cultural functions and not building, foot bridges and partisan operations, things the public is well acquainted with in the past. If the minister wants to refurbish that building with funds from the lottery grants, we wouldn't object, but at the same time, it should be out of general revenue. It should be a line function of his budget for the designation of a site of historic and archaeological and other heritage significance in the province. That is part of your mandate. That's part of your legitimate budget and that's where it should come from.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No. The chairman is quite correct. The responsibility for heritage rests with, I believe, the hon. Minister of Tourism and not with me. The reason I alluded to you and the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) not asking for grants for St. Ann's Academy.... I was a bit provoked too, I must confess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He was asking questions here. He asked: "Did this member ask you for some money?" "Did that member ask you for some money?" "Did the man in the moon ask you for some money?" I said: "Go ask the man in the moon." As a matter of fact, you didn't even ask me for any money, and you haven't done so yet. If you want to ask me, I'd be pleased to talk with you at any time. I was merely pointing out that not only didn't every member in this House line up and ask me for money for St. Ann's Academy, but you didn't either. I just suggest that the member was trying to make some political points and you shouldn't be political in this place. No, never. Political politics are about the worst kind, but I do thank the hon. member for his comments. He ought to have a talk to another minister with respect to St. Ann's Academy.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.